Looks like they have both been acquitted.
It's really sad the way nearly all the press attention is on Knox - guess the press like the femme fatale aspect. Just hope she doesn't start to cash in on this now she's been freed.
Feel sorry for the Kercher family though who must be devastated that they still have no real answer to what actually happened.
Also a massive fail from the Daily Mail who initially posted an online story that the appeal had been rejected.
http://twitpic.com/6upmbq
The Italian police screwed up BIG TIME with their evidence collection process and poor preservation of the crime scene. They should be sued by the Kercher family.
I still have thei gut feeling that Knox was heavily involved somehow though. She's probably working on selling the film rights to the story now.
Never thought they were guilty from the beginning, the poor girl had a career criminal's semen inside her, they had no possible motive and 3 people couldn't have slit her throat
I too do not feel they are innocent but I don’t think we will ever know the true extent of their involvement.Originally Posted by The Hack
A young girl was raped and murdered. little seems to be mentioned in the media about Meredith Kercher.
My thoughts are now for the family, what they have gone through must be devastating.
I think the majority of people probably think they had something to do with it - but then we seem to be quite cynical in this country about these sort of events and tend to assume the worst of people.
The forensic evidence against them both did seem to be quite suspect - whether it was police ineptitude or not though I guess we'll have to wait and see.
Meanwhile there's a bit more furore about the Daily Mail making up quotes and facts for their 'guilty' online story they posted - http://tabloid-watch.blogspot.com/2011/ ... -from.html
And unbelievably the Wright Stuff apparently posed the question this morning - Foxy Knoxy. Would Ya? - :shock:
Never been a big fan of their brand of 'journalism' and even less so after their recent involvement in the phone hacking scandal - which they seem to have got off with relatively lightly :?
I always though they were innocent. The media hype around the trial was horrible and the police were heavy handed in their approach to secure a quick conviction. the facts are quite clear - The police were corrupt, there was never any clear evidence, nor motive, a complete shambles in dealing weith the crime scene & so much media hype around the case. I'm sincerely happy that they have finally got their lives back. One man is behind bars for the crime who was clearly guilty.
+1
and if Ms Knox makes a few bucks out of her story will that compensate her for losing 4 years to an incompetent system? I think Knox should squeeze every dollar out of this that she can. The media who will be quick to judge her already have.
Why is anyone surprised, The Daily Mail has always been just one step behind the 'News of the World' , the difference is it's always concentrated on 'blame Europe' or 'blame the government' (whoever is in power) and, most of all then 'blame the.........'**
** Insert ethnic/social minority of your choice here.
DM's header today is that she is free to make money now....Yea! thats the first thing we all thought of! NOT!!!
She was found guilty of slander and jailed for three years - but freed on time served. Not the innocent miss.
Excellent point Sir - so not innocent - she was very happy to state her boss was responsible.
personally I think she got off on a technicality (as per OJ) and she is a guilty as sin - especially as the guy who confessed to the murder (doing 16 years) told the police that she (and that other waste of skin) was there at the time.
Once again proving the US justice can be secured if you spend enough money on it.
My thoughts go out to the Karcher family - to lose a daughter like this is bad enough, but then to see these 2 acquitted must be heart breaking. Hopefully the true will come out and they can sue her arse.
Andy
Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all.
Friedrich Nietzsche
...after serving 4 years, so how does she get that one back? And what does 'guilty of slander mean'? Ah yes, it means guilty of slander, nothing else. So not quite a murderer then?
...after serving 4 years, so how does she get that one back? And what does 'guilty of slander mean'? Ah yes, it means guilty of slander, nothing else. So not quite a murderer then?
She told the police that her boss ( who had just become a father) had committed the crime. Had the police taken her word for it he would now be doing a long stretch. Also whilst they were investigating this they were not investigating what she was up to. So you can add wasting police time and perventing to course of justice.
As for getting her 4 years back - who gives a crap - think about the victim.
Andy
Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all.
Friedrich Nietzsche
What you seem to be very willing to overlook is that the police and the prosecution should rely on evidence and not "take her word for it". The "technicality" on which she got off, referred to by an earlier poster is a rather fundamental one - lack of evidence. So what are you judging her on? The fact that you just happen to know better? As a final point, the victim is no better off regardless of the outcome of this appeal. And yes, we should give a crap if someone is wrongly imprisoned....after serving 4 years, so how does she get that one back? And what does 'guilty of slander mean'? Ah yes, it means guilty of slander, nothing else. So not quite a murderer then?
She told the police that her boss ( who had just become a father) had committed the crime. Had the police taken her word for it he would now be doing a long stretch. Also whilst they were investigating this they were not investigating what she was up to. So you can add wasting police time and perventing to course of justice.
As for getting her 4 years back - who gives a crap - think about the victim.
