If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Amanda Knox Guilty!
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
I was just watching the news about the Amanda Knox trial,she's just been found guilty but accord to this news program most of America believe she is innocent,according to the American's she has been fitted up by the Italian and UK media,and the Italian police.
They are trying to say that if the trial was held in America she would have been found innocent!
So what does every1 else think?
Innocent or guilty?
My opinion is she is as guilty as sin,and from the evidence that ive heard about I thou there would be no disputing that fact.
They are trying to say that if the trial was held in America she would have been found innocent!
So what does every1 else think?
Innocent or guilty?
My opinion is she is as guilty as sin,and from the evidence that ive heard about I thou there would be no disputing that fact.
0
Comments
So presuming that you're not an actual juror on the case, your opinion that she's "guilty as sin" is based on the media reports, and I think that that really supports the argument that the trial as it was held could have been open to juror bias, as the jurors would have been subject to the same media.
The argument behind it being a different verdict in the US was, I believe, that there would have been a media blackout or a sequestered jury.
I can see no justification for your certainty that she is 'guilty as sin'. I don't know whether she did it or not, but I know a lot of the information that we have been told about her has been interpreted to sound pretty fucking sinister when it's the normal behaviour or most 20 year olds - she liked having sex, she took drugs every now and then. Hardly makes her a sex obsessed blood thirsty monster.
No, murdering someone did. :rolleyes:
:rolleyes: right back at ya.
The point is, the OP asked us if we think she is a murderer. I don't know, as I wasn't on the jury.
All I know is what the media has told me about her sexual appetite, her party lifestyle etc. And this information hardly equips me, or anyone, to know whether she's a murderer or not, so it's pretty pointless to ask a load of people on a messageboard whether you think Amanda Knox is a murderer or not.
Who am I to say who did what? And to be honest, until they cover every single murder, I am not taking pitty on just one.
Xx
That's the nature of mass media. Jamelia, I'm sure the media have painted a portrait of her that is less than flattering. However, she is a murderer that much has been proven. Wether we believe the evidence or not, the jury did.
However, surely any person capable of reasoning can see the difference between the two propositions:
1. Person X is a murderer
2. A jury has convicted person X of murder
Those two things don't always go hand in hand. The truth of 2 doesn't entail the truth of 1. So just because she's been convicted, doesn't mean I can now be said to know that she's a murderer.
And re: the media, it's not just that it's been unflattering. Why haven't we noticed that another person was also convicted yesterday along with Amanda Knox?
ETA: To say "that's the nature of mass media" is a pretty depressing and defeatist attitude. If the media has adversely afected the impartiality of the trial, then that's a bad thing.
Broken Angel - I pretty much agree, and it's often attributed to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_white_woman_syndrome
And the fact she has been found guilty by jury and is a convicted murderer. Obviously your opinion is that it was an unsafe conviction?
Which of course can said for any conviction by jury.
And fact it's got so much press is because it's a interesting story. People wantt o read about it, and Amanda Knox is an interesting story. You may find it depressing but that's people for you - your one of them, discussing it here and putting your opinions across,
Probably on a coke session, she turns round to him offering out a threesome with her (fit) housemate. What's he, a red blooded male, gonna say? Fucking fuck yes!
She gets on it, getting to work on the English bird, she obviously ain't as onto it as the American or her fella, politely refuses. No big loss, fellas a bit gutted but hey ho, another day. But no, she's fuelled up on coke and obviously got her mind on it, won't accept no for an answer. Has another go, probably takes her aside, one on one, for a few cheeky lines and an intimate chat. English keeps the peace but says honestly, I'm not up for it. Horny, coked up American takes offence, rages and tells fella "I'm gonna kill that fucking bitch in a minute"
Before matey boy knows it his missus is running at English bird with a fuck off knife and has cut her throat, whoah. :eek2:
Italian freaked the fuck out, what the FUCK have you done! Agrees to help conceal the crime as best he can because lets face it he's gonna get screwed for being the one who provided class A drugs into the scenario, also, while a bit weirded the fuck out, doesn't want to see his missus do time. In a drug fuelled frenzy they decide, along with the dealer, to help create a scenario of a half-assed break-in, possibly (probably) following everything American bird suggests. Inevitable, they all get screwed.
Matey boy goes from the elation of the idea of a threesome with 2 fit birds, to 26 years in the pen! What a year. Dark. :nervous:
No. I don't know how many times I have to state this for it to be clear - I wasn't on the jury, so am in no position to have an opinion either way.
Of course. Which is why I think it would be pretty pointless to ask a load of people on a messageboard whether they think anyone who has been convicted of a crime is guilty. Unless you were on the jury, or a witness, we can't know.
Yeah, see it's stuff like this that makes me think the media coverage of this case hasn't exactly been helpful.
