Re: Amanda Knox Has Been Freed

J

Joseph C.

100 kW
Joined
Feb 3, 2011
Messages
1,797
Location
Ireland
I thought it would take the intervention of the European Court of Human Rights but she was released today. The evidence against her was non-existent.

Cameras should never be allowed anywhere near a courtroom, full-stop.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/1003/breaking5.html

The Irish Times article also shows clear bias against Knox.
 
UK media (BBC) also appeared biased to me. I fear there probably has been an appalling travesty of justice, almost as bad as the original apalling crime, based on society's need to exact 'revenge' & the local copper's need to get a conviction, quick, in a high media profile case. I reckon most of the irish "terrorists" locked up in UK were guilty of being in the wrong place at the wrong time (e.g. birmingham 6).
There, but for the grace of god, go you & I......

Capital punishment anyone ? ? ? ? ?
 
bobc said:
UK media (BBC) also appeared biased to me. I fear there probably has been an appalling travesty of justice, almost as bad as the original apalling crime, based on society's need to exact 'revenge' & the local copper's need to get a conviction, quick, in a high media profile case. I reckon most of the irish "terrorists" locked up in UK were guilty of being in the wrong place at the wrong time (e.g. birmingham 6).
There, but for the grace of god, go you & I......

Capital punishment anyone ? ? ? ? ?
Click to expand...

The Guildford Four, The Maguire Seven and The Birmingham Six were all found innocent. For every innocent locked up the real killer(s) is out on the loose. The shoot-to-kill in Gibraltar was appalling too but I would put that down to Thatcher and she destroyed the UK in ways that are still being felt and will continue to be felt for years to come.

In fairness too the Irish Government didn't do enough to stop the IRA and at least one even gave them a helping hand.

I am delighted that Knox was released. Although I believe the prosecution are going to appeal. But at least the Italian Court admitted its mistake. A fluent Italian speaker, I don't think she will be back there any time soon.
 
Something tells me she might be quietly crossing the border in the clothes she leaves the court in.....

I didn't follow the case closely enough, but I think it is only fair and just that we instantly attribute criminal and murderous intent to anyone with moral standards that we consider to be lower or lesser than ours. It has worked for centuries, I would say the West Memphis three are far more relevant to this case than the Irish cases. Those cases were about political/ideological prejudice, this was moral judgement plain and simple....

But it leads me to a jurisprudence concept I have been grappling with lately....

In common law countries we have always had the burden of proof in criminal matters "beyond a reasonable doubt" and the civil burden of proof "on the balance of probabilities", I would like to see a third burden of proof for appeals cases in really hard to decide/controversial/appeal cases:..... "would you spend a night with them drunk and defenceless for 1 million dollars?"

The kind of cases I am talking about, are the ones you sit around with friends and argue guilty/not guilty, those such as the one at hand, or the case of Michael Peterson (documented in the mindblowing documentary "The Staircase"), or the West Memphis Three (documented in "Paradise Lost"), or Australia's classic Lindy Chamberlin (documented in "Evil Angels"). Here is my list (ie, would I spend a night with this person drunk and defenceless for $1 million):

-Oj Simpson: Yes, but if his son, who had a penchant for knives, was involved in drugs with Nicole Brown Simpson, and had a history of choking and cutting women, was there.... No
-Amanda Knox: Yes, and if she let me do the things that she was described as doing regularly and wantonly in her trial with her, I would split the million with her
-West Memphis Three: Yes, but if they were going to make me listen to the Dixie Chicks when I came to after passing out No
-Lindy Chamberlin: Yes, if she promised not to lecture me about god, and if she promised NOT to do the things Amanda Knox did with me, I would split the million with her
-Bradley John Murdoch: No.
-Ivan Milat: No
-Ratko Mladic: No
-George W Bush: No, but if it was the 80s, and he promised to insert half the charlie he was cramming up his nose into my ass as a suppository..... Yes.....
 
I think you could easily cut out the amount of these mistakes if there were proper sanctions for getting it wrong. €100,000 fines and long imprisonments for corrupt/incompetent police/judicial work...And no cameras/media coverage during trials. If newspapers breach this then mandatory million euro fines.
 
Yes but Joseph play my game, please give your answers to my list of candidates (ie, presuming the burden of proof is "would you get drunk and defenceless with the defendant for a night for $1 million), in your answer, throw in Michael Peterson, and why....

EDIT: I should have mentioned, you are probably wondering what "$1 million Australian" is, ok, swap that with "Half the GPD of Ireland currently"
 
Yes I just realised I spelt it "GPD" instead of "GDP". Somewhat removes the comic barb....

