Amanda Knox's Book Release and TV Interview

[mlp]

She has an interest about how the family feels TOWARDS HER, she clearly doesn't give a crap about their feeling.

If she could even remotely emphasize with the family she would understand why in the hell (guilty or not) that the family wants absolutely nothing to do with her ever. If she were a normal human being she'd set aside her own need for redemption and leave the family in peace and let them be the ones to reach out to her if that is their desire.

This. Much better expressed than I was able to do.

 

[Blobbenstein]

I always wonder about the expense to people in these situations, for the victims, and the accused, and their families etc...there must be expenses involved, like time off work, travel expenses, legal expenses.....I often feel that people in those situations are forced to make money from what is going on, or else they could end up in quite a lot of debt. So book deals it might have to be, and selling stories to the media...It obviously does nothing for the image of Amanda, as an innocent party, to be seen to be making a lot of money from the situation(even a sociopath could see that) so maybe they are forced into doing it....also it would be better to have Murdoch on your side, than against you.

 

[yally]

She has an interest about how the family feels TOWARDS HER, she clearly doesn't give a crap about their feeling.

If she could even remotely emphasize with the family she would understand why in the hell (guilty or not) that the family wants absolutely nothing to do with her ever. If she were a normal human being she'd set aside her own need for redemption and leave the family in peace and let them be the ones to reach out to her if that is their desire.

Who can say what a normal human being would do if they'd been through what she's been through? (Assuming she's innocent)

Has anyone here spent time going through the Italian justice system, time in Italian jail? Been so consistently **** on by the media/the world?

I'd say she easily has scars equal to Meredith's family.

 

[ledboots]

The Italian man also accused, Sollecito, published his memoir of the events before Knox did. Is it okay for him? Because he wasn't reviled in the world press, or because he didn't get offered a multimillion dollar deal? Where is the hatred for him?
http://m.guardiannews.com/world/2012/sep/18/raffaele-sollecito-amanda-knox-memoir

 

[Forster]

Who can say what a normal human being would do if they'd been through what she's been through? (Assuming she's innocent)

Has anyone here spent time going through the Italian justice system, time in Italian jail? Been so consistently **** on by the media/the world?

I'd say she easily has scars equal to Meredith's family.

I'm not saying she doesn't have scars but to equate them as being equal to having a child murdered, I have real difficulty accepting that.

 

[cornsail]

I also find it troubling that she is willing to make multi-million dollar profit from someone else's tragedy. If she's not giving Kercher's family every last penny, or donating it all to a foundation for the support of the loved ones of murder victims, I agree with the others that she is at the very least a sociopath. Whatever she went through during a trial in which she was ultimately found innocent, it's nothing compared to what Kercher suffered in her last moments, and what her family is going to suffer for the rest of their lives.

Why do you find being willing to make a profit troubling? I don't. Are the media who profited from the case sociopaths? Is Raffaelle? Was Damien Echols a sociopath for writing about his experience being falsely imprisoned (assuming he is innocent) for the murder of three children in West Memphis?

She wasn't found innocent in the trial, she won her appeal two years after being found guilty. And if she is innocent then it's not just someone else's tragedy. Yes, being murdered and losing a child are worse than what happened to her. But being falsely convicted of murder and internationally villified and having every detail of your past examined for dirt is still horrible. I don't see a reason why it needs to be a contest. The Knox family sacrificed a lot financially and careerwise and are already faced with a lot of debts, not to mention the upcoming retrial. Not being willing to make a profit under these circumstances would be extremely foolish (not that I would hold it against someone under normal circumstances either).

IMO, someone who has a halfway normal degree of compassion, doesn't play this as "Poor Amanda, mean Meredith's family", which is basically what she did.

Where?

As I said before, I haven't followed the trial, and have no particular feeling about Knox's guilt or innocence. My only real point in this is that the people who are convinced of her innocence because they don't think she had a reason to do it are naive. People do the most horrendous things for reasons that *normal* people can't understand. We've (on more than one occasion) seen several people get together and brutally kill homeless individuals by setting them afire or beating them to death. Is that more understandable than three young people getting together to murder someone against whom one of them may have a grudge?

Trials are about proving guilt, not proving innocence. A lack of apparent motive lowers the plausibility of someone being guilty, but of course if there is hard proof that they did it, this becomes irrelevant.

For me,the fascinating thing about these types of cases is the amount of emotion people who don't know any of the players or really much of anything about the case invest in their belief in either the guilt or innocence of the defendant(s).

