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

[Matthew Best]

Sadly, people are murdered all the time, why do you believe some go largely ignored (by the media) whilst others seem to turn into a media tsunami.

Most murders don't have million dollar PR campaigns keeping them in the press.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

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.

I don't understand why you think those two are mutually exclusive..

By the way, the hotness thing is pretty much a joke, tossed out people who don't care about the case and don't relate to the groupie behavior of those who do..

 

[Caper]

It is only the slightest hyperbole, and all but literally true, to call it a modern day witch hunt. Should come as no surprise it struck a nerve on a skeptics forum. It's a natural.

Not that there aren't a variety of other factors that account for the level of intensity that was reached. But, from the start, this particular case was in dire need of skeptical enquiry.
.
.
.

I agree. It's crazy when something is so painfully obvious and people can just not see it.... the Norfolk Five case is like that, this case was like that.

Thinking about it some more the whole "good girl" gone bad aspect of it had to play a role in it... It's weird to imagine such a nice sweet looking girl, trying to urge someone into a drug fueled orgy....had a bit of the Ivory girl staring in "Behind the Green Door" feel to it.

 

[Matthew Best]

By the way, the hotness thing is pretty much a joke,

Yes, we've established that. The real reason is obvously the PR campaign, about which we are awaiting details, which will no doubt be forthcoming shortly.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Storylines that live on

Sadly, people are murdered all the time, why do you believe some go largely ignored (by the media) whilst others seem to turn into a media tsunami.

In some cases prosecutors take the facts of the case and turn them into narratives which strike a chord. One might say that the narratives have truthiness but often have little or no truth. Charlie Wilkes ably offered a description of the narrative that drove this case upthread. I can't do as well as he did under the best of circumstances, but here are my offhand sketches: The narrative in the Duke lacrosse case revolved around college athletes as thugs. The narrative in the Central Park Jogger case was urban wilding. The narrative in the West Memphis Three case was satanic ritual murder. The stories that preschool workers (McMartin; Little Rascals, etc.) were terrorizing and abusing children probably tapped into deep fears that any parent would naturally feel. Yet this rash of cases in the late 1980s into the early 1990s had no basis in reality to the best of my knowledge. I don't have a good explanation for the Casey Anthony case, but several cases above could be said to have a "What is wrong with the youth of today" storyline, and one might say the same about her case (for once with a single datum of evidence).

IMO these storylines are so powerful that they affect our judgments of the characters of the accused long after the original cases were demolished into a pile of smoldering rubble. Such is the nature of reputational harm, I suppose.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Most murders don't have million dollar PR campaigns keeping them in the press.

Do you believe media and or crisis management for Amanda Knox played a role since the end of the first trial?

 

[CoulsdonUK]

IMO these storylines are so powerful that they affect our judgments of the characters of the accused long after the original cases were demolished into a pile of smoldering rubble. Such is the nature of reputational harm, I suppose.

Really?

So do you believe the media can convince people on mass of a given position of guilt or innocence? How would you explain OJ Simpson and Casey Anthony trials, in both cases the media had them all but convicted?

 

[Matthew Best]

Do you believe media and or crisis management for Amanda Knox played a role since the end of the first trial?

I'm only talking about the million dollar PR campaign that tsig has mentioned. I'm still waiting for him/her to substantiate this claim, but if it's true it would pretty much clear this whole question up, I think. Let's wait to see what tsig has in the way of evidence.

 

[Matthew Best]

Really?

So do you believe the media can convince people on mass of a given position of guilt or innocence? How would you explain OJ Simpson and Casey Anthony trials, in both cases the media had them all but convicted?

Don't most people believe they were guilty? That would surely bolster halides1's point?

 

[Antony]

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.

Nothing curious about it at all. It's not the negativity that prompts the response, it's the falsehoods.

Understanding why the lies and half-truths about Amanda in particular, should have such durability 5 years on - and among what is optimistically described as a "sceptics' forum" - is fairly central to the question raised in the OP.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Really?

So do you believe the media can convince people on mass of a given position of guilt or innocence? How would you explain OJ Simpson and Casey Anthony trials, in both cases the media had them all but convicted?

I deliberately excluded the OJ Simpson case from my list because he was already a celebrity by the time of the murder. Even after the jacket was found, there were still people absolutely convinced of Lindy Chamberlain's guilt as of 1987 or so. I doubt that anyone thinks that the Duke three were guilty of rape, but upon the NC attorney general's declaring them "innocent," the Boston Globe referred to them as "louts." Both Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty went on to other universities, and they both won leadership awards. I seem to recall one New York columnist who suggested that the Central Park Five watched/abetted? the real rapist (who was shown by DNA forensics to be the perpetrator), or some such conjecture. People searched for the tunnels where the children were alleged to have been moved to and from the preschool in the McMartin case, and they found none. Some people reacted to this by saying that the tunnels had been filled in.

I recently became aware of a video of an interview available on-line that discussed why incorrect information is not always displaced properly by correct information in the brain, but I don't have a link handy. This is more Kestrel's area...
ETA
Here is a link to a BBC radio program. Scroll to 13:20 to listen to the discussion of the persistence of falsehoods.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

+1

Nothing curious about it at all. It's not the negativity that prompts the response, it's the falsehoods.