But maybe not,,,,,,, It was intentional... i swear

[youtube]1F7E7lAp-hM[/youtube]
 
Philistine said:
-Oj Simpson: No not for one million but maybe one billion though. Although do I reserve the right to select a night at a point in time in my life at my own choosing? If so for one billion maybe. This is a game of Russian Roulette you know that somewhere there is definitely a real bullet in the gun with Simpson but the odds are in your favour.
-Amanda Knox: Yes. No explanation required. Innocent.
-West Memphis Three: See Bradley John Murdoch. Brain scans please. Their backgrounds are worrying too.
-Lindy Chamberlin: Yes. No explanation required. Innocent.
-Bradley John Murdoch: Had to look him up. Let me see an MRI scan of his brain and I'll think about it. As things stand, very doubtful. That would be a no.
-Ivan Milat: Had to look this one up also. Serial killer eh? See below.
-Ratko Mladic: Not even on someone else's life and for a trillion. Sure fire way of getting killed unless I could out-bully him and make him feel insignificant.
-George W Bush: Yes. As far as I aware he has never killed anyone directly. :wink:
Click to expand...
 
Philistine said:
Yes I just realised I spelt it "GPD" instead of "GDP". Somewhat removes the comic barb....

But maybe not,,,,,,, It was intentional... i swear

I should point out that our GDP is growing along with exports. The Irish economy is basically sound - just the banking sector is screwed and pulling everything down with it.

Humphries is very good. That's the first time I have seen him performing as someone other than Dame Edna. There is some cross-over between the two though.
Click to expand...
 
StudEbiker said:
I find it interesting that even with the high percentage of members on the forum from the Pacific Northwest of the USA, not one Yank has chimed in on this thread. :?

I didn't follow the case closely, but I feel that she was innocent and am glad that she is free to return home now.
Click to expand...
It was gross incompetence following a horrible travesty. How would you like to be locked up for four years – or perhaps the rest of your life for something you had no part of? The smear campaign by the first prosecution appalled me! I have zero’d out any plans to visit Italy.

~KF
 
I'll say what most are thinking, and the press is reluctant to admit:


I'd bang her, and her flatmate...





just sayin' y'know. :D
 
Don't feel bad. You're not alone ;)
 
I'm glad that the original smear campaign was acknowledged and the incompetence of the botched police work reveled, but I don't know the details to have an opinion on innocence or guilt, I have seen & heard compelling evidence both directions, BUT I don't believe she could have been directly involved, but I'm not convinced she had no knowledge of the crime.

I'd look it up and suss out the details, but personally, I'm not that interested.

Bad girls don't do anything for me. :p
 
Joseph C. said:
Cameras should never be allowed anywhere near a courtroom, full-stop.
[link]
Click to expand...
The link you provided said nothing about cameras in a courtroom, and you gave no supporting argument for your statement.

I emphatically disagree with your believe that video access to a courtroom should be prohibited. What happens in a courtroom is an exercise of government power. The public should see this and see every bit of it. The abuse of government power will be unfazed if nobody sees it, so it must be made public to keep it in check.

Not just felony criminal court hearings but ALL court hearings, including juvenile court, family court, traffic court, etc. should be broadcast on the internet and archived for access by anyone.
 
Meanwhile far away in another part of town
Amanda Knox and a couple of friends are driving around
Number one contender for the middleweight crown
Had no idea what kinda shit was about to go down
 
Nehmo said:
Joseph C. said:
Cameras should never be allowed anywhere near a courtroom, full-stop.
[link]
Click to expand...
The link you provided said nothing about cameras in a courtroom, and you gave no supporting argument for your statement.

I emphatically disagree with your believe that video access to a courtroom should be prohibited. What happens in a courtroom is an exercise of government power. The public should see this and see every bit of it. The abuse of government power will be unfazed if nobody sees it, so it must be made public to keep it in check.

Not just felony criminal court hearings but ALL court hearings, including juvenile court, family court, traffic court, etc. should be broadcast on the internet and archived for access by anyone.
Click to expand...

Court cases, with the possible exception of cases before the Hague, should be held with no cameras. The press has access to court cases so I don't know what you are talking about 'nobody sees it'. There is usually room for the public during cases anyway. As for the 'Government' getting away with stuff - that's nonsense. What do they get away with?

All court cases are covered by the newspaper press, apart from in camera cases such as family law. You must have a very low opinion of your fellow man if you think that people need television footage to be good citizens and keep the government in check. People read newspapers - that is all that is required when it comes to the judicial system. High Court and Supreme Court verdicts are available to the public along with the ratio decidendi and obiter dicta in common law countries. I'm sure the U.S. has something similar.

The farce of allowing cameras so that the misfortune of people's lives becomes television entertainment at a moral level is sick. Surely we have evolved to be better than this?

Having cameras destroys the anonymity of the jurors, putting unwanted pressure on them. This affects the administration of justice.

Cameras are also a magnet for scum bag, narcissistic lawyers (both plaintiff and defendant) and it provides the fantasist police officers the ideal platform to spin their lies. They unduly influence the public and that works for nobody. Cameras resulted in the miscarriage of justice with OJ Simpson and it certainly didn't help Amanda Knox. Even though she is clearly innocent - a lot of people still believe that she is guilty. When she was released she was taunted by members of the public upon going outside.

