Snowboard Club UK (SCUK) :: View topic - Another poor innocent victim of the law..

Snowboard Club UK (SCUK)

SCUK Inn - Another poor innocent victim of the law..

tortyv - Oct 04, 2011 - 08:41 AM
Post subject: Another poor innocent victim of the law..

So Amanda Knox was cleared from the murder charge of Meridith Kercher.

Sweet, innocent with that "butter-wouldn't-melt-in-her-mouth" look, hmm I'm not so sure. I mean the false confession of being in the flat and then changing her story in the early stages of the case, the false accusation of that bar owner (her boss), the non-matching alibi from her and her boyfriend, Also why were their phones both switched off between the time of the murder?? Oh and the staged break in?

It's all just a little too suspect I think. Thoughts on a postcard..

ace_mcgraw - Oct 04, 2011 - 08:59 AM
Post subject: RE: Another poor innocent victim of the law..

I kind of agree with you. I feel sorry for the Kercher family - it seems that they haven't had the advantage of a massive pr campaign for their daughter, and its them I feel sorry for. It all seems a little convenient to get off on through a loophole of technicalities, whilst the murder has been placed on someone who hasn't had the celebrity treatment like Amanda Knox has and won't be able to afford to get any evidence looked into.

Add to that Knox is now free to head off and cash in with books, interviews, film deals etc etc while the Kercher family is still suffering.

JakeDurbs - Oct 04, 2011 - 09:50 AM
Post subject: RE: Another poor innocent victim of the law..

Not for me to judge as I don't hold all (if any) of the facts but although technically a loop hole, from my knowledge you don't have to have DNA evidence to convict someone and if there was enough evidence against them, they could have used that. Without the shaky DNA, they didn't have enough evidence (supposedly) to prove they did murder her so they were released, the way it should be (innocent until guilty an all).

The one thing that is staggering is how the story has been reported around the world. Britain definitely went for the "Foxy Knoxy" angle with lots of accusations based on random photos from social networking sites (we've all got them!) and "sources close to Amanda". Whereas the Americans have always maintained that it is a case of wrongful imprisonment and (for once) have been a lot less sensationalist than our "humble" media! Outside of Perguia the Italians didn't really care, and treated it almost as a foreign case that is happening on their shores.

I'll admit that there are questions that need to be answered, but with the opinion we have been fed of Knox, rightly or wrongly, the majority of the public will never accept her as innocent as we know her to be an evil, sex obsessed, party orientated temptress.

nickmotture - Oct 04, 2011 - 10:02 AM
Post subject:

She didnt get off on a technicality or a loophole, she got off because the evidence against her was proven in a court of law to be either unsafe, techincaly compromised or in some cases downright faked. You only need an allibi to counter the prosecutions evidence, if that evidence is proven scientifically to be unusable then the need for an alibi is negated. Theres no room for personal feelings, ideas that things dont add up or thinking someone looks a bit shifty, jurys work on facts of law.

Ive done jury service before on a cases of a man accused of abusing his children, now every one of the jury thought he was a scum bag, we all thought something weird was going on in the family and none of the stories added up. But there was no factual evidence of anything he was accused of, as a juror you are instructed on the points of law, and those points of law are that you cannot convict someone on your own personal feelings, you cant convict them because you dont like them, because you think they're a bad person, you cant convict them because of anything other than evidence. Because of this every single one of us said not guilty. Thinking someone is a bit dodgy, not trusting their story and thinking that things dont add up isn't enough in the eyes of the law to convict someone of anything, let alone murder.

Anyone who feels she was guilty is doing so because of the disgusting way the tabloid media portrayed her before she was even found guilty, not based on any legal fact.

charlie - Oct 04, 2011 - 10:06 AM
Post subject:

Trial by media...

