4 ms·

Oh please, she was an accused murderer. There was no sure proof she did it, nor that she was innocent, so she was cleared. Notably she lied in court several tim

Oh please, she was an accused murderer. There was no sure proof she did it, nor that she was innocent, so she was cleared. Notably she lied in court several times. She benefitted from the media attention to make money for herself and she is now publishing an essay she was not asked to do in which she tries to make many moral "who is the victim" points (of course claiming she is the victim). You could argue she should have been granted anonymity but I cannot see her as a helpless victim.

duxup 5y ago
>she is now publishing an essay she was not asked to do in which she tries to make many moral "who is the victim" points (of course claiming she is the victim) So? Is that a bad thing?
- stjohnswarts 5y ago
  I think some people believe you shouldn't fight back when you're tried and convicted in the court of public opinion even if you are proven innocent in actual court. That you should just roll over and die so their suppositions aren't challenged. It reflects and extremely weak stance and lack of confidence in your own take on the situation.
danso 5y ago
> Oh please, she was an accused murderer. There was no sure proof she did it, nor that she was innocent, so she was cleared From the Economist: https://www.economist.com/europe/2015/03/28/innocente https://www.economist.com/europe/2015/03/28/innocente > The Court of Cassation in Rome found Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito not guilty on the grounds that they had “not committed the act”. Italian law recognises different levels of acquittal; this is the most categorical.
Twixes 5y ago
She was accused of murder, but in the end explicitly cleared by the Supreme Court as innocent.
dkersten 5y ago
> There was no sure proof she did it Exactly. And yet she was treated as one by the media and justice system. She even spent time in prison for it. Even though there was no proof she did it. > nor that she was innocent There's no proof that you're innocent either, maybe you did it and should spend a few years in prison until later acquitted? Absence of proof of innocence does NOT imply guilt. > of course claiming she is the victim She was a victim. Not the same as the murder victim, but she got her reputation ruined, had her family go into debt trying to pay legal fees and SPENT YEARS IN PRISON. For something that there was no evidence she did, was evidence someone else did (who by the way got less time than she got, before she was acquitted), and for which she was eventually found innocent of and acquitted for. Maybe develop some empathy.
robertlagrant 5y ago
She's not claiming she's the victim. She was a victim of a miscarriage of justice, and continues to have the story retold as though she was guilty. You're trying pretty hard to misinterpret this fairly straightforward situation.

duxup 5y ago

>she is now publishing an essay she was not asked to do in which she tries to make many moral "who is the victim" points (of course claiming she is the victim) So? Is that a bad thing?

stjohnswarts 5y ago
I think some people believe you shouldn't fight back when you're tried and convicted in the court of public opinion even if you are proven innocent in actual court. That you should just roll over and die so their suppositions aren't challenged. It reflects and extremely weak stance and lack of confidence in your own take on the situation.

danso 5y ago

> Oh please, she was an accused murderer. There was no sure proof she did it, nor that she was innocent, so she was cleared From the Economist: https://www.economist.com/europe/2015/03/28/innocente https://www.economist.com/europe/2015/03/28/innocente > The Court of Cassation in Rome found Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito not guilty on the grounds that they had “not committed the act”. Italian law recognises different levels of acquittal; this is the most categorical.

Twixes 5y ago

She was accused of murder, but in the end explicitly cleared by the Supreme Court as innocent.

dkersten 5y ago

> There was no sure proof she did it Exactly. And yet she was treated as one by the media and justice system. She even spent time in prison for it. Even though there was no proof she did it. > nor that she was innocent There's no proof that you're innocent either, maybe you did it and should spend a few years in prison until later acquitted? Absence of proof of innocence does NOT imply guilt. > of course claiming she is the victim She was a victim. Not the same as the murder victim, but she got her reputation ruined, had her family go into debt trying to pay legal fees and SPENT YEARS IN PRISON. For something that there was no evidence she did, was evidence someone else did (who by the way got less time than she got, before she was acquitted), and for which she was eventually found innocent of and acquitted for. Maybe develop some empathy.

robertlagrant 5y ago

She's not claiming she's the victim. She was a victim of a miscarriage of justice, and continues to have the story retold as though she was guilty. You're trying pretty hard to misinterpret this fairly straightforward situation.