Andy
But it's only 'lack of evidence' because of the appeal. At the trial the evidence was good enough to convict her.
That does seem to be a fundamental failing of the Italian appeals process.
The defence only had to attack the weakest DNA evidence and ignore all the other stronger evidence that secured the conviction in the first place.
It's got to be easy to come up with an element of reasonable doubt in that case.
Not true, he told the German police when he was arrested that they were not in the house
Excellent point Sir - so not innocent - she was very happy to state her boss was responsible.
personally I think she got off on a technicality (as per OJ) and she is a guilty as sin - especially as the guy who confessed to the murder (doing 16 years) told the police that she (and that other waste of skin) was there at the time.
To quote MSNBC:
Excellent point Sir - so not innocent - she was very happy to state her boss was responsible.
personally I think she got off on a technicality (as per OJ) and she is a guilty as sin - especially as the guy who confessed to the murder (doing 16 years) told the police that she (and that other waste of skin) was there at the time.
Once again proving the US justice can be secured if you spend enough money on it.
My thoughts go out to the Karcher family - to lose a daughter like this is bad enough, but then to see these 2 acquitted must be heart breaking. Hopefully the true will come out and they can sue her arse.
Andy
"The jury had two options to acquit: determining there wasn't enough evidence to uphold the conviction or that the pair simply didn't commit the crime. The jury determined the latter, clearing Knox and Sollecito completely."
The acquittal was not based on a technicality, rather it was a statement that the police and prosecutors made a bogus case. The prosecution's theories of the crime were made up of whole cloth: 1. "a cult sacrifice"; 2. "a sex game gone wrong"; 3. "the victim "refused to participate in an orgy"; 4. "Knox stole money from Kercher to pay Guede for drugs, and that Kercher walked in at the wrong time and was sexually assaulted and murdered"; 5. "the prosecution stated that "Knox was easily given to disliking people with whom she disagreed and the time had come to take revenge on Kercher"; 6. the prosecution theorised that she fell victim to "a rage caused by smoking marijuana".
Rolling Stone, quoting a prosecutor as stating "[w]e live in an age of violence with no motive," reported that the prosecutors could not prove either motive or intent.
To quote the great Clouseau: "He who don't know nothing, must know something, eh?"
As i understand the slander was due to the fact that she accused the police of beating her to confess.
She was only convicted on the smallest piece of DNA evidence and this has been proven to be contaminated beyond belief.
If there is not enough evidence to convict then to me she is proven Innocent
Personaly I dont know if she was guilty or not but the Police have definatly cocked up somewhere. Worst case scenario the murderer is walking away and best case some poor innocent girl has just been robbed of 4 years of her life.
You seem to have overlooked the fact that she was found guity at the original trial. Also there was considerable evidence, however the defence spent 10 month discrediting it using "improper procedures" as their main defence. As for the victim not being better off - fair point, however in which case why bother having a trial - what's the point the victim is dead :roll:What you seem to be very willing to overlook is that the police and the prosecution should rely on evidence and not "take her word for it". The "technicality" on which she got off, referred to by an earlier poster is a rather fundamental one - lack of evidence. So what are you judging her on? The fact that you just happen to know better? As a final point, the victim is no better off regardless of the outcome of this appeal. And yes, we should give a crap if someone is wrongly imprisoned....after serving 4 years, so how does she get that one back? And what does 'guilty of slander mean'? Ah yes, it means guilty of slander, nothing else. So not quite a murderer then?
She told the police that her boss ( who had just become a father) had committed the crime. Had the police taken her word for it he would now be doing a long stretch. Also whilst they were investigating this they were not investigating what she was up to. So you can add wasting police time and perventing to course of justice.
As for getting her 4 years back - who gives a crap - think about the victim.
Andy
As for giving a crap about people being wrongly imprisioned - I do - on the basis they are innocent, however in regards to these two I believe they were in some way involved therefore guilty. However I do accept between believing someone is guilty and being abole to proof it - OJ simpson being an excellent example.
FYI - do you remember George Davis. If you do I would image you would have been very upbeat about his release, however did you know that - two years later he was back inside for armed robbery and following his release in 1984 was again jailed in 1987 for guess what...................... armed robbery. :D
Quite a few "wrongly convicted" people are in fact guilty - but you rarely hear the bleeding hearts banging on about that, nor to you hear the bleeding hearts banging on about all those people who are found not guilty (but who actually committed the crime) because they had a clever lawyer or got off on a technicality.
To me justice is binary they either did it or they did'nt - and in regards to Knox I believe she was involved even if she did not cut the girl's throat - interesting the Italian Police still maintain that 3 people were involved in her murder. So any idea's who the other two were???
Andy
Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all.