Who are we to say that someone is guilty or not if we haven't heard all the evidence. The way it works in any good legal system is that if there is a shred of doubt then someone can't be convicted.

ace_mcgraw - Oct 04, 2011 - 10:18 AM
Post subject:

I think my main feeling is sympathy for the Kercher family - they're not gonna get any of the adulation and money poured on them that the Know family already have done. If we were only allowed to comment on things that we knew every single detail of, there wouldn't be much said on here would there!

nickmotture - Oct 04, 2011 - 10:27 AM
Post subject:

You need to remember this girl has been in prison for 4 years for a crime that according to the law she shouldn't have been convicted of. She's also be ripped to bits by the media, had every single part of her private life destroyed. Now obviously the family of the dead girl have suffered hugely and priority of sympathy should be with them, but thats not Knox fault, this has been proven. Pretty much every legal expert around the world who has been interviewed about this case agreed that she should never have been convicted.

POW!POW!POW! - Oct 04, 2011 - 10:28 AM
Post subject:

I think there are two issues here:

Was she demonstrated as guily by legal process?

No.

Is she a person of questionable character - difficult to tell. Without the media spin we would know very little if anything about Amanda Knox and I trust the media about as far as i could throw them.

I don't think being a bit dodgy is enough to convict someone, if it was half of the folks on here would be doing a life stretch in wandsworth Razz

Before you criticise them for selling their story have a think about how many places would employ them after what has happened. Innocent in a court of law should really mean they can move on with their lives but it never does.

JakeDurbs - Oct 04, 2011 - 10:30 AM
Post subject:

Sympathy has to go to both sides as one girl has had her life taken and the other has had her life ruined, falsely.

No amount of money will ever make the ordeal of either party any less upsetting. I know that if I wrongly spent 4 years in a foreign jail and had the world's press drag my name and reputation through the mud, a couple of interviews and book deals wouldn't really make up for that. Especially when you consider your job prospects will probably be limited over the next few years and the majority of people will always see you as guilty.

nickmotture - Oct 04, 2011 - 10:32 AM
Post subject:

if i'd had four years of my life and my ability to lead a normal life afterwards ripped from me for something i didn't do then id expect some sort of compensation for it. I'd go and sell my story too, hell i'd never be able to get a normal job because of the medias portrayal of me so what else am i supposed to do?

Sidget - Oct 04, 2011 - 10:37 AM
Post subject:

About time she was acquitted! It was a typical shoddy Italian trial from the very beginning

Dylanrobinson - Oct 04, 2011 - 11:12 AM
Post subject:

What I find odd, and it's not just this case its nearly every aquittal you here about is the fact that when someone is acquitted that is it. They are in the eyes of nearly everyone, including the press, stone cold not guilty.

I don't see it as Black and White as that. Just because they have been found not guilty doesn't mean they are, it just means the may not have good enough evidence to pin them down.

I wonder how many people do you see on the news outside appeal courts cheering with their family and supporters popping champagne actually ARE guilty!

Trigger85 - Oct 04, 2011 - 11:41 AM
Post subject:

one very important thing here everyone has missed is that she isn't going to be able to get her leg over with many guys now! even though she is innocent, knowing that she was accused of sliting someone throat whilst "between sheets" will always be there. i do feel sorry for her as i (kinda) know how she feels as i was locked up in Florida for 3 days for allegedly charging at a police officer, however when cctv came out that i had infact taken only 1 fidgeting step AWAY from the officer the charges where dropped i was given bail money back and that's it. apparently, or so the law says. now, even though im innocent and never was charged with anything, only arrested, i will struggle to get into the US and it nearly stopped me getting my security clearence for work. so i totally understand how she must feel but on a lesser extent. still as someone pointed out innocent should mean innocent but it rarely does

thoughts go out to Merediths family as this means her killer is still out there

ace_mcgraw - Oct 04, 2011 - 11:58 AM
Post subject:

Trigger85 wrote:

thoughts go out to Merediths family as this means her killer is still out there

Possibly - there is someone else in jail serving a sentence for her murder...

AntsRants - Oct 04, 2011 - 12:16 PM
Post subject:

As others have stated, we only know what our media wanted us to know, she's been found innocent, so thats that. The media have a strong power, the power to persuade people that someone who could quite rightly be innocent, can be made to look as guilty as a guilty thing. If theres one thing that annoys me, its being blamed for something that I haven't done. If I was her, I'd sue the papers for perverting the cause of justice by slandering her.

