Amanda Knox Is Innocent

[Jon-of-arc]

No it doesn't follow, what a stupid remark. It simply means the jury didn't think it was proven beyond doubt, it does not mean that at all. Does it mean all the prosecution witnesses are guilty too? If in cases that there is evidence there was a conspiracy/fit up then yes, certainly there should be a rtrial of those who were involved.

Sorry, the prosecution tried to "fit up" an innocent person. Knox is innocent - you have to work from that position now, regardless of your attempts to use semantics in the definition of guilt to imply she may actually be guilty. They made false claims about her in a criminal case.

Anyone who made a false accusation (such as the prosecutor, who I believe stated that knox slit kerchers throat, or Knox, who I believe stated a landlord went into a house...) should do time, according to the system.

 

[Fedayn]

Sorry, the prosecution tried to "fit up" an innocent person. Knox is innocent - you have to work from that position now, regardless of your attempts to use semantics in the definition of guilt to imply she may actually be guilty. They made false claims about her in a criminal case.

Anyone who made a false accusation (such as the prosecutor, who I believe stated that knox slit kerchers throat, or Knox, who I believe stated a landlord went into a house...) should do time, according to the system.

No, it is not true that if someone is found not guilty then there was a de facto attempt to fit someone up. It's a non-sequitor. There are times when the fit-up is and becomes obvious. But to make the idiotic claim that when anyone is found not guilty there is de facto a clear case of attempted fit up is ridiculous.

 

[Gingerman]

Be nice to think she'd disappear into well deserved obscurity but that ain't going to happen,feel sorry for the poor victims family.

 

[Kanda]

feel sorry for the poor victims family.

Isn't someone already convicted of the murder? How many do they need? (assuming it definitely was a wrongful conviction!)

 

[Treacle Toes]

. Knox is innocent - you have to work from that position now,

Nah, none of us really know if she was involved. All today's verdict shows is that there was doubt of her guilt. There is still doubt of her innocence though. The two positions are not mutally exclusive.

 

[Ranbay]

"Yeah but she defo did it, cos the papers said she like dun a cartwheel and stuff"

^

My facebook feed about now

 

[dylans]

Be nice to think she'd disappear into well deserved obscurity but that ain't going to happen,feel sorry for the poor victims family.

Why?
The victims family have justice. The person who really killed their daughter is in prison. It is the people who were wrongly convicted for this crime who are free. Why should this sadden the victim's family? The assumption that the release of wrongly convicted people somehow represents an injustice to the family of a victim is wrong, there is neither justice nor satisfaction to be had in the conviction of the wrong person.

 

[marshall]

Probably the right result, you can't put someone away for 20 odd years on such flimsy, circumstantial evidence. 3/4 years is about right for the slander.

 

[belboid]

why?

mm, because they is no evidence to support it, i guess

 

[Jon-of-arc]

No, it is not true that if someone is found not guilty then there was a de facto attempt to fit someone up. It's a non-sequitor. There are times when the fit-up is and becomes obvious. But to make the idiotic claim that when anyone is found not guilty there is de facto a clear case of attempted fit up is ridiculous.

But they stated emphatically that she slit someones throat with a knife. They didn't know this - they couldn't know this. There should certainly be, in an ideal world, an investigation into why they made such a false claim. Without a good answer (not "we have to present a coherent story otherwise the jury will think we don't actually know what happened..."), then there should be someone standing trial.

I do know this is idealism. I do appreciate that, as previously said, this would undermine the whole justice system. But the fact is that they made some pretty blunt, false claims about knox. It wreaks of willful dishonesty to me.

 

[Jon-of-arc]

Nah, none of us really know if she was involved. All today's verdict shows is that there was doubt of her guilt. There is still doubt of her innocence though. The two positions are not mutally exclusive.

legally, they are certainly exclusive. Innocent until proven guilty, anyone?

 

[Fedayn]

But they stated emphatically that she slit someones throat with a knife. They didn't know this - they couldn't know this. There should certainly be, in an ideal world, an investigation into why they made such a false claim. Without a good answer (not "we have to present a coherent story otherwise the jury will think we don't actually know what happened..."), then there should be someone standing trial.

I do know this is idealism. I do appreciate that, as previously said, this would undermine the whole justice system. But the fact is that they made some pretty blunt, false claims about knox. It wreaks of willful dishonesty to me.

They did what all lawyers do with the evidence they had. There was 10,000 other pages of evidence.....

We know for a fact that Knox and Sollecito lied. We know the investigation was rather poorly conducted. We know what the jury thought of the investigation after some of the facts of the investigation were reveaked and questioned. Thney made the claim because of DNA evidence, that and the knife and the existence of the neck wound makes a rather logical line of attack...

 

[Deareg]

legally, they are certainly exclusive. Innocent until proven guilty, anyone?

The Scots have a Not Proven verdict, which I think this would fall under.

 

[Fedayn]

But they stated emphatically that she slit someones throat with a knife. They didn't know this - they couldn't know this. There should certainly be, in an ideal world, an investigation into why they made such a false claim. Without a good answer (not "we have to present a coherent story otherwise the jury will think we don't actually know what happened..."), then there should be someone standing trial.

I do know this is idealism. I do appreciate that, as previously said, this would undermine the whole justice system. But the fact is that they made some pretty blunt, false claims about knox. It wreaks of willful dishonesty to me.

The logic of your argument would also mean if anyone is found guilty then the defence and their witnesses are de facto liars and perjurers who tried to help someone escape custody.

 

[CyberRose]

Did she hire OJ's lawyer or summat?!