This is also alludes to another grave problem. In the case of innocents - they are adversely affected by television footage. TV trials leave an indelible impression on the public. Names and faces are permanently remembered and personal prejudice comes into play. Knox will probably never be able to walk the streets of Italy ever again in comfort. People will either stare or taunt her (of course there will also be those who will have words of encouragement). All of this, once more, is due to television cameras.

The media should report the facts of the case only and add no conjecture on their behalf. No case's facts, from police or other sources, should be discussed leading up to a trial. Any newspaper that breaches this should be fined at least one million euro/dollars/pounds and increase the fine to tens of millions for television stations. This needs to be regulated with an iron fist. People's lives are at stake here.
 
I couldn't agree with you more Joseph C.

There is a reason the majority of court cases have restricted media access (not to the facts, or basics of the case, but to cameras not being allowed to turn it into a circus).

Regardless of guilt or innocence, even with out cameras involved, we have to keep trials from being tried in the court of public opinion. Rodney King and the ensuing riots are a perfect example.

We (the public) are often not privy to crucial evidence that is withheld by police for good reason, to preserve the process of a fair trial, and the media is first and foremost a business, and juicy gossip sells, and if someone's life is ruined as a consequence, the media has no qualms as long as it sells.

I think it's also important to note that Knox was not simply found not guilty, she was convicted of slander when she falsely accused Lumumba of murder!

He was found to have a rock solid alibi having been at work at the time of the murder talking to a stranger at the bar.

However, I don't want to be part of the "trial by media" problem, I believe that the first trial was a media circus, Knox was unfairly smeared and the facts lost in the witch hunt of the initial media circus.

Her "confession" that she had to cover her ears because of the screams coming from Kercher the night of the murder, was extracted with out a lawyer present, and from someone (Knox) who was not even a fluent speaker of Italian at the time.

I also want to point out that the new trial did NOT just find that there was a lack of evidence to convict Knox, but that she was not guilty BECAUSE of the evidence presented.

It didn't help Knox that she had smoked Hash earlier in the day, and her memory suffered because of that, but simply being fooling and doing drugs and getting involved in stupid things should not mean you are presumed guilty of murder even as an accomplice.

Amanda Knox was found guilty only of falsely accusing Lumumba of murder (no small thing indeed!) however, evidence that you and I are not totally privy to was seen by a court in what I believe was a fair trial in the appeal, found her innocent of all other charges.

She has served her time, and then some, but If not for the media circus, she could go on with her life doing her best to put this behind her, and have a second chance, she will now be forever condemned to be a media "celebrity" and never have the chance to live this down, she could be a saint for the rest of her life, but will forever be defined by this trial, and that is wrong.
 
LI-ghtcycle said:
I think it's also important to note that Knox was not simply found not guilty, she was convicted of slander when she falsely accused Lumumba of murder!

He was found to have a rock solid alibi having been at work at the time of the murder talking to a stranger at the bar.

However, I don't want to be part of the "trial by media" problem, I believe that the first trial was a media circus, Knox was unfairly smeared and the facts lost in the witch hunt of the initial media circus.

Her "confession" that she had to cover her ears because of the screams coming from Kercher the night of the murder, was extracted with out a lawyer present, and from someone (Knox) who was not even a fluent speaker of Italian at the time.
.
Click to expand...

While not wishing to condone these actions. As far as I am aware, not enough is known about the circumstances in which she slandered Lumumba. She could have been asked a question by the police and said her boss. Did she consent to this piece of information being made public? If not, then it is not slander. (To be honest I have little faith in Italian courts, criminal or civil.)

It is important to also note that she was clearly in shock and under enormous stress. People react differently to trauma. Some break down crying uncontrollably, others pretend that nothing has happened while another portion just go numb.

Smoking cannabis and character
I am no expert on cannabis, but I would seriously doubt that taking it alone would cause loss of memory. Methinks alcohol was also involved. :mrgreen:

Finally, character is something that is difficult to pin down. This is made all the more harder by our propensity for black-and-white thinking when it comes to good and evil. There is no such thing as saints, unless your the Catholic Church and their record when it comes to morality speaks for itself. It also doesn't help their cause when one of their popes was a murderer amongst other things.

Back to character. I seriously doubt that less than 99 per cent of the people who frequent this forum have taken drugs in some form or another. That doesn't mean we are bad.

The same thing goes with so-called sexual perversion. There is no norm. Kinsey maintained, his research validated by others, that close to 40 per cent of all males interviewed by him had at least one homosexual experience. With women it is probably higher considering that their sexual orientation is thought to be more fluid than ours.

It is also nothing short of sexist hypocrisy to laud one group and condemn another for doing exactly the same thing. If a man has sex with a lot of partners he is looked up to. With women it is the exact opposite. That is bullshit. None of the abuse Knox was subjected to, 'Foxy Knoxy', would have occurred if she was a man.

Anyway I hope she and Rafaelle Sollecito move on and both write a best-selling book out and subsequent film out of the whole experience. With four years of your life wasted by incompetence and corruption that is the least they deserve.
 
She's about to make millions on a book deal. That should cover her legal costs with enough left over to make up for the 4 years in prison.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top