Knox is going to be all right. She's an attractive young white woman from a middle class family, living in a country which, to a large part, is convinced that she's innocent and which will therefore bend over backwards for her in many respects. And she has a multi million dollar book deal. She's much better off than 95% of the people her age in this country.

She'll be less all right if she loses the retrial. Also, I don't think most people in the US believe she is innocent and want to bend over backward for her. I'm not sure how many of the people posting in this discussion are American, but there seems to be a lot of animosity toward her and people who support her within the small sample of this thread.

 

[Pickle Juice]

Why do you find being willing to make a profit troubling?

I did say "off someone else's tragedy". I have a problem with that, that is not confined to the behavior of Amanda Knox, I guess I should add, in case people keep trying to make it look like I'm ok with what the Italian press did, or what the other people who were tried for the murder did. My intent in the first post I made in here was to challenge the idea that we should not believe the media, but should instead read Knox's "memoir". I found that absurd.

But my problem with people capitalizing off tragedy in general is not just why I won't be buying Knox's book, it's also why I don't subscribe to news of any kind, and don't have TV. I am of the opinion that we have not had a free press in the US in at least one hundred years, if we ever did. It's a business, and when there isn't any news they make some up because they gotta keep the cash flowing, and they better be damn sure they don't publish anything that will offend their advertisers. Perhaps this kind of behavior is normal and accepted, but I personally do not find it decent, and if it means there may be more sociopaths in our society than not, I don't see why that shouldn't be defined as disturbed, simply because it is a quality shared by a majority.

Edited to add, I am not seeing the animosity and hatred some folk are claiming in this thread. Some of us don't like what Amanda Knox is doing. I don't think that should be characterized as hatred.

I think discussions like this will flow much more smoothly if people will take what's written for how it was written, and not read things into posts that aren't there. I actually take great care to state only what I intend to address, and it gets frustrating to see people responding as if I said XYZ when all I said was A. This is a general comment made with kind intent, and not intended to point a finger at any one person.

 

[ledboots]

Why do people keep calling her a sociopath or psychopath? Was she diagnosed?

 

[cornsail]

I did say "off someone else's tragedy". I have a problem with that, that is not confined to the behavior of Amanda Knox, I guess I should add, in case people keep trying to make it look like I'm ok with what the Italian press did, or what the other people who were tried for the murder did. My intent in the first post I made in here was to challenge the idea that we should not believe the media, but should instead read Knox's "memoir". I found that absurd.

But my problem with people capitalizing off tragedy in general is not just why I won't be buying Knox's book, it's also why I don't subscribe to news of any kind, and don't have TV. I am of the opinion that we have not had a free press in the US in at least one hundred years, if we ever did. It's a business, and when there isn't any news they make some up because they gotta keep the cash flowing, and they better be damn sure they don't publish anything that will offend their advertisers. Perhaps this kind of behavior is normal and accepted, but I personally do not find it decent, and if it means there may be more sociopaths in our society than not, I don't see why that shouldn't be defined as disturbed, simply because it is a quality shared by a majority.

Yes, sorry for my wording not being more clear there. I meant "being willing to make a profit under the specific circumstances in question", not anyone making a profit from anything in general. I just was hesitant to describe what she did as "profiting off someone else's tragedy" because it seems to frame what she's doing in a more negative light than what I perceive. Just like if someone said they had a problem with Spielberg trying to make a buck off the holocaust (directing Schindler's List), I'd be hesitant to respond "why do you have a problem with him trying to make a buck off the holocaust?" even if that wording may be technically correct in some sense.

I agree that neither reading the Italian press nor reading Knox's book would be a good way to obtain unbiased information on the case.

I'm not sure if you're referring to me, but I didn't say or knowingly imply anything about what your opinion is of the Italian press.

Edited to add, I am not seeing the animosity and hatred some folk are claiming in this thread. Some of us don't like what Amanda Knox is doing. I don't think that should be characterized as hatred.

I think discussions like this will flow much more smoothly if people will take what's written for how it was written, and not read things into posts that aren't there. I actually take great care to state only what I intend to address, and it gets frustrating to see people responding as if I said XYZ when all I said was A. This is a general comment made with kind intent, and not intended to point a finger at any one person.

I agree, for the most part, that it is better to take things as they are written. In this respect, I shouldn't have used the word "animosity". Judging or characterizing someone as a sociopath does not mean one necessarily hates them or has come to an emotional conclusion, I agree. My point was just that I disagree that most people in the US are "convinced that she's innocent" and "will therefore bend over backwards for her in many respects".

