Guilty or not?
I think she will loose appeal anyone else?
Guilty or not?
I think she will loose appeal anyone else?
Bloody hell she got off!
There's a turnaround, I guess the police messed up on this one. Unless of course she was really set up
If you want your dreams to come true ...... first you have to wake up
nothing surprises me now, when OJ Simpson and Jackson got off
The film will be out before Easter
Why do people say, 'She/he got off' when a person is acquitted, or as in the case, the appeal against conviction succeeds? That supposes that the person is guilty and that they got away with the crime.
How can anyone who has not been privy to all the evidence and had professional guidance on how to interpreter it, have the temerity to 'out guess' the process and give their guess as to what should have happened.
In this case, my sympathy goes out to the innocent couple who were wrongly convicted and wrongly imprisoned for several years. If they now get some money for their story, good for them.
We are allowed to voice our opinion John and mine based on what I have seen and heard is that I think they 'did it' and have got away with it.
Now I could be wrong and in that case they deserve compensation but alas this will no doubt be made into books,films etc.
Meanwhile if they are innocent we have a murderer prowling about and of course a very sad family who's daughter's life was taken away so callously
Doubt they will be making lot's of money from film and publishing rights.
les it it is correct they did not commit the murder which imo they did not commit the murder then there is no murderer on the prowl as they have already got person convicted of murder. He has been sentenced to sixteen years a lighter sentence for co operating. Many people believe he was a sole murderer
Les, Whilst every does have the right in general to their opinion, what you are saying, is that everyone also has the right to say/ publish, what ever they like about anyone, based on anything they have guessed, imagined, dreamed etc. That would normally amount to slander and or libel, both of which are legally actionable.
Also at least in UK, everyone also has the right to presumed innocent until proven guilty. Knox has not been proven guilty surely she has the right to be presumed innocent.
If you or I were in that position I don't think we would be standing up for the right to be called a liar and murderer.
Steve quote:- les it it is correct they did not commit the murder which imo they did not commit the murder then there is no murderer on the prowl as they have already got person convicted of murder. He has been sentenced to sixteen years a lighter sentence for co operating. Many people believe he was a sole murderer
Exercising my right to express my opinion (thanks Les) I would not be surprised if it were discovered that the guy who admitted the murder, falsely implicated Knox and her BF, to attract a lighter sentence.
I don't say anyone can say exactly what they like at all,I'm saying in my opinion I'm not convinced they are innocent.
You have just contradicted yourself John by expressing your opinion that the guy who admitted the murder possibly falsely implicated Knox.
Easy done isn't it
Re 'my opinion' I did show that I was following your line(and I had agreed we have the right to our opinion, but not to libel or slander anyone in expressing it) but I was not saying that a person who had not been proved guilty was wrongly acquitted, but commenting on evidence given by a person who had pleaded guilty to murder.Originally Posted by les_taxi
I don't say anyone can say exactly what they like at all,I'm saying in my opinion I'm not convinced they are innocent.
You have just contradicted yourself John by expressing your opinion that the guy who admitted the murder possibly falsely implicated Knox.
Easy done isn't it
I have mixed feelings on this one.
A most unlikely crime for a female to commit is my gut instinct.
It should also serve as a warning to our kids and young people in general to be more fussy about the company they keep.
Having a laugh there are we John......
If you want your dreams to come true ...... first you have to wake up
if she is innocent now, why was she found guilty at the first trial ? also look at the OJ trial and Micheal jacksons trial, the defence going thru everything with a fine tooth comb, just looking to put doubt in peoples minds.
If you got the money and the influence you can challenge anything
they should not have been found guilty the first time if you watched the trial. The whole case was based on dna that wasn't visible to the naked eye on a knife that didn't fit the wounds. The other lad was fitted up 6 weeks later with a bra clip that was supposed to have been present during the murder with blood everywhere but had no blood on it and wasn't discovered for 6 weeks after the murder scene had been cleared...duh!!!
there has been others imprisoned for crimes they didnt commit here and abroad,
it must be a terrible experience for her to have gone through as an innocent person.
i wonder if any of us could imagine what it must be like to be banged up for something you didnt do,
i bet Les thinks Dr Murray is innocent ....
i'm sure his defence team only have a qualification in stupidity!!
The prosecution are appealling the verdict
they don't have a choice, they are trying to save face, but as the judge pointed out yesterday, they have no evidence.
The only reason Knox was guilty of slander and made to pay compensation is just for them to save a bit of face
What! He is as guilty as hell as was in my humble opinion,Oj,Simpson,Michael Jackson,and I still think Knox and boyfriendi bet Les thinks Dr Murray is innocent ....
i'm sure his defence team only have a qualification in stupidity!!
MJ was never guilty, no evidence (unless you count the witness who was a proven liar, and discredited and has since admitted he made it up to get money ) ... proven TWICE ... that was a witch-hunt by one muppet. If you read the court summaries of each, no evidence.... hence he was found not guilty as no other decision could have been reached.
OJ on the other hand did it but was proven not guilty, however he got his karma in Vegas
Keith - Administrator
anyone who has that many locks on their bedroom door and shares their bed with kids must have something to hideMJ was never guilty, no evidence (unless you count the witness who was a proven liar, and discredited and has since admitted he made it up to get money ) ... proven TWICE ... that was a witch-hunt by one muppet. If you read the court summaries of each, no evidence.... hence he was found not guilty as no other decision could have been reached.
OJ on the other hand did it but was proven not guilty, however he got his karma in Vegas
i've only seen more locks on your wallet scouser Keith
Nothing against Michael Jackson great music artist and I love his early stuff but what a fruitcake.
Best mate was a chimp,bit too close for comfort with kids,dangled his own kid out of balcony window,thought he was Elisabeth Taylor etc etc
Don't forget he paid 15 million dollars to settle child molestation case
Never could understand if he was not guilty why would he pay it,to me it confirms guilt.
Hung his kid over a balcony.... wow, childs play compared with what we do with our scouse kids when they are young
Paying off doesn't mean guilt, if you've got the money and want to get rid of some hassle you use it... plus, and more importantly, the lad involved, now grown up, has since Jacko's death admitted he was forced to to lie by his mother to get money and nothing actually happened with MJ.
Keith - Administrator
Jackson was a vile creature, Joe & Les summed it up, he did more than look up little boys trouser legs.
Keith - Administrator
no wonder there was no proof, when you had that many locks on your door, even thou your living in a mansion with security guards
For whatever reason, Jacko was definitely
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
