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

[CoulsdonUK]

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.

It will never cease to surprise me how we all interpret posts; in my first paragraph I was speaking generally about how perpetrators are remembered for their infamy, I made no mention of Raffaele or Amanda. In terms of the media the world is smaller place these days, news travels fast, bad news even faster.

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 wrote of being emotionally detached. I write because I do believe Meredith is largely forgotten and mention her name or family as much as I can, as a reminder.

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.

Speaking for myself, you choose to write as though the judicial process is completed as we have already discussed the Supreme Court has not ruled on the prosecutions appeal, therefore it is difficult to acknowledge how you posed the question as it is premature.

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.

Well I assume Lyle Kercher along with the rest of the Kercher family will probably visit Meredith grave Christmas day as they have done since her burial. Why do you believe Raffaele and Amanda are being persecuted, they have their lives, freedom the support of family and friends?

My question for you is - why do YOU have to regard AK and RS with infamy?

Addressed above.

Why do you regard those who care about righting the wrong against them, as an act of forgetting Meredith?

I see it differently to you. I am uncomfortable with the concept of justice via cyberspace or public opinion.

 

[Matthew Best]

I see it differently to you. I am uncomfortable with the concept of justice via cyberspace or public opinion.

Maybe you should stop posting your opinions about criminal cases on the internet.

 

[Bill Williams]

CoulsdonUK - we are in a thread called, "Why so much attention to the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case," you raise the concern that those who are infamous get remembered when the victims do not....

I ask if you regard Knox and Sollecito as infamous, and you patently refuse to answer the question.....

.... which is your right.

You marvel that posts can be misinterpreted so, but I don't know how you can be any clearer. You actually do believe that Meredith Kercher is the forgotten one. I've heard you. Loud and clear. I've even agreed with the tenor of most of your posts. The Kerchers ARE victims, perhaps double victims, of all this.

And when I point that out, you retreat into saying something, not about Meredith, but about the case against Knox and Sollecito.

You make the contrary claim that they are free and not persecuted, yet you then say, "Speaking for myself, you choose to write as though the judicial process is completed as we have already discussed the Supreme Court has not ruled on the prosecutions appeal, therefore it is difficult to acknowledge how you posed the question as it is premature."

I can only regard that as you sincerely believing that they bear responsibility for the crime, even though they were released upon appeal.

On this very thread there is evidence of the continual internet bullying of, particularly, Amanda Knox, with sexually charged descriptions of her. That is the kind of persecution that the internet specializes in - called defamation.

You boggle me. You have no responsibility, really, to unboggle me. I'm just amazed by the "bob and weave, bob and weave," postings you've made here, while you claim to be emotionally detached!

You wish Meredith not to be forgotten. Agreed.

You have yet to express an opinion as to Knox's or Sollecito's culpability in that horrible event except to constantly remind us, "the judicial process is not over." You also once said, "if and when the SC ends the process I will respect their decision," again without ever once addressing what you CAN authoritatively address - which is your own opinion as to whether that decision of the SC would be just or unjust.

And.... to continue the bob and weave, you then say, incredibly, "I see it differently to you. I am uncomfortable with the concept of justice via cyberspace or public opinion." While at the very same time pursuing justice for Meredith in the sense of making sure her name is not forgotten.

Sheesh.

And you say you are dispassionate and being emotionally detached!!! My word, if this is emotionally detached, I'd love to read something you posted if you were REALLY emotionally engaged!

You are not required to change one iota on this thread to suit me either. I guess you're just going to have to live with one unknown poster to this thread being totally boggled.

But I do gather you believe that the two students deserve infamy. You could not have been clearer by that with what you refused to address, directly put to you. Fair enough.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

When is the right time to address an injustice? When things are not adding up.

There has been some discussion about when individuals here got involved. I would like to return to that; in addition, I would like to touch upon when they should get involved. I remember very clearly not having a "Eureka, they must be innocent" moment with respect to the Duke lacrosse three. What I do remember is reading a freshman essay, scratching my head, and thinking that this guy does not sound like the thug I thought he was. It was more of a "Something here does not add up" moment. Memory is a tricky thing. I don't think that I had a Eureka moment with respect to this case, either, but rather something much like what Kevin_Lowe described, each piece of evidence seemed weak when I looked at it closely, and I then saw an emerging pattern.