 

[DotCommunist]

I've neve liked the 'not proven' verdict. Either you can convict or you cannot- 'not proven' is just like 'yeah we noes you done it but we can't prove it'. If you can't prove guilt then the verdict should be innocent. Otherwise it is just the judicial equivalent of 'we were right, we just can't actually show how'

 

[Jon-of-arc]

They did what all lawyers do with the evidence they had. There was 10,000 other pages of evidence.....

We know for a fact that Knox and Sollecito lied. We know the investigation was rather poorly conducted. We know what the jury thought of the investigation after some of the facts of the investigation were reveaked and questioned. Thney made the claim because of DNA evidence, that and the knife and the existence of the neck wound makes a rather logical line of attack...

Yeah, I guess I had a vague idea that they would piece together the limited evidence they had to concoct their story. I just feel that if it was as badly investigated as you say, then surely there should, in an ideal world, be an investigation to stop such things happening again. And punishments for those that should have been competent enough to spot the flaws in the case before it got to court, rather than willfully following through with proceedings regardless. Whatever their motives, some innocent peoples lives almost got completely ruined, and probably aren't looking too rosey this evening, despite their result...

Knox and Sollecito and their lies - they done their bird, leave em be. IMO.

 

[Fedayn]

Yeah, I guess I had a vague idea that they would piece together the limited evidence they had to concoct their story. I just feel that if it was as badly investigated as you say, then surely there should, in an ideal world, be an investigation to stop such things happening again. And punishments for those that should have been competent enough to spot the flaws in the case before it got to court, rather than willfully following through with proceedings regardless. Whatever their motives, some innocent peoples lives almost got completely ruined, and probably aren't looking too rosey this evening, despite their result...

Knox and Sollecito and their lies - they done their bird, leave em be. IMO.

Their lies were for a reason, we wikll never know that reason now.

Well that depends on whether there is an appeal to the court of cassation, which if there is might mean an extradition request....

 

[danny la rouge]

The Scots have a Not Proven verdict

It's much misunderstood, though. Originally in Scots Law, you weren't found "guilty" or "innocent", rather the case against you was "Proven" or "Not Proven". When the terms for English Law were thought catchy and grafted onto Scots Law, "Not Proven" was left because it was still thought useful to think in terms of whether the case was a good one or not.

I personally think it'd be more logical to revert to Proven and Not Proven, since that is what a trial is about. It won't happen, though.

 

[DotCommunist]

it is still wank though. fair enough if it was still 'case proven/not proven' but with it remaining as some hinterland between guilty/not guilty the inference is that 'we know you did it. So we'll just say not proven and let the local kids spraypaint 'NONCE' on your door'

 

[danny la rouge]

Probably the right result, you can't put someone away for 20 odd years on such flimsy, circumstantial evidence.

Circumstantial evidence is the best evidence. Fingerprints, DNA etc are circumstantial. Eye witness evidence isn't circumstantial, but is notoriously unreliable. Here, it was the fact that the circumstantial evidence had been contaminated and badly handled that meant the case fell. In other words, it was on the circumstantial evidence that the case stood or fell.

 

[Giles]

So, officially not a diabolical witch then. Well, probably not, anyway.

She'll be a millionairess pretty damn quick now back in the US. The film, TV and book deals will roll in.

Giles..

 

[danny la rouge]

it is still wank though. fair enough if it was still 'case proven/not proven' but with it remaining as some hinterland between guilty/not guilty the inference is that 'we know you did it. So we'll just say not proven and let the local kids spraypaint 'NONCE' on your door'

Not Proven is an aquittal. There is only one conviction verdict.

 

[twentythreedom]

Been watching telly. It's 95% Knox, 5% the rest.... (inc Meredith )

 

[DotCommunist]

Not Proven is an aquittal. There is only one conviction verdict.

I realise this. I'm saying that delivering a 'not proven' rather than a 'not guilty' still infers that the person on trial did it but the prosecution was unable to prove it.

 

[Fedayn]

It's much misunderstood, though. Originally in Scots Law, you weren't found "guilty" or "innocent", rather the case against you was "Proven" or "Not Proven". When the terms for English Law were thought catchy and grafted onto Scots Law, "Not Proven" was left because it was still thought useful to think in terms of whether the case was a good one or not.

I personally think it'd be more logical to revert to Proven and Not Proven, since that is what a trial is about. It won't happen, though.

Imho, either Not proven or innocent should be gotten rid of. Not Proven as we all know up here means we reckon you did it but just haven't got enough evidence to say guilty. It is, as they say, the bastard verdict.

 

[krtek a houby]

Ah, celebrity trials... poor Meredith & her family.

 

[danny la rouge]

I realise this. I'm saying that delivering a 'not proven' rather than a 'not guilty' still infers that the person on trial did it but the prosecution was unable to prove it.

No, it doesn't. Members of the public may infer that from the verdict, but that is a different matter.

If you're asking me whether I'd rather have a Not Guilty verdict, then yes I would, precisely because of what people may infer. I would still prefer that we returned to Proven/Not Proven, but that is what is established, not guilt or innocence.

 

[danny la rouge]

Imho, either Not proven or innocent should be gotten rid of.

Indeed.

 

[DotCommunist]

No, it doesn't. Members of the public may infer that from the verdict, but that is a different matter.

If you're asking me whether I'd rather have a Not Guilty verdict, then yes I would, precisely because of what people may infer. I would still prefer that we returned to Proven/Not Proven, but that is what is established, not guilt or innocence.

it does. Why else would the court hand it out in preference to 'not guilty'?