Monroe Transfer 0 Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 Will they get compo for being locked up for four years on weak evidence? I think they're entitled to $500k compensation or something like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenL 0 Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 Is that it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 36852 Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 She's gonna make millions man. The $500k is gonna be a drop in the ocean compared to what she gets from book deals, TV appearances and the rest of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeys Fist 39472 Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 Let's say she'll make $10-20 million from all the above mentioned. Would anyone here do 4 years inside if you knew you were going to get £ 5-10 million at the end? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McFaul 35 Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 She's been branded as "Foxy Knoxy"?? More like Scotchy Knoxy, I don't find her that attractive at all, probably look decent with some war paint on but nowt special. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 36852 Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 4 Let's say she'll make $10-20 million from all the above mentioned. Would anyone here do 4 years inside if you knew you were going to get £ 5-10 million at the end? It's not just 4 years inside though really, is it? Until last night they were looking at 26 years. Not sure I'd want to do the 4 years thinking that my life was effectively over, cos that has to take a psychological toll if you're innocent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 27300 Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 Rightly or wrongly, I think there'll always be some doubt in a lot of people's minds regarding her innocence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lake Bells tits 1 Posted October 4, 2011 Author Share Posted October 4, 2011 hm, 4 years in prison and social stigma for life - and 5-10 million in return...hmm.. Fuck it - hoy that bag of cash over.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McFaul 35 Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 4Let's say she'll make $10-20 million from all the above mentioned. Would anyone here do 4 years inside if you knew you were going to get £ 5-10 million at the end? It's not just 4 years inside though really, is it? Until last night they were looking at 26 years. Not sure I'd want to do the 4 years thinking that my life was effectively over, cos that has to take a psychological toll if you're innocent. Good point. I was in police cells for 6 hours in August, and I paced round that cell like a dog chasing its' tail and it had a psychological impact on me. I can't imagine how it must feel knowing you'll never get out, I think I'd rather be dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McFaul 35 Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 hm, 4 years in prison and social stigma for life - and 5-10 million in return...hmm.. Fuck it - hoy that bag of cash over.. Just two neets oot in Oslo that though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 36852 Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 If I was guilty, I'd definitely take the 4 years and the 10mill btw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 36852 Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 The patter about it being a blow to the Kercher family, I find a bit weird. There's still a bloke in prison who I gather confessed. Why would the Kerchers want these other two in there if there's no evidence they were involved? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 27300 Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 The patter about it being a blow to the Kercher family, I find a bit weird. There's still a bloke in prison who I gather confessed. Why would the Kerchers want these other two in there if there's no evidence they were involved? Wasn't it that the evidence was unreliable rather than there being no evidence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 The rhetorical question, the stock-in-trade weapon ay burds and psychos. And ewerk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 The patter about it being a blow to the Kercher family, I find a bit weird. There's still a bloke in prison who I gather confessed. Why would the Kerchers want these other two in there if there's no evidence they were involved? I guess the bit that's implied about that statement is: "being as they suspect she actually was involved" Fuck knows what the truth is and how reliable the DNA was but if Knox told provable lies to the authorities then I suppose the family may always have a suspicion-and equally Knox will always have to accept that telling lies has caused that suspicion. Even if it was done entirely consistently with not having killed her. That's not said judgmentally, it's just how it is. That's how authorities investigate and prosecute cases-they test the veracity of the evidence and some of Knox's was evidently not true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 36852 Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 Aye sorry, I've just read some updates from a press conference that the Kerchers are doing now, and they feel they still don't know what happened, and are struggling to come to terms with the fact that the "official" story is apparently now supposed to be completely false. Seems they were expecting the judge to reduce the sentences, but why he would do that, I don't know. If they did it, the sentence should stand. If there is doubt, he can't just reduce their sentences as some sort of halfway house. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 36852 Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 The patter about it being a blow to the Kercher family, I find a bit weird. There's still a bloke in prison who I gather confessed. Why would the Kerchers want these other two in there if there's no evidence they were involved? I guess the bit that's implied about that statement is: "being as they suspect she actually was involved" Fuck knows what the truth is and how reliable the DNA was but if Knox told provable lies to the authorities then I suppose the family may always have a suspicion-and equally Knox will always have to accept that telling lies has caused that suspicion. Even if it was done entirely consistently with not having killed her. That's not said judgmentally, it's just how it is. That's how authorities investigate and prosecute cases-they test the veracity of the evidence and some of Knox's was evidently not true. The bullshit statements she came out with came after hours on end of prolonged questioning by the police. I don't know what the tone of this questioning was, but I've read books and seen documentaries about people who have been wrongfully convicted of crimes, and a recurring theme is the convicted changing their story just to try and bring an end to the questioning and give the police what they feel they're looking for (short of a confession). Which in this case seems to have been an admission that she was present but not involved at the time of the murder. No idea if that's what happened here like, and it's perfectly understandable that in the Kerchers eyes, that calls into doubt their innocence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 The patter about it being a blow to the Kercher family, I find a bit weird. There's still a bloke in prison who I gather confessed. Why would the Kerchers want these other two in there if there's no evidence they were involved? I guess the bit that's implied about that statement is: "being as they suspect she actually was involved" Fuck knows what the truth is and how reliable the DNA was but if Knox told provable lies to the authorities then I suppose the family may always have a suspicion-and equally Knox will always have to accept that telling lies has caused that suspicion. Even if it was done entirely consistently with not having killed her. That's not said judgmentally, it's just how it is. That's how authorities investigate and prosecute cases-they test the veracity of the evidence and some of Knox's was evidently not true. The bullshit statements she came out with came after hours on end of prolonged questioning by the police. I don't know what the tone of this questioning was, but I've read books and seen documentaries about people who have been wrongfully convicted of crimes, and a recurring theme is the convicted changing their story just to try and bring an end to the questioning and give the police what they feel they're looking for (short of a confession). Which in this case seems to have been an admission that she was present but not involved at the time of the murder. No idea if that's what happened here like, and it's perfectly understandable that in the Kerchers eyes, that calls into doubt their innocence. Aye, well as long as you've seen a few documentaries we're alright Gem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 Channel 5 has a lot to answer for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 I'm joking btw, that's exactly the correct point you flag up. In terms of admission evidence, it's reliability depends entirely on the (human) circumstances in which it was generated. I don't know what those circumstances were like so I'm not commenting one way or another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 36852 Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 Pair of kernts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 When C5 first started it was quality. Well, it wasn't really, it was all documentaries about Nazis and American serial killers using archive footage that must have cost about 50p to make. John Wayne Gacey, Jeffrey Dalmer et al. Anyway, I digress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 36852 Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 The main basis for my claims was worse than any channel 5 documentary. It was a John Grisham non-fiction book. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Innocen...in_a_Small_Town Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1 Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 There was a lot of emphasis (in the press) placed on silly stuff like her doing a cartwheel, "oh, she must be guilty." Like Gemmill says she was badgered by a load of aggressive Italian blokes accusing her of murdering someone, and given how badly botched the investigation has been, it wouldn't surprise if there had been misinterpretation of some of her statements. Just listening to the prosecution's case, it was rediculous at times. They were trying to sully her character by saying she didn't flush the toilet and was a promiscuous she-devil. Surprised Berlesconi didn't invite her over for a bunga bunga party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 The courtroom looked like a Blue Peter Bring and Buy sale with all the bags and coats on tables and stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now