Jump to content

Foxy Knoxy Guilty


PowerButchi

Recommended Posts

  • Moderators

So, the court case is over and the delectable Amanda Knox has been given 26 years for Murder, Sexual Assualt, Theft and a few other things. Now, I'm watching the coverage on CNN and they claim that the trial is very unfair, and that she's a poor girl trapped in a foreign legal system, sent down because of her lifestyle, not a crime.

 

I'm liable to give her the benefit of the doubt because she's dead fit.

 

What do you lot reckon? Did she do it? If she did, did she get the right sentence? Do you think the trial was fair?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 183
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Moderators

That's what they are saying on CNN now.

 

This woman reckons the main two reason's she's got done is because she likes a toke, and she went shopping for new skimpy scuds with her fella (who got 25 years) the day after they found the body and was talking loudly about having sex when they got home. Apparently that makes you a murderer in Perugia. First I've heard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

Wow, people are getting annoyed about this because she's attractive? From a journalistic perspective too it seems. Looking at the evidence against her she seems incredibly likely to be guilty. Her act in court all seems incredibly choreographed and rehearsed, almost arrogant at times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Have you been at the court case? It's not been rolling live coverage on the telly, anyway. Pretty much all we have is what the Media has wanted us to see as regards her "act in court". That being whatever sells more advertising and hard copy. That'd be a smirking femme fatale, who's somewhat of a pantomime villain. You can't take that as proof of anything.

 

The main reason people are getting annoyed is because of the media coverage and the built-in disadvantage that someone has as a guest in another country, with prejudices meaning they can't get a completely fair trial. Her being fit is just a bonus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members
Have you been at the court case? It's not been rolling live coverage on the telly, anyway. Pretty much all we have is what the Media has wanted us to see as regards her "act in court". That being whatever sells more advertising and hard copy. That'd be a smirking femme fatale, who's somewhat of a pantomime villain. You can't take that as proof of anything.

I'm going mainly by direct quotes from her to make my assessment of what she said. Regardless, It's not as if the evidence against her was so fatally flawed that it makes this case a travesty of justice. It seems very likely she did play a part in this crime, and similarly to how you say the media used her looks to create a "character", people here seem to be using her looks as the main reason to defend her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Only Jovially, that's quite clearly obvious.

 

The defence on BBC News 24, CNN, and Al-Jazeera this evening has been based around demonisation in the Media and prejudices in the Jury, due to differing ideology between the jurors and a slaggy 21 year old meaning it might not have been the World's fairest trial. Whether she was not involved, or suffocated Kircher through forced cunnlingus, it doesn't matter if it's not a fair trial. That's the line of people defending Knox.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, the court case is over and the delectable Amanda Knox has been given 26 years for Murder, Sexual Assualt, Theft and a few other things. Now, I'm watching the coverage on CNN and they claim that the trial is very unfair, and that she's a poor girl trapped in a foreign legal system, sent down because of her lifestyle, not a crime.

 

I'm liable to give her the benefit of the doubt because she's dead fit.

 

What do you lot reckon? Did she do it? If she did, did she get the right sentence? Do you think the trial was fair?

 

and that sort of view is exactly how a lot of totally unsuitable women end up with good jobs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members
Only Jovially, that's quite clearly obvious.

 

The defence on BBC News 24, CNN, and Al-Jazeera this evening has been based around demonisation in the Media and prejudices in the Jury, due to differing ideology between the jurors and a slaggy 21 year old meaning it might not have been the World's fairest trial. Whether she was not involved, or suffocated Kircher through forced cunnlingus, it doesn't matter if it's not a fair trial. That's the line of people defending Knox.

It's not you I'm talking about, but I think it'd be naive to say that people aren't more inclined to defend her because of her looks, and I think some posters are quite serious in what they say. The evidence against her and her boyfriend makes it look very likely that she's guilty, and she automatically gets an appeal anyway, so if I'm wrong she will get her chance once again.

 

I do agree that the trial was rather unfair in regards to how long it was stretched out for. But when it comes to defending her I think it's a case of defending a breach of her human rights rather than a case of defending her innocence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...