AdamA9 - Oct 04, 2011 - 12:22 PM
Post subject:

Trigger85 wrote:

thoughts go out to Merediths family as this means her killer is still out there

Rudy Guede is still imprissoned for Kercher's murder? As far as I was aware. Only Knox and Sollecito got aquitted.

I don't know enough on this case to make an opinion, and I've avoided as much of the press about it as I can.

JakeDurbs - Oct 04, 2011 - 12:28 PM
Post subject:

AdamA9 wrote:

Trigger85 wrote:

thoughts go out to Merediths family as this means her killer is still out there

Rudy Guede is still imprissoned for Kercher's murder? As far as I was aware. Only Knox and Sollecito got aquitted.

Apparently he confessed to a convicted child murderer in Jail that Knox and Sollecito were innocent but there was an unnamed accomplice...

tortyv - Oct 04, 2011 - 12:33 PM
Post subject:

apparently two knives were used in the murder.. one of them is still missing...

nickmotture - Oct 04, 2011 - 12:58 PM
Post subject:

apparently apparently apparently.

JakeDurbs - Oct 04, 2011 - 01:05 PM
Post subject:

My apparently (apparently) came from a statement written by the child murderer, Mario someone or other. But with no firm proof it is worth both halves of sod all!

Turns out he was right about Knox and Sollecito though!

stu83 - Oct 04, 2011 - 01:09 PM
Post subject:

It was Rudy. His sentance needs to be extended and hopefully Meredith can rest in peace and her family can get closure. His was the only DNA in the room. He was the only one which ran. He was the only one with a legitimate motive. And he was the only one that went fast-track in order to get a shorter prison sentance as he knew he had no chance of not being found guilty.

Dylanrobinson - Oct 04, 2011 - 01:25 PM
Post subject:

Dylanrobinson wrote:

JakeDurbs & stu83 have just proved my point.

Lets not forget there is a lot of evidence pointing in knox's and her boyfriends direction and she was found guilty of slander for HER trying to push the blame onto an innocent man.

I don't know if they are guilty or not, how anyone can just by reading the press I don't know, but I hope justice has been done.

nickmotture - Oct 04, 2011 - 01:31 PM
Post subject:

There was nothing but circumstantial evidence against them, you can find circumstantial evidence against pretty much anyone who knew the victim if you look hard enough. Without being there, there is no way for any of us to know for sure, however given that democracy runs on the premis of innocent until proven guilty (something the Daily Mail should be reminded of today) and given that that wasn't possible to prove them guilty then its not unacceptable for people to come to the conclusion that she was innocent.

JakeDurbs - Oct 04, 2011 - 01:43 PM
Post subject:

Dylanrobinson wrote:

I'm not saying she did or didn't do it (and in my first post I said something about not holding any of the facts), but she has served her time for Slander and in the eyes of the law she is innocent of murder. If we are going on hard evidence, then that is the only stone cold fact that those who are not on the jury have to go on, so I am more comfortable saying that she is innocent than saying she is guilty.

Trigger85 - Oct 04, 2011 - 01:55 PM
Post subject:

AdamA9 wrote:

Trigger85 wrote:

thoughts go out to Merediths family as this means her killer is still out there

Rudy Guede is still imprissoned for Kercher's murder? As far as I was aware. Only Knox and Sollecito got aquitted.

ah ok i didn't really know much about it just that Foxy Knoxy was indeed quite fit. I try not to get to engrossed in news from any media other than to try and keep an eye on what's going on. if something interests me i try to do my own research to get as many views as possible. if i can't be bothered i just go with the Beeb or al jazera some company like that (not sky news as even before it was cool to hate it i noticed things were omitted/biased)

edited for mistakes

stu83 - Oct 04, 2011 - 02:56 PM
Post subject:

Dylanrobinson, I actually thought that she was innocent long before she was acquitted. I've followed the story for a while and read various views and evidence. Yeah I'm sure whats posted online isn't the full facts of the case, but nethertheless it paints a compelling case for innocence. Her actions and supposed statements were a little radical at times, but people react to shock in different ways.