Understanding why the lies and half-truths about Amanda in particular, should have such durability 5 years on - and among what is optimistically described as a "sceptics' forum" - is fairly central to the question raised in the OP.

Thank you. You said it more cogently and concisely than I could have done.

 

[bookworm]

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.

I've never seen a slur against the murder victim in this case. Where have you seen that?

 

[bookworm]

Yes, if you don't agree that AK is a little angel then you get accuse of all kinds of personal failings.

I don't think that's true at all...I don't think anyone thinks AK is a little angel. Some people just don't like when others trash someone's reputation based on lies about them. I bet you could say something like " wow, that Amanda sure was a party girl, she sure liked her pot!" and no one would have a problem with it. It's when untrue rumors go around that some feel compelled to respond. IIRC, that's exactly the reason AK's family felt compelled to speak to the media in the beginning...so the lies and rumors wouldn't have free reign.

 

[Kestrel]

Nothing curious about it at all. It's not the negativity that prompts the response, it's the falsehoods.

Understanding why the lies and half-truths about Amanda in particular, should have such durability 5 years on - and among what is optimistically described as a "sceptics' forum" - is fairly central to the question raised in the OP.

Some people see being a skeptic as supporting the status quo and the voice of authority. The authorities said Amanda Knox was guilty, therefore she must be.

 

[PhantomWolf]

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.

It's the same as any other CT type topic. If you start a thread declaring that Apollo was hoaxed, I can almost tell you which posters will appear. Start one about Bigfoot or Homopathy, you'll get a different set of posters. People tend to be drawn to threads about topics they are interested in. Not really a big mystery.

 

[PhantomWolf]

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.

To be honest there is a difference between the attacks on the "sovereign western country’s justice system and individuals working within it" and Knox.

Those within a Justice system are meant to do their jobs to a very high standard and avoid making mistakes that can cost people their lives. This was not done in this case. The work was sloppy, conjecture was formed based on nothing more then body language, evidence was ignored, and at worst possibly even fabricated. The case was handled in a highly unprofessional manner, from the start to the end, and not just towards the defendants. Things like leaving the crime scene vulnerable, and failing to return Meredith’s belongings to her family, disgraceful.

On the other side there were a pair of innocent kids who got caught up in the whole mess through no fault of their own. They were savaged by the system that was supposed to protect them, accused of a friend's murder, and then attacked and lied about in the international media.

So yes, there is a major difference between the slurs thrown at the authorities that failed to do their job properly and instead took shortcuts, and those wrongly accused of a heinous crime.

 

[Baylor]

You wrote, “You keep changing your mind like Amanda changes her story." Similarly to Damon Thibodeaux, Amanda changed her story under pressure and changed it back within thirty-six hours. “Keep changing” is a phrase which suggests more than two and suggests behavior that is on-going IMO.

"IMO" Exactly, your opinion. Rememeber, not everyone is as emotionally invested as you. "a phrase that suggests" . Remember, suggests to a VERY emotionally invested person. Look back at what's being communicated. I'm calling out PhantomWolf for changing his mind. Don't be so obsessed with doing the tired "haha i got you yeah lol" routine.

Your characterization is a misleading and feckless description that falls short of being strictly false.

You are WAY overthinking this. By accident or by design, you are failing to understand what was communicated so you can play the "yeah I schooled an anti-knox lolzz!!" card. If you have so much emotional stock invested in Knox, it's best to leave these types of threads.

You wrote, “She seemed to have engaged in a lot of uncommitted sex with different number of partners in a short period of time.” And in comment #54 you wrote, “It's very reasonable to conclude that a father would not like his daughter's sexual behavior to be made public, especially if she engaged in uncommited sex with different number of partners in a short amount of time.”

The comments above make your own position clear (and it is a position based upon false information).

No it isn't. You admit she slept with multiple partners. You just differ on what "short amount of time" is.

Your dialog between two students came out of your own head, as opposed to being an actual quote.

Well no ****. And it's likely similiar to what people say about her in real life. There's nothing you or I can do to change that. Again, if it upsets you, you should probably avoid Amanda Knox discussions.[/QUOTE]

Trying to hide behind quotes that don’t exist is many things, but a convincing argument isn’t one of them.

This is a strawman argument. Argument rendered sterile. Stop with your emotional gut reaction to the topic.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the narrative lived on

here are my offhand sketches [of some narratives]: The narrative in the Duke lacrosse case revolved around college athletes as thugs...

CoulsdonUK,

This narrative might be fleshed out a bit: "White, privileged thuggish athletes rape underprivileged black stripper." In another comment I wrote, "I doubt that anyone thinks that the Duke three were guilty of rape." That is not quite true. I spoke with an intelligent man one time who said of the scene of the alleged rape in the Duke lacrosse case, 'Something had to have happened in that bathroom," unknowingly parroting disgraced prosecutor Michael Nifong.

However, there is more to this story and others than that media latches onto a facile narrative. One might say that this magnifies a problem that is inherent in the CJ system. The defendants always face uphill battles because the first things that the public learns about a case, it learns from the police or prosecutor.

If someone would like to furnish the proper narrative for the Lindy Chamberlain case, it would be welcome.

 

[kmortis]

This thread was doing really well for quite a while. Don't spoil it. Keep it civil, keep it on topic, the topic is not the other posters.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: kmortis