 

[mlp]

Why do people keep calling her a sociopath or psychopath? Was she diagnosed?

What I actually said was this:
Her desire to talk to the victim's family and visit the victim's grave, in light of the fact fact that the victim's family believes that she was involved in the murder, is so completely blind to or uncaring of the feelings of the victim's family that it seems to me that it's only explainable as part of a personality disorder or the thinking of a sociopath/psychopath.

I wouldn't know whether she's been diagnosed. I don't know whether she's ever seen a psychiatrist or psychologist. My comment is based solely on that one interview, as I said when I made the comment.

Trials are about proving guilt, not proving innocence.

Gee, I wasn't aware of that.

A lack of apparent motive lowers the plausibility of someone being guilty, but of course if there is hard proof that they did it, this becomes irrelevant.

The point I was trying to make was a wider one, which is why I gave the example of several people getting together to kill homeless people. And that point is that what is one person's motive is often not recognizable or understandable as a motive by others. Some people commit murder because they want to see what it feels like. Others commit murder because they enjoy it. Others commit murder because someone did something minor that irritated them.

The point being that saying, "She didn't have a motive to do it" is a naïve argument, not a compelling one.

She'll be less all right if she loses the retrial. Also, I don't think most people in the US believe she is innocent and want to bend over backward for her. I'm not sure how many of the people posting in this discussion are American, but there seems to be a lot of animosity toward her and people who support her within the small sample of this thread.

I don't have "animosity" toward her, nor "hatred" as ledboot said. I haven't been interested enough to follow the news stories - as I said in the beginning, I did end up reading the one interview, I'm not even sure why. I don't have any feeling/belief about her guilt or innocence in the murder.

What I do find fascinating is the larger reaction to her case and other cases, how emotionally people react, with very little/no actual of knowledge about the person's guilt or innocence. (Ascribing "animosity" or "hatred" to anyone who says anything that might be construed as critical of the person is a case in point of the emotionality of such reactions.)

There is another news story that one might think would be eliciting stronger feelings of protectiveness than the Knox story, and that is the story of the three young women who have just spent a decade undergoing real abuse. But that's not going to have the staying power of the Knox story, even though it's much more horrific and much more psychologically interesting - it's too gritty, too ugly, and I doubt that the families have the resources to hire a publicist.

 

[Pickle Juice]

Here's a list of some of the qualities that characterize a sociopath. I see several that apply to Knox. Perhaps defining her as a sociopath is extreme, if people are going to be pedantic, but I would say she shares several traits with the classic sociopath.

http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html

I'm not sure if you're referring to me, but I didn't say or knowingly imply anything about what your opinion is of the Italian press.

Oh no, I was just trying to anticipate and head off potential misunderstanding.

 

[Blobbenstein]

She may not care about the murder victim, but I wonder how many people really care.

 

[ledboots]

I did say "off someone else's tragedy". I have a problem with that, that is not confined to the behavior of Amanda Knox, I guess I should add, in case people keep trying to make it look like I'm ok with what the Italian press did, or what the other people who were tried for the murder did. My intent in the first post I made in here was to challenge the idea that we should not believe the media, but should instead read Knox's "memoir". I found that absurd.

But my problem with people capitalizing off tragedy in general is not just why I won't be buying Knox's book, it's also why I don't subscribe to news of any kind, and don't have TV. I am of the opinion that we have not had a free press in the US in at least one hundred years, if we ever did. It's a business, and when there isn't any news they make some up because they gotta keep the cash flowing, and they better be damn sure they don't publish anything that will offend their advertisers. Perhaps this kind of behavior is normal and accepted, but I personally do not find it decent, and if it means there may be more sociopaths in our society than not, I don't see why that shouldn't be defined as disturbed, simply because it is a quality shared by a majority.

Edited to add, I am not seeing the animosity and hatred some folk are claiming in this thread. Some of us don't like what Amanda Knox is doing. I don't think that should be characterized as hatred.

I think discussions like this will flow much more smoothly if people will take what's written for how it was written, and not read things into posts that aren't there. I actually take great care to state only what I intend to address, and it gets frustrating to see people responding as if I said XYZ when all I said was A. This is a general comment made with kind intent, and not intended to point a finger at any one person.

See my comment to mlp below. I think it is easy to read things into posts that weren't intended.

