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

[Skeptical Greg]

Kevin_Lowe,
Yes, that would make more sense, but that is not what I read in the post I quoted.


halides1,
That sounds good.. It doesn't sound like you decided she was innocent before you got involved..

 

[Chris_Halkides]

JREFF and me

Kevin_Lowe,

Yes, that would make more sense, but that is not what I read in the post I quoted.

IIRC Charlie Wilkes, Steve Moore, and RoseMontague all started out leaning toward guilt. Steve Moore became active only after his wife alerted him to the case, he agreed to look at the evidence believing it pointed to guilt, and then coming to the realization that he did not think it did. In my case, Skeptical Ginger and I had each been roundly criticized in the first thread, and I almost gave up commenting on it at all. Then I communicated with one of Ms. Knox's and Mr. Sollecito's supporters and decided to blog on the case. I found that experts in the field of forensics were often quite willing to converse, and I concluded that their words added quite a bit to the public conversation.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

One aspect of the case caught my attention early on

Kevin_Lowe,
Yes, that would make more sense, but that is not what I read in the post I quoted.


halides1,
That sounds good.. It doesn't sound like you decided she was innocent before you got involved..

Not if one means that I was immediately convinced to 99% certainty that they were factually innocent before becoming involved. However, that is a pretty high threshold, and most cases have enough evidence in them that it takes some time to examine it all. That was one problem with this case; just examining the DNA evidence took so long, that I couldn't get up to speed easily with respect to the rest of the evidence. Now that I think about it, the use of the DNA evidence pulled me into the case, on the grounds that I was completely convinced early on that it had been misused.

More generally, I think that it might be reasonable to get involved when one is perhaps as little as 50% certain of factual innocence, depending on the circumstances of the case. For example, I am probably around 80% convinced that Hank Skinner is innocent, but that is way past my threshold for involvement in his case for a variety of reasons. And new evidence is still coming in.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

IIRC Charlie Wilkes, Steve Moore, and RoseMontague all started out leaning toward guilt. Steve Moore became active only after his wife alerted him to the case, he agreed to look at the evidence believing it pointed to guilt, and then coming to the realization that he did not think it did. In my case, Skeptical Ginger and I had each been roundly criticized in the first thread, and I almost gave up commenting on it at all. Then I communicated with one of Ms. Knox's and Mr. Sollecito's supporters and decided to blog on the case. I found that experts in the field of forensics were often quite willing to converse, and I concluded that their words added quite a bit to the public conversation.

I wouldn't say I was ever leaning toward thinking they were guilty. I didn't form a definite opinion one way or the other at first. I never believed the nonsense about a "sex game," but I thought the suspects might have killed Meredith in some kind of frenzy, or because they had a grudge against her. There are cases like that, and some involve young women, like Kelly Ellard or Justina Morley.

It wasn't long before I could see that this was not one of those cases, for all kinds of reasons. I was still prepared to assume the police knew what they were doing, but when they cut Lumumba loose and replaced him with Guede, without changing their essential theory, I became very suspicious. I had seen that one before... they accuse someone who is innocent, then they get the guy who really did it, and they make him an accomplice of whoever they have already accused. That is what they did in the Nicarico case, when Brian Dugan gave a credible confession.

Within about two months I was pretty sure Amanda and Raffaele were being railroaded. But it wasn't for a another three months that I really got interested and began to participate in the online discussion, which led me to meet Amanda's family and really become active as a supporter.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

This case only came to my attention when I was bored one day and waded through the original Cartwheel thread to see what the heck was going on in there. So there's another reason why the case got so much attention: past a certain point the sheer fact that it's getting attention gets it even more attention.

I wouldn't say I was convinced at the outset that the accused were innocent because it was and is a huge and complicated case. I did think that the pro-guilt side was making a lot of poor arguments and seemed convinced of guilt far beyond what their arguments warranted, whereas the pro-innocence side seemed generally (not universally) more grounded and their arguments made more sense.

I became more and more convinced the case was a railroad job as I went along, since each individual piece of the case I looked at fell apart under critical examination and it started to look like a trend. I wouldn't say I was firmly convinced they were innocent until we put together the timeline of the night and corrected the erroneous time of death Massei landed on, at which point it became clear to me that not only were they not guilty beyond reasonable doubt, but they were actually innocent beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[anglolawyer]

Interesting stories about the early days. Charlie said 'The official story didn't make sense' and this is probably all you need to get started with these things. Nyki Kish, a diminutive woman with no history of violence, is supposed to have inflicted 5 closely-spaced knife wounds (one lethal) on a much more powerful male on a busy street under the gaze of numerous witnesses without being seen and without any forensic transfer in either direction. How odd that the police lost two CCTV films of the incident.

