Oh so it isn't because "this is happening to someone as beautiful as Amanda Knox" as the news reporters were saying today. Awesome.

No shit.

I've heard that during the initial interrogation after her arrest she wasn't allowed acess to an interpreter or a lawyer, and that there was a lot of miscommunication because of that.

I don't understand how people can have such strong emotions of joy/sadness/happiness/anger over a trial that they're not involved in at all.

I don't think anyone can feel truly "sorry" for Knox without knowing, without any doubt, that she's innocent.

Everyone has their opinions and their own ideas about what truly happened. I get that. But the idea that people could be so outraged over the outcome of the Casey Anthony trial, or so excited because of the way the OJ Simpson trial turned out, is beyond me.

Such strong reactions cause the search for the truth to be downplayed, and in some cases, forgotten about altogether.

DrPhil: If you are going to quote me, please do it in the entire quote.

Ellebud: No. I will always quote the part of posts that pertain to my post.

I have a problem with her being called "poor girl." There is so much embedded in that phrase.

The compassion for being locked up abroad and perceived injustice is not evenly distributed. The pursuit of innocence and the truth will always be stronger for "beautiful, all-American," white girls and women. This has been discussed in other threads.

Really?
I don't get why people cry during movies when they know it's scripted. I don't understand why people get excited when they watch sporting events since they aren't playing the game, nor necessarily watching it live. I don't understand why some people get upset over an injustice when it isn't against them personally.

Just because someone might not be personally or physically involved in something doesn't mean they can't or shouldn't care about it or be emotionally involved in it.

So.. Me getting excited because my team won the Superbowl is the same as some crazy person protesting after the Casey Anthony verdict?

Sorry, not buying it.

I get excited about the Superbowl because I know that my team won. They got more points than the other team, and my being excited is based on a known fact.

Casey Anthony being "guilty" isn't based on fact (well, it could be, but you know what I mean).. She could very well be innocent. No one, except Casey, knows for sure.

(ASTalumna can explain if necessary but) I thought ASTalumna is talking about the level of uncertainty, lack of information, misinformation, and doubt for these cases from the outside. Perhaps ASTalumna chose the least over-the-top posts to respond to. LOL.

As for these trials, we only know what the media tells us. Like ASTalumna said, opinions are opinions and strong opinions are strong opinions. But, how far some people go with this can be interesting from a research perspective. That is why researchers studied the crazy response to the O.J. Simpson trial and are studying the response to the Casey Anthony trial. These responses are about more than perceived injustices. There are race, gender, social class and other correlates.

As for movies and sports, those require more of a surface level knowledge and a surface level emotional response. You see what you see, the end. Research shows that media outlets like movie and sports are a resource for relieving stress and being emotional over ridiculous things. If the response to these trials is also surface level in terms of knowledge and simply a media outlet similar to movies and sports then that supports what ASTalumna is saying.

Yes, this exactly. People get extremely emotional over things that they don't really "know.". It's ok to have your beliefs and to think one way over another based on what you do know (hell, that's how verdicts are reached), but to get so emotional about something uncertain, and to think other people are ridiculous for thinking differently, I can't understand that.

It's like religion. Anyone can believe whatever they want. You can argue that aliens created all of us in a test tube, and that's fine. But if you get outraged at me and at MY belief system (or lack thereof), and try to convince me that I'm crazy for believing what I do, then I'm going to think you're annoying, over-emotional, and that you need to get a grip on reality.

It's people showing emotions that represent such certainty, about things that aren't necessarily based on fact, that really baffle me.


Btw, DrPhil.. Sorry I only quoted part of your post. I'll never do it again. :D

Assuming you don't go back and edit, your post in its entirety both exists previous/inline to hers, and is linked to (in its entirety) within the quote. There's no "out of context"-ness to reducing quoted text, and in fact, it's pretty common internet etiquette to not quote entire posts when responses are focused onto a single part.

So let's not get pedantic or anything, y'know?

agree 100%

So me posting "She's Free!" puts me in the same category as a crazy person protesting the Anthony verdict?

LOL..Sorry...not buying it.
I agree.

Aren't you kinda doing that yourself here? I mean seriously, unless I'm missing something here who is getting all crazy and over emotional here? Just because someone follows, discusses, comments, or posts about a news story, court case or a current event doesn't mean that they are emotionally vested in it.

Did I ever say this? .. because I don't believe I did. But if it came off that way, I apologize.

The point is, I get excited over a football game because it's exciting. I get sad over a movie because it's sad. But I can't jump on board with exclaiming, "She's free!" when there's a possibility (even if it's small) that a killer spent only 4 years in jail for a heinous crime.

She's a "poor girl" to me only if she's innocent, and I'll feel "sorry" for her when I'm 100% sure that she didn't kill her roommate.. And that will never happen.

I never said I had a problem with following, discussing, commenting, and posting about a news story. I don't have a problem with anything. I'm not even sure where you're getting "crazy" and "over-emotional" coming from me, but that's your opinion.

ETA: perhaps I shouldn't have quoted any comments in my original post.. Or maybe I should have quoted more. But my comments are not only based on what you and one other poster have said.

She's now a 24 year old woman regardless. She was 19-20 when this began and that age is filled with poor decision making and late teen-early 20 stupidity. However, if she was really any kind of "girl," she and anyone else who is ill-equipped should not be traveling with certain freedoms.

The "poor girl" routine is always used to market someone as innocent not only of the offense but in terms of adult decision making skills. The routine of making people childish and clueless when it benefits them (they can act grown and be considered grown any other time until shit hits the fan) is rarely done for people outside of the power majority demographics.

The "poor girl" routine is even more annoying when combined with "beautiful, all-American (white)...."

As always, personal opinions of guilt/non-guilt are unimportant to me. What I consider interesting and important for public consumption is what is embedded in the case and the national/international reaction to the case. That goes for this case just as it does for every other case.

/I only quoted half of one sentence of your post...payback!!!!! :D

******
There will be an appeal:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44767938...d_news-europe/