I think that the moment one scratches one's head, it is good time to begin to get active in a possible wrongful accusation/conviction, if one wishes to be active at all. At the very least, it is time to join the discussion at JREFF or elsewhere and test one's ideas against challenges brought on by open-minded individuals. In the United States it is very late to get involved after a conviction. That is because the presumptions all go against the convicted individual (this is a great weakness in the American system IMO). In addition, there are times when even an indictment is wrongful and consequential. Moreover, in a free and open society, there should be enough evidence available from the press to form opinions without reference to a jury's decision, at least in a case that is well covered. Finally, juries sometimes don't understand the instructions they were given, meaning that their decisions don't always need to be treated with intellectual deference. For all of these reasons, I don't have a problem with people who get involved whenever they see fit, even if that is before a trial has begun. If that is judgment by cyberspace, I say, "Bring it on."

 

[anglolawyer]

There has been some discussion about when individuals here got involved. I would like to return to that; in addition, I would like to touch upon when they should get involved. I remember very clearly not having a "Eureka, they must be innocent" moment with respect to the Duke lacrosse three. What I do remember is reading a freshman essay, scratching my head, and thinking that this guy does not sound like the thug I thought he was. It was more of a "Something here does not add up" moment. Memory is a tricky thing. I don't think that I had a Eureka moment with respect to this case, either, but rather something much like what Kevin_Lowe described, each piece of evidence seemed weak when I looked at it closely, and I then saw an emerging pattern.

I think that the moment one scratches one's head, it is good time to begin to get active in a possible wrongful accusation/conviction, if one wishes to be active at all. At the very least, it is time to join the discussion at JREFF or elsewhere and test one's ideas against challenges brought on by open-minded individuals. In the United States it is very late to get involved after a conviction. That is because the presumptions all go against the convicted individual (this is a great weakness in the American system IMO). In addition, there are times when even an indictment is wrongful and consequential. Moreover, in a free and open society, there should be enough evidence available from the press to form opinions without reference to a jury's decision, at least in a case that is well covered. Finally, juries sometimes don't understand the instructions they were given, meaning that their decisions don't always need to be treated with intellectual deference. For all of these reasons, I don't have a problem with people who get involved whenever they see fit, even if that is before a trial has begun. If that is judgment by cyberspace, I say, "Bring it on."

Agreed, so long as one keeps in mind the limitations - we don't get to see and hear the witnesses ourselves and we are also disadvantaged by a lack of complete access to all the evidence. On the other hand, we might have a larger and better-informed knowledge pool than a jury and there may be other advantages deriving from the culture of the forum, the ability to consider evidence at leisure etc. It's not a substitute for a jury trial but it's not nothing either. Indeed, the principle that justice must be seen to be done suggests more than a merely passive role for the public, who should be able to watch and reflect critically and raise the alarm when they see something amiss.

 

[anglolawyer]

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

You asserted:

I completely and utterly reject the idea that what has befallen Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito is somehow worse than being brutally murdered.

in response to ... what? No one has suggested this idea that you utterly reject.

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.

That misses the point, with respect. I don't need a search engine to name the killers, just the victims. I am arguing that it is not unusual, however you may feel about it, for the miscreant's name to be better remembered than the victim. And I am arguing this in opposition to your apparent view that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are somehow revelling in their notoriety while Meredith is forgotten. I don't believe they want the kind of fame they have nor that they are responsible for it. If you 'duck and weave' this time, I am afraid I won't believe you.

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.

Which is trite, meaning - you aren't saying anything.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

There has been some discussion about when individuals here got involved. I would like to return to that; in addition, I would like to touch upon when they should get involved. I remember very clearly not having a "Eureka, they must be innocent" moment with respect to the Duke lacrosse three. What I do remember is reading a freshman essay, scratching my head, and thinking that this guy does not sound like the thug I thought he was. It was more of a "Something here does not add up" moment. Memory is a tricky thing. I don't think that I had a Eureka moment with respect to this case, either, but rather something much like what Kevin_Lowe described, each piece of evidence seemed weak when I looked at it closely, and I then saw an emerging pattern.