I followed this one not at all closely until the appeals were decided favourably and just assumed they were guilty (DNA, bleach). The prosecution story here is really far out and it's not surprising we have large amounts of missing stuff here, from negative controls to CCTV film. Assuming the appeals go well maybe the focus will shift to the real crooks and we can all become frothing-at-the-mouth guilters.

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>What got my interest was the amount of raw material available online and what sustains it now, TBH, is the battle (now turning into a rout) with the pro-guilt crowd.<snip>

<snip>Oh yes. Having "battled" issues such as 9/11 truth, global warming and so on, I can easily see how the existence of opposing factions would keep the topic active.

Very true. As UNLoVedRebel said in post #85, "It's well understood the mere mention of Amanda Knox brings up heated arguments."

It's like the Flat Earth Society versus the International Astronomical Union.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Very true. As UNLoVedRebel said in post #85, "It's well understood the mere mention of Amanda Knox brings up heated arguments."

It's like the Flat Earth Society versus the International Astronomical Union.

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? 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.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the spotlight of public scrutiny

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? 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 agree entirely with your last sentence. Yet no one I know has suggested that; indeed, Curt Knox (and Edda Mellas, IIRC) made statements explicitly saying otherwise. Based upon my interactions with other supporters publicly and privately, I can say without hesitation or qualification, that Meredith has not been forgotten. It's a dollars-to-donuts bet that neither Amanda nor Raffaele wanted to be in the public eye (the same is true of other victims of wrongful prosecutions or convictions, as the Central Park Five case is presently illustrating). Amanda and Raffaele are not responsible for the actions of others. Speaking for no one but myself, I reflect upon Meredith's death as a reminder that violence against women is far too common. One hopes for the day when crimes such as this one are essentially nonexistent.

 

[Bill Williams]

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? 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.

Because these are two separate issues.

Neither Amanda Knox nor Raffaele Sollecito deserve infamy. You are implying that just because it is true that what befell Meredith is worse, then no one has a right to focus attention at all on the unjust convictions. You perhaps will disclaim that you're implying that, but you are, in fact, doing just that.

You claim to be dispassionate about this - there is NOTHING wrong with being passionate - perhaps it is time for you to acknowledge that you are more passionate about this than you claim!

I can only speak for myself. I have never claimed at all that what befell AK and RS is worse than what befell Meredith.

I also wish you'd acknowledge that many here regard the Kerchers themselves as double victims, first of a horrible murder of a family member.

But second - they've been lied to about who murdered their loved one. Why is that sentiment hard to acknowledge? It is far, far easier for us on this side of the fence to start focussing on the Kercher's plight - which continues and perhaps will never end - now that the two students are free.

But there are many who think that the only proper way to memorialize Mez is to continue to persecute innocents. Even Lyle Kercher thinks that is inappropriate.

My question for you is - why do YOU have to regard AK and RS with infamy? Why do you regard those who care about righting the wrong against them, as an act of forgetting Meredith?

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

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 purpose of any murder trial is not to commemorate the life of the victim, but to determine the guilt or innocence of the defendants, to answer the question "did they do it?" That becomes the focus of attention for the media and for the public.

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 don't believe anyone has put forth the idea you are rejecting. Amanda Knox is not a victim at this point, not by any stretch of the imagination. What has befallen her is an extraordinary life experience that has made her a much stronger, wiser and more mature person than she was five years ago. She got through that experience, she prevailed in the end, she is surrounded by friends and family who love her dearly, and she is free to live her life to the fullest.

Meredith is not. Meredith was forever deprived of the opportunity to enjoy her life. We all understand that. We fully understand that the savage and senseless murder of Meredith, and the loss the Kercher family has sustained because of it, is the one and only tragedy in this story.

 

[anglolawyer]

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? 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.

Who are you conducting this argument with? Ever heard of Crippen, Christie, Jack the Ripper? Can you name any of their victims? Discussing the injustice that befell Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito does not mean forgetting Meredith Kercher, nor does it mean asserting that being unjustly convicted is worse than being murdered. It is an irony, often mentioned, that Meredith has been far better remembered because of the ensuing injustice than might have been the case otherwise.

 

[Bill Williams]

Anthony, I didn't ever mention anyone being paid. I was referring to organized effort to get a point of view out to the media/public.