Three people convicted of murder, yet somehow only one of them gets painted as guilty! And you seem to think her boyfriend was a poor innocent victim in it all too! Ludicrous.
Sorry, where exactly did you get all that from? Your imagination?
So I'll shift it over.
I haven't read much of the UK media, but today's Mirror seemed fairly critical of the trial, pointing out evidence that would've been thrown out of a UK court.
You either thinks it's safe conviction and that she is a murderer or you don't. You onviously think it's unsafe then.
Of course we can all have an opinion. I don't have to have been on the jury at the Rosemary West trial to have the opinion that she's a murderer ffs.
No, the media interest has been in Knox. All three were found guilty in a court of law.
As I've said repeatedly, no, I don't.
There's an alternative both to believing p, and to believing not-p, and that is, withholding judgment, choosing not to believe either because you're not sure which way the evidence lies.
I don't believe in deferring my own judgment entirely to the judgments of others, so that as soon as a jury convicts someone, I can now be said to know that that person is guilty.
However, I can hold that position without needing to think that the conviction was unsafe.
But since the jury will have exposed to the media coverage too, I do think there are reasons to be concerned, especially given the absolute load of shite z0ma spouted which seemed to be all the workings of his lurid imagination. He won't be the only one influenced by the media coverage in such a way.
So does that apply with all convictions? As far as you are concerned Rosemary West may well be innocent?
You choose not to believe in something or have an opinion on something unless you have seen all the evidence yourself. How dull.
You think Zoma was being serious?
There's nothing dull about it, it's just being an intelligent and thoughtful reasoner. You choose to believe in things without making sure you have sufficient warrant for that belief? How irrational.
It's just a logical truism; we cannot deduce "P is true" from the fact that "lots of people believe P". Therefore, that other people believe P to be true, doesn't mean that I know P to be true. Anyone who disagrees with that has given up thinking.
I've got no idea whether Zoma was being serious or not. It's not really important. What is important is that there are probably a lot of people out there who hold opinions like the one he is professing to hold, and would let those opinions influence their judgment about the facts of the case.
Im quite suprised at the change of the womans clothing, at the start of her trial its almost as if she didnt give a toss, only dressing up appropriately towards the end of the trial. If she had any common sense, she would have dressed properly from the begining. I know people shouldnt judge a trial on the merits of someones clothing, but who can hold their hands up and honestly say it wouldnt have made even the littlest of difference?
As for people bleating about "dodgy evidence", you'd be half-forgiven for thinking she'd been tried in a dictatorship rather than under the Italian legal system.
Fair enough but as you say you can still have an opinion. To suggest that we shouldn't be be airing our opinions on the case simply because we wern't there is absurd.
Sorry? Where have I done this?
In this particular case I dont theink the convciction is safe at all, but from what I've seen my gut reaction is that she is guilty. Now I recognise that I may be wrong but whats the harm in me having that opinion?
And this rational thing again. It's ok to be irrational sometimes you know, to have emotions and gut feelings. We're not fucking robots.
Of course but don't think anybody here is doing that.
I would suggest however that rightful convictions are more common that wrongful ones. Whislt recognising that wrongful convictions do happen I don't think it's unreasonable to have the opinion that somebody found guilty by jury is more than likely to have commited that crime.
Despite it's faults, I do believe in the criminal justice system. Do you?
So?
As long as they're not on the jury.
Your gut reaction? And what's influenced that? The media reports, and the character assassination of her and her portrayal as some kind of she-devil.
If you want to trust your gut reaction and your emotions on this, that's your call I guess. But in my opinion, my gut feelings and my emotional response to the case are likely to be pretty unreliable, tainted as they are by the media influence.
We might not be fucking robots, but it's generally speaking a good idea, when we put people away for 26 years, that we do it on the basis of good reasons and solid evidence, and not because we have a gut feeling that someone is guilty because we've heard she is filthy and depraved and sex-obsessed.
And yes, I believe in the criminal justice system. I also think it can get it wrong sometimes. So who knows?
The fact she lied and implicated somebody an innocent party in the murder. That's not sensationalist media bollocks that's a fact.
I wouldn't trust it enough to send somebody to prison for it. But I'm not, I've been asked my opinion on a message board ffs.
I quite agree, but neither you or I are responsible for convicting her. Seeing as we are never likely to hear the evidence in such detail the jury has, are we never allowed to have an opinion on the case and her guilt?
I don't want to see sombedy locked up by an influenced jury, but I fail to see the problem in each of us having an opinion. You seem to think that's wrong, that we should never specualte on a conviction which I find absurd.
And it's quite clear from youyr posts that you do think it's an unsafe conviction. As do I. Still doesn't mean she innocent. I think the Italians dropped bollock to be honest, I think the character assasination by media might well mean her appeal is successful.
I don't think we'll ever know the truth, whats the harm in you and I speculating?