I think that the moment one scratches one's head, it is good time to begin to get active in a possible wrongful accusation/conviction, if one wishes to be active at all. At the very least, it is time to join the discussion at JREFF or elsewhere and test one's ideas against challenges brought on by open-minded individuals. In the United States it is very late to get involved after a conviction. That is because the presumptions all go against the convicted individual (this is a great weakness in the American system IMO). In addition, there are times when even an indictment is wrongful and consequential. Moreover, in a free and open society, there should be enough evidence available from the press to form opinions without reference to a jury's decision, at least in a case that is well covered. Finally, juries sometimes don't understand the instructions they were given, meaning that their decisions don't always need to be treated with intellectual deference. For all of these reasons, I don't have a problem with people who get involved whenever they see fit, even if that is before a trial has begun. If that is judgment by cyberspace, I say, "Bring it on."

Withdrawn

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Well I am not a fan of justice by cyberspace. However, there is no place like home to start a campaign maybe you could consider reviewing the 3,000 plus people sitting on death row in the United States, I wonder how many of them are wrongful convictions, you know people who couldn’t necessarily afford a decent defence team etc.

You could be talking about this guy:

http://www.freejeffreyhavard.org/

He dropped a baby by accident, causing a fatal head injury. ER personnel noted sphincter dilation, which is common in deaths resulting from brain injury, and misread it as evidence of sexual assault/murder.

The guy couldn't afford a decent lawyer. He was convicted and sentenced to death after a trial lasting one day. He has been in prison since 2002.

Two forensic pathologists, including Michael Baden, have expressed the opinion that this was an accidental death, not a murder.

Bruce Fischer, who got involved in Amanda's case, is leading the charge to draw attention to this case and light a fire under the court system, in the hope that someone will take a rational look at the facts and overturn the conviction.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Someone on JREF linked to this two-part article about Michael Morton, a Texas man who was wrongfully convicted of murdering his wife, Christine, and spent about 25 years in prison:

http://www.texasmonthly.com/2012-11-01/feature2.php

This is an excellent read for anyone who wonders why so much attention to the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case? The criminal justice system sorely needs the skeptical inquiry that takes place here.

This lengthy article is worth reading all the way to the end of part 2, where the author examines the feelings and reactions of Christine's family, who were told by the authorities, for many years, that Michael Morton was certainly guilty of murdering her. Now they must come to grips with the fact that the authorities were wrong, and it's very hard for them to accept.

 

[Matthew Best]

Does anyone really think the West Memphis 3 would be walking free today if it weren't for a long drawn-out campaign to free them, largely conducted on the internet?

 

[anglolawyer]

Does anyone really think the West Memphis 3 would be walking free today if it weren't for a long drawn-out campaign to free them, largely conducted on the internet?

It is very often the case that a coalition of support forms after a wrongful conviction. The internet is a great boon to these causes. I think Coulsdon's point (if I understand correctly) that these things are best left to the courts is entirely wrong. We The People own and pay for these courts, they and the law belong to us and had better do our bidding or face some music. No one is perfect: not judges, not lawyers, not scientists and not police officers.

 

[Bill Williams]

Does anyone really think the West Memphis 3 would be walking free today if it weren't for a long drawn-out campaign to free them, largely conducted on the internet?

CoulsdonUK's point about sticking closer to home, is perhaps a good one. Even if it is yet another veiled reference that he believes Sollecito and Knox to be guilty. I also wonder how his comment fulfils his overtly stated goal of posting simply to keep Meredith Kercher's name front and centre.

But sticking to his point, this is in fact what has happened to me. I would never have heard of the Nyki Kish conviction in Toronto if the wrongful conviction and eventual acquittal of Knox and Sollecito had not attracted my attention.

I am also now active in the issue of Cyndy Vanier in a Mexican jail. The attention paid to the Knox/Sollecito case led me to that as well. I also now simply do not have the time to even try to follow the others on Bruce Fisher's site, except that one in Nevada is esp. crazy. At least Knox and Sollecito were actually within the same city limits before they were falsely accused. Not so the case from Nevada.

