Heartland

Quite shocked that there's not (that I'm aware of) a thread about this.

Having followed the case closely (yes, because I fancy her) I reckon there's still a tiny bit of doubt to her innocence. The second trial was at least fairer than the joke of a first however. If she is completely innocent then the Italian police, and specifically Giuliano Mignini have got a lot to answer for. IF.

Thoughts?

No data, no infos, except media flash (or even longer articles) but that's not reliable sources of facts, so no thoughts here. Even if she's not that innocent Italian Polizia and prosecutors really f**ked up this case at, and even from, the beginning- they didn't secure the evidence properly.

Guilty ()
Not guilty ()
Undecided ()
Don't care (x)

DocSommer wrote:Guilty ()
Not guilty ()
Undecided ()
Don't care (x)

Fair enough.

Embarrisingly interesting story to follow.
I would do her though....

Gollum's Cock wrote:Embarrisingly interesting story to follow.
I would do her though....

Didn't follow the story closely enough to be able to judge (x)

Dan wrote:Didn't follow the story closely enough to be able to judge (x)

same here ... ...

Reminds me of the Barrymore Pool Party. I've always been sure he knew what happened but kept quiet out of self-preservation. This sounds similar to me.

guilty !
death row for both

Being645 wrote:

Dan wrote:Didn't follow the story closely enough to be able to judge (x)

same here ... ...

Same here, although I think her conviction for perjury was upheld, so her time spent inside was for that offence.

Purple Light wrote:Quite shocked that there's not (that I'm aware of) a thread about this.

Having followed the case closely (yes, because I fancy her) I reckon there's still a tiny bit of doubt to her innocence. The second trial was at least fairer than the joke of a first however. If she is completely innocent then the Italian police, and specifically Giuliano Mignini have got a lot to answer for. IF.

Thoughts?

I guess it shows how the press manipulates you - the way I understood it was that there was a tiny bit of doubt to her guilt, so in dubio pro reo, they had to let her go.
We were obviously reading two different newspapers
Anyway, I will never understand how people in such situations can hire PR agents, write memoirs and present irrelevant "humane" details of their petty lives to the press

DeWinter wrote:Reminds me of the Barrymore Pool Party. I've always been sure he knew what happened but kept quiet out of self-preservation. This sounds similar to me.

Agreed.

*edit to add: it's all very well Knox and her family going on about how they've been put through hell, or whatever it is they said, but FFS Meredith Kercher is dead. And if Amanda Knox didn't kill her, she sure as hell knows a lot more than she's saying.

markfiend wrote: Agreed.

*edit to add: it's all very well Knox and her family going on about how they've been put through hell, or whatever it is they said, but FFS Meredith Kercher is dead. And if Amanda Knox didn't kill her, she sure as hell knows a lot more than she's saying.

Well, didn't Knox admit to perjury anyway? By trying to implicate her boss in the murder? So she's not the most easy person to sympathise with or believe. If we're indulging in pure speculation, if she wasn't involved in the killing, she did something she's clearly unwilling to admit to. I suspect she came across her dead or dying and stole from her. By all accounts there were money rows between them.
In the Barrymore case reading between the lines it was a drugged-up sex party where things got too extreme for the guy who died and when he tried to get away he either fell or was shoved into the pool and drowned. The sight of Barrymore's "poor me" face for years after drove me round the twist with irritation.

About in dubio pro reo- it's prosecutors job to prove, without any- even bit bit of shade- of doubt, that person that we- people, represented by prosecutor- are going to put in jail is guilty. And I'm sorry to hear that some of HLers proudly wearing Human Right Watch togas are for throwing people in jail just because 'it's clear'. If it's clear then why it wasn't proved on level of facts and not on level of emotions?

Bartek wrote:About in dubio pro reo- it's prosecutors job to prove, without any- even bit bit of shade- of doubt, that person that we- people, represented by prosecutor- are going to put in jail is guilty. And I'm sorry to hear that some of HLers proudly wearing Human Right Watch togas are for throwing people in jail just because 'it's clear'. If it's clear then why it wasn't proved on level of facts and not on level of emotions?

You've fallen in love with her have n't you...

Bartek wrote:About in dubio pro reo- it's prosecutors job to prove, without any- even bit bit of shade- of doubt, that person that we- people, represented by prosecutor- are going to put in jail is guilty. And I'm sorry to hear that some of HLers proudly wearing Human Right Watch togas are for throwing people in jail just because 'it's clear'. If it's clear then why it wasn't proved on level of facts and not on level of emotions?

This is very true. I'm sure she did something but I'm glad I wasn't on the jury.

All in all, I think an acquittal is probably the correct verdict.