Bill Williams, Apology accepted. I shouldn't have posted based on memory of what I'd read a year ago, without checking to make sure I was factually correct. (But, a year ago, I did read the whole Massei report, in English). Yes, I read the Hellman report (in translation - my Italian is far too rusty to trust for such deep reading).

I didn't ever say $1 million campaign. I never mentioned money.

I do know the judge turned himself in.

It just occurred to me.....

The meme of the "$1 Million PR campaign", is an interesting claim. The claim functions to suggest that the release of AK and RS was fraudulent, orchestrated and conspiratorial - that there are hidden forces out there, unknown to the average person, that pulled the wool over everyone's eyes, particularly the Italian court system.

I've had it put to me: "Of course there is was a PR campaign; the proof is that the two of them are out. The proof of the PR campaign is that it worked!"

I'm not sure what to say if someone out there thinks that Charles Wilkes or LondonJohn or Kaosium, or RoseMontague or AngloLawyer or any of the other exceptionally literate posters are, themselves, part of this concerted "campaign." I'm sure that all of them have never seen any of this $1 Million forwarded to them!

Like much that is level from the "guilt" side of the fence - and this is what makes me give this case so much attention - I've been amazed at the number of things thrown at the side of innocence.....

...... that are inherently non-provable.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

It's a dollars-to-donuts bet that neither Amanda nor Raffaele wanted to be in the public eye (the same is true of other victims of wrongful prosecutions or convictions, as the Central Park Five case is presently illustrating).

You appear to be attempting to link a case in America with the Italian judicial process, do you know of any comparable Italian cases? As we all know there is a 3 trial process in Italy with the second trial being an automatic appeal which in this case resulted in Raffaele and Amanda’s release, we all wait for the Italian Supreme Court’s ruling on the prosecutions appeal, this is not spin on my part but a factual description of the process.

Speaking for no one but myself, I reflect upon Meredith's death as a reminder that violence against women is far too common.

Senseless violence does not consider gender, age or race.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

The Central Park Five case is not over yet

You appear to be attempting to link a case in America with the Italian judicial process, do you know of any comparable Italian cases? As we all know there is a 3 trial process in Italy with the second trial being an automatic appeal which in this case resulted in Raffaele and Amanda’s release, we all wait for the Italian Supreme Court’s ruling on the prosecutions appeal, this is not spin on my part but a factual description of the process.



Senseless violence does not consider gender, age or race.

One of the five, Ramond Santana recently reflected on the fact that for a long time, he did not want to be associated with the case, in the sense that the case was defining who he was (I am having trouble linking to the story, however). My point was that it is difficult to be the defendant in a high-profile case. I also chose the CP5 case because I believe that they are factually innocent, just as I believe Amanda and Raffaele to be factually innocent. In your response above, you seem to be focused on the legal question of whether one is pronounced guilty or not guilty. As it happens, the Central Park Five were found guilty and served their sentences, but a judge later vacated their convictions. In a civil lawsuit the plaintiffs are asking to receive compensation. IANAL but to the best of my knowledge, they were never declared legally "innocent." As for other Italian cases, I know of some but I am not sure what comparison you are trying to draw.

Even in a medium-sized town, one sometimes sees stories of a burglary that escalated into rape and/or murder of a woman. That was one of the reasons to be suspicious of the prosecution's sex-game-gone-wrong storyline. Yet when I reflected upon this fact some time ago, I wondered whether I had grown numb to the frequency of this sort of crime. That was my point in my previous comment, but I could have said it more clearly.

 

[anglolawyer]

One of the five, Ramond Santana recently reflected on the fact that for a long time, he did not want to be associated with the case, in the sense that the case was defining who he was (I am having trouble linking to the story, however). My point was that it is difficult to be the defendant in a high-profile case. I also chose the CP5 case because I believe that they are factually innocent, just as I believe Amanda and Raffaele to be factually innocent. In your response above, you seem to be focused on the legal question of whether one is pronounced guilty or not guilty. As it happens, the Central Park Five were found guilty and served their sentences, but a judge later vacated their convictions. In a civil lawsuit the plaintiffs are asking to receive compensation. IANAL but to the best of my knowledge, they were never declared legally "innocent." As for other Italian cases, I know of some but I am not sure what comparison you are trying to draw.

Even in a medium-sized town, one sometimes sees stories of a burglary that escalated into rape and/or murder of a woman. That was one of the reasons to be suspicious of the prosecution's sex-game-gone-wrong storyline. Yet when I reflected upon this fact some time ago, I wondered whether I had grown numb to the frequency of this sort of crime. That was my point in my previous comment, but I could have said it more clearly.

