Amanda Knox's Book Release and TV Interview

[Forster]

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.

I don't see how one can take something written in a book like this completely at face value. It might be true and it also might be a load of crap. Ditto for the media coverage surrounding her.

 

[mlp]

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.

What you read in the papers/online has been through several filters before it ever gets to you, including the very considerable filter consisting of what the reporters and editors consider to be a marketable, "sexy", attention grabbing story. (Not even to mention their own particular personal and confirmation biases.)

As far as your last sentence - no, not at all. Confirmation bias is an extremely strong thing, and it affects investigators, prosecutors and defense attorneys as much as it does anyone else. Add to that that lawyers by profession basically convince themselves of their cases long before they ever set foot in a courtroom to argue them. It's what makes it possible to be at least somewhat effective at one's job, that belief.

 

[mlp]

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.

You know, if someone actually wants to visit a grave, it's quite possible to do so quietly, without anyone knowing, rather than making a public production about it.

But then, I don't understand the desire to visit the grave of someone you knew for a month and ten days. Did they become BFFs during that time period?

 

[ledboots]

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.

Since Sollecito was accused, convicted, released, and then re-charged with the same crime, I thought a comparison of their treatment was pertinent. Apparently not; I will stick to just discussing things that are specifically listed in the thread title, just as everyone else is doing so nicely here.

I did not read Amanda Knox's book nor watch her tv interview.

 

[LuvOurMother]

I don't see how one can take something written in a book like this completely at face value. It might be true and it also might be a load of crap. Ditto for the media coverage surrounding her.

I don't see how people can form such strong opinions about someone without listening to what they have to say for themselves. Of course I am not saying you have to believe everything she says but totally ignoring her side of the story is close minded.
That's why I suggest reading her book before calling her a sociopath, liar, and disrespectful to the Kercher's.

 

[cornsail]

What you read in the papers/online has been through several filters before it ever gets to you, including the very considerable filter consisting of what the reporters and editors consider to be a marketable, "sexy", attention grabbing story. (Not even to mention their own particular personal and confirmation biases.)

There are very detailed accounts of the evidence and proceedings out there. It's not like all the people following the case are all relying on "sexy" newspaper articles for their information. I'm sure some people are, but certainly not everyone. Almost everything we learn about goes through filters, whether it's from books, articles, teachers or whatever. And personal biases come into play with everything we learn about. It seems like a bit of an extreme standard you are applying to this one specific case for some reason. The kidnapping case you brought up also must be learned about through filters and biases. Would you say that no one (others than those involved) should get emotional about that, because everyone has "very little/no" knowledge about it?

As far as your last sentence - no, not at all. Confirmation bias is an extremely strong thing, and it affects investigators, prosecutors and defense attorneys as much as it does anyone else. Add to that that lawyers by profession basically convince themselves of their cases long before they ever set foot in a courtroom to argue them. It's what makes it possible to be at least somewhat effective at one's job, that belief.

But you seemed to be saying that people who don't have access to all the information investigators and prosecutors have don't have adequate knowledge to form a reasonable opinion. This would include jurors.

 

[Forster]

I don't see how people can form such strong opinions about someone without listening to what they have to say for themselves. Of course I am not saying you have to believe everything she says but totally ignoring her side of the story is close minded.
That's why I suggest reading her book before calling her a sociopath, liar, and disrespectful to the Kercher's.

Anything she says in the book is going to be self serving and therefore not credible even if true, I'd rather not waste my time. I don't hold any stock in how the media has portrayed her either as they're every bit as self serving.

 

[mlp]

There are very detailed accounts of the evidence and proceedings out there. It's not like all the people following the case are all relying on "sexy" newspaper articles for their information. I'm sure some people are, but certainly not everyone. Almost everything we learn about goes through filters, whether it's from books, articles, teachers or whatever. And personal biases come into play with everything we learn about. It seems like a bit of an extreme standard you are applying to this one specific case for some reason. The kidnapping case you brought up also must be learned about through filters and biases. Would you say that no one (others than those involved) should get emotional about that, because everyone has "very little/no" knowledge about it?



But you seemed to be saying that people who don't have access to all the information investigators and prosecutors have don't have adequate knowledge to form a reasonable opinion. This would include jurors.

I'm saying that, of all the groups of people out there, the ones who are getting their information through the media (of whatever sort) are the ones who have the least actual knowledge.

Strangely enough, they (some of them, not all) also always seem to be the ones who have the most absolute belief that their opinion of guilt or innocence is accurate. It's an example of that little foible of human nature - the less someone knows, the more absolutely convinced they seem to be.

 

[cornsail]

I'm saying that, of all the groups of people out there, the ones who are getting their information through the media (of whatever sort) are the ones who have the least actual knowledge.

Strangely enough, they (some of them, not all) also always seem to be the ones who have the most absolute belief that their opinion of guilt or innocence is accurate. It's an example of that little foible of human nature - the less someone knows, the more absolutely convinced they seem to be.

Well that is a rather different statement than the one I originally questioned. I hope we can at least agree that one can have significant knowledge of a situation that they weren't actually present for and that it's not unreasonable/unusual for people to have opinions and emotions regarding the Kercher murder case.

I'm not sure it's accurate to say that people who sat through the trial and the appeal have less certainty regarding guilt or innocence than people who have researched the case from afar. As a general pattern what you're talking about may be true, but as far as this case goes, I don't know. I imagine some of the people who sat through the trial and appeal have very strong feelings of certainty.

 

[shyvas]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/20/us-italy-knox-idUSBRE98J0N020130920