What I actually said was this:
Her desire to talk to the victim's family and visit the victim's grave, in light of the fact fact that the victim's family believes that she was involved in the murder, is so completely blind to or uncaring of the feelings of the victim's family that it seems to me that it's only explainable as part of a personality disorder or the thinking of a sociopath/psychopath.

I don't have "animosity" toward her, nor "hatred" as ledboot said. I haven't been interested enough to follow the news stories - as I said in the beginning, I did end up reading the one interview, I'm not even sure why. I don't have any feeling/belief about her guilt or innocence in the murder.

What I do find fascinating is the larger reaction to her case and other cases, how emotionally people react, with very little/no actual of knowledge about the person's guilt or innocence. (Ascribing "animosity" or "hatred" to anyone who says anything that might be construed as critical of the person is a case in point of the emotionality of such reactions.)

And what I actually said regarding "hatred" was this:
"The Italian man also accused, Solecito, wrote his memoirs of the events before Knox did. Is that okay? Because he wasn't reviled in the press, or given a multi-million dollar deal? Where is the hatred for him?"

That ^^ is not ascribing a feeling of hatred emanating from anyone who says 'anything that might be construed as critical of Knox.'

It is not even accusing anyone in this thread of feeling hatred towards Knox. It is a legitimate question of a society that loves to hate people, particularly attractive and wealthy women, when they become famous. Look at the list of sexist and nauseating slurs against her. No one in the press had any issue with the man accused of the same crime writing his memoirs, just the woman that got the public aroused, so to speak.

Was his sex life picked apart in court as hers was? I didn't follow the case either, but if it was, it certainly wasn't blasted across worldwide headlines like hers was.

 

[yally]

 

[cornsail]

Gee, I wasn't aware of that.

The point I was trying to make was a wider one, which is why I gave the example of several people getting together to kill homeless people. And that point is that what is one person's motive is often not recognizable or understandable as a motive by others. Some people commit murder because they want to see what it feels like. Others commit murder because they enjoy it. Others commit murder because someone did something minor that irritated them.

The point being that saying, "She didn't have a motive to do it" is a naïve argument, not a compelling one.

I wouldn't call "she didn't have a motive to do it" a compelling argument either (I'm not sure if you are attributing this argument to me). I wouldn't call it naive or invalid as part of a larger argument, but "she didn't have a motive, therefore she must be innocent" would clearly be foolish, as would "she had a motive, therefore she's guilty". When there is no physical or eyewitness evidence someone committed a crime, things like motive tend to come up though.

What I do find fascinating is the larger reaction to her case and other cases, how emotionally people react, with very little/no actual of knowledge about the person's guilt or innocence. (Ascribing "animosity" or "hatred" to anyone who says anything that might be construed as critical of the person is a case in point of the emotionality of such reactions.)

There is another news story that one might think would be eliciting stronger feelings of protectiveness than the Knox story, and that is the story of the three young women who have just spent a decade undergoing real abuse. But that's not going to have the staying power of the Knox story, even though it's much more horrific and much more psychologically interesting - it's too gritty, too ugly, and I doubt that the families have the resources to hire a publicist.

I haven't said anything about what my emotions are in regard to the case. I was guilty of the same thing in ascribing emotions to people that they haven't claimed, but I already accepted PJ's correction of that in my last post.

That said, I don't find it surprising or unusual that people would have emotional reactions to a situation involving rape, murder, possible false murder convictions and possible murderers going free. And of course "opposing sides" tend to raise emotions within each. I also don't consider emotions to be a bad thing as long as they don't cloud judgment or cause unnecessary conflicts.

Did you mean to use me as an example of someone with "very little/no actual knowledge" of the evidence? Or did you mean that only the killers and the accused know anything for sure about who is or is not guilty and everyone else has little to no knowledge about it?

The kidnapping story didn't elicit strong emotions? I would imagine both stories would make people emotional. The Kercher/Guede/Knox/Sollecito story has staying power partly because it's an ongoing legal battle, which has yet to resolve.

 

[mlp]

I don't know what criticism the Italian guy got, either during the investigation and trials, or with respect to writing a book. The news stories I see on my news feeds are all English language (unless I specifically seek out German ones), and the American stories focused on Knox and, from the headlines I saw, were almost uniformly positive toward her. It wouldn't surprise me if much of the Italian coverage were sexist*, but then, I don't read Italian, and wouldn't even have any way of doublechecking whether the Italian coverage was as one sided as it might be reported as being.

I'm not singling out the Italian papers here - yellow journalism, whatever the nationality, is by definition sensationalistic.