I don't think people get declared innocent in our systems because there is a legal presumption that they already are. So quashing a conviction restores them to that prior state.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

innocent

I don't think people get declared innocent in our systems because there is a legal presumption that they already are. So quashing a conviction restores them to that prior state.

It happens, but it is rare, and I don't know all of the legal ramifications of doing so. North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper declared the Duke three innocent. Possibly in doing so, he closed the door on a possible future prosecution. I am convinced that he did the state of North Carolina and the defendants a favor by saying in effect, "We're through here, folks". To the best of my knowledge, no one presently stands convicted in the Central Park Jogger case. Yet given that the five served sentences, I question whether they could be retried, or whether they would have to serve time if they were found guilty and given longer sentences. The fact that NYC is refusing to settle the civil suit suggest that either it believes that they were accomplices, or it finds it convenient to profess such a belief. MOO.
EDT
A new film about the CP5 prompted film critic John Seal to write, "in fact, the bold as brass City of New York has since sued filmmakers Ken and Sarah Burns and David McMahon as part of its defense strategy against the Central Park Five’s suit."

 

[Bill Williams]

Wrongful convictions

One of the reasons why this case has had so much attention paid to it, is that it represents a hallmark of wrongful conviction.

In 2007 in Vancouver there was a conference on such things in Canada. From it came this paper.....

Wrongful Convictions in Canada
Robin Bajer, Monique Trépanier, Elizabeth
Campbell, Doug LePard, Nicola Mahaffy,
Julie Robinson, Dwight Stewart
International Conference of the
International Society for the Reform of
Criminal Law
June 2007

http://www.millerthomson.com/assets/files/article_attachments/Wrongful_Convictions_in_Canada.pdf

Highlighted reasons for wrongful convictions... which to me sound familiar to this case; but on Canada these points represent commonalities in all of Canada's high profile wrongful convictions:

- Miscarriages of justice are inevitably the result of a multitude of inappropriate actions by a number of people (ie. it is rarely, if ever, simply one rogue agent of prosecution)

- these but relate to the conduct of police, Crown prosecutors, defence lawyers, judges and forensic scientists

- tunnel vision, mistaken eyewitness identification and testimony, false confessions, in-custody informers, DNA evidence, forensic evidence and expert testimony are all factors

- public pressures to convict, intense media assaults, and the culture of a game approach to the adversarial system

- solutions are not novel, but are simply a plea to all involved to conscientiously and diligently follow existing principles and guidelines​

Reading through these, written BEFORE the horrible murder in this case, sounds like a "by the numbers" wrongful conviction of the two students.

For this alone, the case rates attention.

 

[anglolawyer]

It happens, but it is rare, and I don't know all of the legal ramifications of doing so. North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper declared the Duke three innocent. Possibly in doing so, he closed the door on a possible future prosecution. I am convinced that he did the state of North Carolina and the defendants a favor by saying in effect, "We're through here, folks". To the best of my knowledge, no one presently stands convicted in the Central Park Jogger case. Yet given that the five served sentences, I question whether they could be retried, or whether they would have to serve time if they were found guilty and given longer sentences. The fact that NYC is refusing to settle the civil suit suggest that either it believes that they were accomplices, or it finds it convenient to profess such a belief. MOO.
EDT
A new film about the CP5 prompted film critic John Seal to write, "in fact, the bold as brass City of New York has since sued filmmakers Ken and Sarah Burns and David McMahon as part of its defense strategy against the Central Park Five’s suit."

We may be at cross-purposes as I mean a legally binding declaration, which is a form of relief a judge can grant in various situations, not the kind of public acknowledgement a DA might make. But OK, maybe there are some US jurisdictions where such a thing is possible - and why not?

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Who are you conducting this argument with? Ever heard of Crippen, Christie, Jack the Ripper? Can you name any of their victims? Discussing the injustice that befell Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito does not mean forgetting Meredith Kercher, nor does it mean asserting that being unjustly convicted is worse than being murdered. It is an irony, often mentioned, that Meredith has been far better remembered because of the ensuing injustice than might have been the case otherwise.

May I ask why you believe I am arguing as oppose to posting a point of view?

Yes I have heard of all of those people, a rhetorical question are you aware of internet search engines? any 11 year could name their victims.

I guess we would first have to agree that there has been an injustice, my point of view is there is a 3 trial process etc etc.