As for your point, that's how it 'should' be. If someone's found not guilty in court for something they were previously accused of, they should be thought of as not guilty by everyone (until such time that a suitable appeal is mounted and then it should be reviewed again from scratch). Unforunately though I dont think most people conform to your point. I think the majority of those that thought she was guilty before the acquital, will still think of her guilty after. It's just a good job for her that they don't have the death penalty, otherwise yesterday might have been too late.

nickmotture - Oct 04, 2011 - 03:31 PM
Post subject:

stu83 wrote:

I think the majority of those that thought she was guilty before the acquital, will still think of her guilty after. It's just a good job for her that they don't have the death penalty, otherwise yesterday might have been too late.

Exactly true. Because most people don't actually care about facts they just make their own mind up based on what the tabloid media has told them to think. Think of it this way, there were two people in jail for the last 4 years charged with the same thing who have both been acquitted yet who can name the man? This thread started as a discussion about Knox, all the tabloids have run pictured of her and headlines of her being freed....hardly any mention of the guy. Just like in the original trial, it was all about Foxy Knoxy because it made a better story, there was hardly any coverage of the guy involved. Because a story and picture of a girl they themselves accused of being a sexual predator and who is attractive is a better story than an Italian man no one has heard of being freed.

Most people are stupid and dont give a damn about facts and points of law and fairness, they just decide someones guilt based on their own feelings about another person they know nothing about apart from what the tabloids have told them.

Sartori - Oct 04, 2011 - 03:36 PM
Post subject:

Do you want fries with that?

Razz

sherlock - Oct 04, 2011 - 07:39 PM
Post subject:

anyone remember louise woodward...?

oh the joy of the british media and their spinniness of the news...

winterfunman - Oct 04, 2011 - 07:45 PM
Post subject:

Do any of them snowboard ??? If not i dont give a damn

liggins - Oct 04, 2011 - 11:39 PM
Post subject:

sherlock wrote:

anyone remember louise woodward...?

oh the joy of the british media and their spinniness of the news...

I might not send my kids ballroom or latin dancing any time soon though

tortyv - Oct 05, 2011 - 07:59 AM
Post subject:

oh wow, yeh I remember her!

I believe that we may never know the truth about Meridith Kercher. Regardless of how Nick feels about gut feelings, I believe that without a doubt Amanda Knox knows what happens..

nickmotture - Oct 05, 2011 - 10:32 AM
Post subject:

how's that crystal ball working out for you....? Wink

ace_mcgraw - Oct 05, 2011 - 10:36 AM
Post subject:

Basically none of us will ever know. Just because she and her boyfriend have been acquitted does not mean that what happened that night has changed.

Who knows, if Italian police hadn't been so slapdash that evidence wouldn't have been ruled out! Maybe if they hadn't been so slapdash, there wouldn't have been enough evidence to convict them anyway!

nickmotture - Oct 05, 2011 - 10:49 AM
Post subject:

maybe maybe maybe

ace_mcgraw - Oct 05, 2011 - 10:52 AM
Post subject:

Exactly! Maybe! Points of law mean nothing to what happened that night! its all conjecture. We don't know what happened. The jury don't know what happened. The judges don't know what happened. Amanda Know may or may not know what happened. Only the killer does! And he/she may be out there still. Or he / she may not.

stu83 - Oct 05, 2011 - 12:52 PM
Post subject:

Rudy knows, and he's in prison for it. The question is whether or not he acted alone.

POW!POW!POW! - Oct 05, 2011 - 04:40 PM
Post subject:

Edit - Sherlock has (quite rightly) suggested that i not be so unfeeling about this. Apologies if anyone was offended. Was bored at work, which never leads to good things..

sherlock - Oct 05, 2011 - 08:15 PM
Post subject:

POW!POW!POW! wrote:

*edited as above.*

dude. someone died a rather gruesome death.

i suggest you edit your comment. just saying.

POW!POW!POW! - Oct 05, 2011 - 08:34 PM
Post subject:

Duly edited Sherlock its a fair cop - I guess what i was trying to say was that no-one knows who the real perpetrators were (apart from Rudy Guede and whoever else was involved). It could have been anyone. Although i grant not likely to be my cat.

sherlock - Oct 05, 2011 - 08:41 PM
Post subject:

thanks. i've edited the quote too. Wink