Did you mean to use me as an example of someone with "very little/no actual knowledge" of the evidence? Or did you mean that only the killers and the accused know anything for sure about who is or is not guilty and everyone else has little to no knowledge about it?

I meant people in general. People who attend the whole trial should have more information than people in general. And people involved in the investigation and/or prosecution of the case would have even more information - you would probably be surprised by how much is excluded from evidence, not because it's not relevant, but because proper foundation can't be established, it's deemed too prejudicial, or for one of many other reasons. Things IRL are a lot messier than on TV.

 

[Pickle Juice]

See my comment to mlp below. I think it is easy to read things into posts that weren't intended.

And what I actually said regarding "hatred" was this:
"The Italian man also accused, Solecito, wrote his memoirs of the events before Knox did. Is that okay? Because he wasn't reviled in the press, or given a multi-million dollar deal? Where is the hatred for him?"

That ^^ is not ascribing a feeling of hatred emanating from anyone who says 'anything that might be construed as critical of Knox.'

It is not even accusing anyone in this thread of feeling hatred towards Knox. It is a legitimate question of a society that loves to hate people, particularly attractive and wealthy women, when they become famous. Look at the list of sexist and nauseating slurs against her. No one in the press had any issue with the man accused of the same crime writing his memoirs, just the woman that got the public aroused, so to speak.

Was his sex life picked apart in court as hers was? I didn't follow the case either, but if it was, it certainly wasn't blasted across worldwide headlines like hers was.

Ok, but this is the "Amanda Knox's Book Deal" thread. So I gave my opinion of that. I won't speak for anyone else. But I don't think opinions on the Italian press, Raffaele Sollecito's book deal, or O J Simpson's book deal need to be expressed in here in order to validate criticism of Amanda Knox in a thread about Amanda Knox. Unless people are trying to link them together by claiming that anything the Italian press does, Raffaele Sollecito does, or O J Simpson does makes it all ok for anyone else to do the same thing? That I am not quite clear on. Or if we are going to criticize Amanda Knox, we also need to criticize the Italian press, Raffaele Sollecito, and O J Simpson, and if we don't criticize them all at the same time in the same post we have no right to criticize Knox? Or if we aren't criticizing them too it means we approve of them, but not of Knox? I'm critical of Hitler too, and Mussolini, I might as well add, and a whole lot of other people down through the ages, but I don't see why neglecting to list everyone whose behavior I am critical of invalidates my criticism of Knox.

 

[Pickle Juice]

...That said, I don't find it surprising or unusual that people would have emotional reactions to a situation involving rape, murder, possible false murder convictions and possible murderers going free. And of course "opposing sides" tend to raise emotions within each. I also don't consider emotions to be a bad thing as long as they don't cloud judgment or cause unnecessary conflicts.

I agree with this. I don't have a problem with other people getting emotional about issues. I just don't like to have emotions projected onto me that I am not feeling. I'm sure no one does. I happen to be very opinionated, but not everything I have an opinion about inspires deep emotion.

 

[LuvOurMother]

It shows that she has absolutely no understanding of or interest in how the victim's family feels.

If she wasn't interested In how the Kercher's feel what is stopping her from visiting Meredith's grave? The family asked her not to, so she isn't. That is respecting their wishes.

Knox lost the trial with Lamumba which involves close to a million dollars. Her family spent hundreds of thousands of dollars during her imprisonment. Yes, she will end up profiting from her book, but she and her family lost a lot of money during this whole ordeal that can be recovered by interviews and her book.

As for her being called a sociopath, that is just ridiculous! Most of us can exhibit some behaviors associated with sociopaths, but that is certainly not enough to be considered one.

If you open your mind and actually read her book you would get a much better understanding of her personality. She is a little quirky, very smart, immature in some ways, and definitely not the stereo typical American rich girl so many made her out to be. Being a little different and strange is no reason to be called a sociopath.

 

[cornsail]

I meant people in general. People who attend the whole trial should have more information than people in general. And people involved in the investigation and/or prosecution of the case would have even more information - you would probably be surprised by how much is excluded from evidence, not because it's not relevant, but because proper foundation can't be established, it's deemed too prejudicial, or for one of many other reasons. Things IRL are a lot messier than on TV.

All the information from the trial is available to the public AFAIK. And it seems quite an extreme standard to suggest that people have "very little/no" knowledge of a case partly on the basis that they don't know everything the investigators and prosecutors know. This would imply that jurors should always vote not guilty.