 

[Matthew Best]

Someone on JREF linked to this two-part article about Michael Morton, a Texas man who was wrongfully convicted of murdering his wife, Christine, and spent about 25 years in prison:

http://www.texasmonthly.com/2012-11-01/feature2.php

This is an excellent read for anyone who wonders why so much attention to the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case? The criminal justice system sorely needs the skeptical inquiry that takes place here.

This lengthy article is worth reading all the way to the end of part 2, where the author examines the feelings and reactions of Christine's family, who were told by the authorities, for many years, that Michael Morton was certainly guilty of murdering her. Now they must come to grips with the fact that the authorities were wrong, and it's very hard for them to accept.

Thanks for that link, Charlie. That was absolutely devastating to read.

 

[Matthew Best]

If the second level trial is confirmed I’ll accept the verdict and simply move on, no howling at the moon or ranting posts but a simple acceptance.

Why are you posting on a sceptics site when your attitude is so antithetical to scepticism?

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Why are you posting on a sceptics site when your attitude is so antithetical to scepticism?

Because I chose to.

 

[anglolawyer]

Does anyone really think the West Memphis 3 would be walking free today if it weren't for a long drawn-out campaign to free them, largely conducted on the internet?

Why are you posting on a sceptics site when your attitude is so antithetical to scepticism?

I was going to quote the same extract saying: 'I might hold you to that' but your reply is the better one.

 

[Matthew Best]

Thanks for that link, Charlie. That was absolutely devastating to read.

In fact, the last half dozen or so of Pamela Colloff's pieces for Texas Monthly are worth looking at:

http://www.texasmonthly.com/authors/pamelacolloff.php

Since October 2010 she seems to have been writing almost exclusively about terrible miscarriages of justice in Texas.

 

[LondonJohn]

You could be talking about this guy:

http://www.freejeffreyhavard.org/

He dropped a baby by accident, causing a fatal head injury. ER personnel noted sphincter dilation, which is common in deaths resulting from brain injury, and misread it as evidence of sexual assault/murder.

The guy couldn't afford a decent lawyer. He was convicted and sentenced to death after a trial lasting one day. He has been in prison since 2002.

Two forensic pathologists, including Michael Baden, have expressed the opinion that this was an accidental death, not a murder.

Bruce Fischer, who got involved in Amanda's case, is leading the charge to draw attention to this case and light a fire under the court system, in the hope that someone will take a rational look at the facts and overturn the conviction.

I think it also needs to be said that it's an intellectually bankrupt argument to say something along the lines of "Why aren't you guys also looking at all those wrongful convictions in the USA? What's so special about the Knox/Sollecito case?"

This is tantamount to me giving £5 to a homeless guy to get something hot to eat on a cold night, and someone coming up to me and saying "What's so special about that particular guy? If you go down to the railway arches, there are dozens of homeless people! Why aren't you giving each and every one of them £5 too? And while we're at it, why aren't you also giving money to every person starving in Africa and South Asia?"

 

[Katody Matrass]

Someone on JREF linked to this two-part article about Michael Morton, a Texas man who was wrongfully convicted of murdering his wife, Christine, and spent about 25 years in prison:

http://www.texasmonthly.com/2012-11-01/feature2.php

This is an excellent read for anyone who wonders why so much attention to the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case? The criminal justice system sorely needs the skeptical inquiry that takes place here.

This lengthy article is worth reading all the way to the end of part 2, where the author examines the feelings and reactions of Christine's family, who were told by the authorities, for many years, that Michael Morton was certainly guilty of murdering her. Now they must come to grips with the fact that the authorities were wrong, and it's very hard for them to accept.

Incredibly moving piece, well worth reading to the end. It's scary and hard to understand how and for what motives seemingly upstanding officials, policemen, experts, witnesses collaborate to hide exculpatory evidence and give false evidence to the goal of putting an innocent man in jail and keep him there.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

In fact, the last half dozen or so of Pamela Colloff's pieces for Texas Monthly are worth looking at:

http://www.texasmonthly.com/authors/pamelacolloff.php

Since October 2010 she seems to have been writing almost exclusively about terrible miscarriages of justice in Texas.

She is featured in this award-winning episode of 48 Hours, about the Anthony Graves case:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7402567n