None of us can say with any certainty how we would respond to being charged with a murder we did not commit.

 

Let's take an example. Let us assume that I am being questioned about a murder I did not commit. If I am asked what I was doing on a given evening a few months earlier, my response would be "I was probably at home". If asked whether I had any proof, I would have to say No as I live alone. Perhaps, several hours or even days later, I might think "Hang on, isn't that the night I went to see a band". So, I change my story. Does that make me guilty?

 

That might be the case if the nurder hadn't happened in your OWN home. In an instance like that I really think you'd recollect every single minute of that night. Especially if you're bring questioned about it the very same night or following morning.

That might be the case if the nurder hadn't happened in your OWN home. In an instance like that I really think you'd recollect every single minute of that night. Especially if you're bring questioned about it the very same night or following morning.

Again, it's impossible to say. Finding a murder victim in your home must be a pretty shocking experience for anyone.

That might be the case if the nurder hadn't happened in your OWN home. In an instance like that I really think you'd recollect every single minute of that night. Especially if you're bring questioned about it the very same night or following morning.

In a Foreign language though?

In a Foreign language though?

 

She speaks - and spoke back then - fluent Italian - and also, you really think an American national would be questioned in a foreign police statuon over a murder WITHOUT an interpreter? Especially a foreign national as rich as Knox.

 

Interesting to read today it looks like Knox is going on the Oprah show - for a large payment no doubt - and she also kept a daily diary of her ordeal - which undoubtedly will be touted round to the highest bidder.

 

And I agree finding someone dead in your own flat MUST be a shocking, horrific experience - but one which would blank your memory about your whereabouts on the night that it happened......?

I really don't think anyone can say how we would react. It's perfectly feasible that she was in a state of shock and could barely remember her own name.

 

Why not accept that, in the eyes of the law, she is innocent. Therefore, she has spent four years of her life banged up for something she didn't do. Of course, it might help if she gave some of the money to victim support charities in the UK and Italy.

... the law, quite often, is an ass - and like I said earlier, she's been released because they can't find her 100% guilty. But they can't find her 100% innocent, either - at the very least, she was a knowing, willing accomplice who was either involved in the murder or who willingly covered up the facts of what happened that awful night..... and, again like I said earlier, surely NOW is the time to tell the truth.

But, in any civilised judicial system, it is for the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. That is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The simple reason for that is that it is usually impossible to prove innocence. I cannot prove that I didn't kill Meredith Kircher.

But, in any civilised judicial system, it is for the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. That is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The simple reason for that is that it is usually impossible to prove innocence. I cannot prove that I didn't kill Meredith Kircher.

 

 

Exactly, you cant prove a negative.. Which is why the onus is on the prosecution to prove a positive... It's "Beyond Reasonable Doubt" for a damn good reason...

 

You see, the Scottish Legal system has a very sensible outlook, we have a "Not Proven" verdict, basically "well, you might have done it, but the evidence simply isn't there to convict you"... And that's what you have here with Amanda Knox if you ask me - NOT PROVEN... Unfortunately because just about every other legal system in the world looks at everything with ridiculous "Black and White" extremes, you either get "Innocent" or "Guilty"...

We do have a vastly different system up here, the Not Proven verdict should be replicated world wide.

 

 

If you can't prove guilt beyond a shred of doubt then you should not convict.

We do have a vastly different system up here, the Not Proven verdict should be replicated world wide.

If you can't prove guilt beyond a shred of doubt then you should not convict.

 

Indeed...

If you can't prove guilt beyond a shred of doubt then you should not convict.

 

now THAT'S a black and white legal system - because many many crimes are simply impossible to prove 100% despite it being 99.9999% certain that that person is guilty.

 

Under this sytem, there'd be a lot of smug murderers walking the streets. And tonight, in America, there actually IS a particularly smug murderer walking the streets thanks to a messy investigation by police who simply weren't up to the job.

now THAT'S a black and white legal system - because many many crimes are simply impossible to prove 100% despite it being 99.9999% certain that that person is guilty.

 

Under this sytem, there'd be a lot of smug murderers walking the streets. And tonight, in America, there actually IS a particularly smug murderer walking the streets thanks to a messy investigation by police who simply weren't up to the job.

 

Maybe she is, maybe she isn't, we'll simply never know because of the police botch-job... So, who's to blame for that then..? The police or Amanda Knox...? I say the Police... Just like the racist cop who planted evidence against O J Simpson... The Police are all too often their own worst enemies, and just dont seem to "get it".... Which is why Policing clearly needs some kind of serious reform all across the board.... Not only are they fitting up innocent people, they're doing stupid shite that may be getting apparently "guilty" people off the hook....

 

now THAT'S a black and white legal system - because many many crimes are simply impossible to prove 100% despite it being 99.9999% certain that that person is guilty.

 

Under this sytem, there'd be a lot of smug murderers walking the streets. And tonight, in America, there actually IS a particularly smug murderer walking the streets thanks to a messy investigation by police who simply weren't up to the job.

The phrase is "beyond reasonable doubt". Therefore, if a juror is 99.9999% certain of guilt, they can conclude that that is beyond reasonable doubt.

The phrase is "beyond reasonable doubt". Therefore, if a juror is 9.9999% certain of guilt, they can conclude that that is beyond reasonable doubt.

*cough*move the decimal point*cough*

 

 

But yes, you are quite right.

*cough*move the decimal point*cough*

But yes, you are quite right.

Oops :lol: The decimal point was in the right place but there was a 9 missing before it. It's there now!

I've just spent all night researching the case, and then watching a couple of documentaries that have aired following the Italian High Court finding the pair of them guilty on appeal. Now there's one final appeal - with Amanda staying in America, whilst Raphael tried to flee.

 

It really is such a botched up case. The forensic team made some horrific errors that may lead the family to never fully knowing what happened. Whilst a lot of the evidence is inconclusive, my personal opinion is that the both of them are guilty. Just so many things that happened, but of course they can't all be proved due to forensic errors. She really is an interesting character - certainly not all there. Her actions throughout the trial were odd, and since she's really played up to the way her PR team presented her to the public. They lack a motive though, although Amanda not being fully there could count as one I guess.

 

The BBC 3 documentary was really interesting, especially covering facts about the person that has already been found guilty.