Friedrich Nietzsche
There are none so blind that they can't still read the Daily Mail :roll:
Sadly it looks like the original Italian prosecutor had a vivid imagination. The original crime scene was hoplessly contaminated by local police. The investigation was a joke and not conducted by the right people. Italian justice system has been put under a spotlight and found wanting.
There is a principle to which I cling which is that there must be proof beyond all reasonable doubt to find a person guilty. That proof was missing in this case, for whatever reason, but I can't bring myself to think that this young woman was such a master criminal that she carefully orchastrated the destruction of evidence by the local police in the crucial first hours.
You can imagine conversation with future boyfriends!
Want to play a game?
No im fine can we just cuddle!
RIAC
Andy, whilst there's merit to some of what you say, there's also no reason to compare Knox to the likes of Davis - a career criminal.You seem to have overlooked the fact that she was found guity at the original trial. Also there was considerable evidence, however the defence spent 10 month discrediting it using "improper procedures" as their main defence. As for the victim not being better off - fair point, however in which case why bother having a trial - what's the point the victim is dead :roll:What you seem to be very willing to overlook is that the police and the prosecution should rely on evidence and not "take her word for it". The "technicality" on which she got off, referred to by an earlier poster is a rather fundamental one - lack of evidence. So what are you judging her on? The fact that you just happen to know better? As a final point, the victim is no better off regardless of the outcome of this appeal. And yes, we should give a crap if someone is wrongly imprisoned....after serving 4 years, so how does she get that one back? And what does 'guilty of slander mean'? Ah yes, it means guilty of slander, nothing else. So not quite a murderer then?
She told the police that her boss ( who had just become a father) had committed the crime. Had the police taken her word for it he would now be doing a long stretch. Also whilst they were investigating this they were not investigating what she was up to. So you can add wasting police time and perventing to course of justice.
As for getting her 4 years back - who gives a crap - think about the victim.
Andy
As for giving a crap about people being wrongly imprisioned - I do - on the basis they are innocent, however in regards to these two I believe they were in some way involved therefore guilty. However I do accept between believing someone is guilty and being abole to proof it - OJ simpson being an excellent example.
FYI - do you remember George Davis. If you do I would image you would have been very upbeat about his release, however did you know that - two years later he was back inside for armed robbery and following his release in 1984 was again jailed in 1987 for guess what...................... armed robbery. :D
Quite a few "wrongly convicted" people are in fact guilty - but you rarely hear the bleeding hearts banging on about that, nor to you hear the bleeding hearts banging on about all those people who are found not guilty (but who actually committed the crime) because they had a clever lawyer or got off on a technicality.
To me justice is binary they either did it or they did'nt - and in regards to Knox I believe she was involved even if she did not cut the girl's throat - interesting the Italian Police still maintain that 3 people were involved in her murder. So any idea's who the other two were???
Andy
There was never any clear motive, the evidence was tainted at best, and they had a guy in custody that had clearly raped poor Meredith and was almost certainly guilty of her murder. I see the references to three people at the scene as nothing more than a red herring and the consequence of police incompetence.
I didn't think for a moment that the appeal would fail, and I'm very glad, in fact, that it didn't. Hopefully there'll also be appropriate compensation for unnecessary suffering to follow.
Taking the point above - justice is blind - there is no reason not to compare the Davis and Knox cases as both appeals were undertaken under the media spot light and both parties were finally found not guilty. What however does surprise me is that at the same time this case was taking place a guy was being executed in the US for killing a police officer, even though 5 out of the 7 eye witness recanted their statements and that someone else have said they had committed the crime. The biggest difference perhaps that this person in question was a black man and that Knox was a white woman. So perhaps justice is not some blind afterall.
Also ask yourself this question
What would have been the outcome if Knox had not been a white attractive US citizen - perhaps polish, spanish even italian - do you believe that the appeal would have been sucessful??
And finally - as a result of the job the defence did on the evidence, the guy who was actually convicted of the murder is now asking for an retrial - and its possible he might walk. Now that real justice :twisted:
I hope for the Karcher family's sake that Knox is innocent, however for me personally a question mark will always remain.
Andy
Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all.
Friedrich Nietzsche
Why? The original investigation and trial was totally botched. The prosecutor is seemingly obsessed with finding satanic conspiracies in every murder he investigates, builds his cases on that basis and was actually serving a 16 month suspended sentence at the time of the trial. Knox's confession was obtained by the same prosecutor following 14 straight hours of interrogation, without a professional translator being present, and without being filmed, taped or otherwise recorded. The forensic evidence that the prosecution relied on to place both Knox and Sollecito at the scene was denied independant testing by the original trial judge for no other reason than he felt like it, and a known criminal, whose DNA was all over the murder scene is serving a prison sentence for the murder that was halved on appeal once he had implicated Knox and Sollecito. The only question i can see here is why were they convicted in the first place?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote