Knox V McCanns

In view of the recent acquital of Amanda Knox does anyone else think the McCanns wish they were in her shoes - ie - that there had been a trial and they too had subsequently been acquited??

I believe that 4+ years after Madeleine has gone missing - and knowing what they know now regarding the continued suspicion they are under - the McCanns would welcome the fact that they too could have had a trial and subsequently been admonished................ How different would the story be for them now?? More books, film rights, TV appearances - without the cloud of suspicion under them..............

Any thoughts??...........................

IF ONLY

Badboy wrote:IF ONLY

Well, Yes Badboy............... Thanks for that............. I still think the one thing the McCanns want more than anything (including the return of Madeleine which I think they know will never happen) is to be seen to be innocent in the eyes of their family and the public ................ JMO..........

flower and Badboy

Mmmmmm..... Not sure about which way it would go.

Trouble is I think actually after all the information we and other Forums have discussed/examined in the minutest detail it would never come to trial anywhere other than in Portugal (they hold primacy anyway) or somewhere there is a similar type of Judicial Law. Strangely enough the very Country where Madeleine disappeared is the one that would produce a true verdict whichever way it turned out. But the McCanns slipped up big time if they thought Portugal would be "a piece of cake" - their laws are stricter than ours.

But all this is immaterial - they will never get as far as a trial and their statements will never be tested and therefore they will never know the feeling of either exoneration or atonement. But as you say, flower, look at what they could have earned. Which way was the more lucrative - hard to say. The way they chose is hard work, tests their nerves and could ultimately damage their health.

I don't know enough about the Amanda Knox case to comment on it, but I've always said that I wouldn't want anyone charged in connection with Madeleine's disappearance unless the case against them is cast iron and irrefutable. People often say why were no charges brought, but without the type of proof I mention I think charging anyone would be the worst possible mistake.

Thanks Angelique - what you say makes a lot of sense................

I wonder how much pressure the Italian judicial system felt under here because of the might of the Knox family PR campaign.

The mccanns have already been trying to dispute the DNA...but they can't despute what the dogs found or did.....no getting round that one.

I don"t think the McCanns will ever be charged unless Madeleine"s body is found and the McCanns know this, which is why they are so brazen. In the
case of Amanda Knox , the Media found her not guilty which shows again how powerful they are. Yes, they were against the Mcanns initially but once
the Daily Express forked out over £1 million in Libel damage the rest of the Media shut up.

Amanda Knox may be technically 'free' but she still reeks of suspicion, just like the Mcs always will.

Remember these two things.



The DNA on the knife may off been contaminated as their wasn't enough on their to do a second check....


WASN'T ENOUGH isn't NO BLOOD....their was blood which belonged to Meredith on the knife...not NONE

'the evidence I.e. Blood on the knife DNA was proved to be UNSAFE so their is NO CHOICE but to AQUIT' ..CLEARED does NOT get mentioned .


NO CHOICE...

margaret wrote:Amanda Knox may be technically 'free' but she still reeks of suspicion, just like the Mcs always will.

I suggest that the kerchers wait and study knox's interviews and her behaviour in the next 6 months.....she will slip up, liars always do.

On This Morning the guy reviewing the newspapers just compared the bungled Police investigation for the Knox case to the bungled Police investigation in the Madeleine McCann case in May 2007. How they missed all the vital details in the "Golden Hour".

kitti wrote:

margaret wrote:Amanda Knox may be technically 'free' but she still reeks of suspicion, just like the Mcs always will.

I suggest that the kerchers wait and study knox's interviews and her behaviour in the next 6 months.....she will slip up, liars always do.

How is she going to explain away 4 of HER footprints made in Merediths blood in that apartment?

http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/15278601

ONE underneath her body.

Well we all knew they mere going to get compared to the PJ, didn't we....that's NO surprise ....how it can be compared ......god knows

Dimsie wrote:I don't know enough about the Amanda Knox case to comment on it, but I've always said that I wouldn't want anyone charged in connection with Madeleine's disappearance unless the case against them is cast iron and irrefutable. People often say why were no charges brought, but without the type of proof I mention I think charging anyone would be the worst possible mistake.

Good point because I personally believe Amanda Knox's lawyer team based the defense by refuting the DNA found incriminating her. To avoid more cases like Amanda Knox (where possibly she got away with it - my humble personal opinion), the best is not to charge if the case can be dismantled later by lame excuses and the induction of reasonable doubt, followed by the principle of the "in dubio pro reo".

The Daily Mail had two stories and put the wrong one online

http://tabloid-watch.blogspot.com/2011/10/mailonline-makes-up-events-quotes-from.html

It just goes to show how completely unscrupulous and unreliable the British press is. I wonder if the Knox family will be suing them?

If you want a good laugh, have a tweet @ #MailHistory

Also... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MxdYZMZ_HU

You have to be in single figures with your IQ to believe the papers.

Annabel

thank you for the link to the mailonline.

I like this comment after the article:

"Annette said...
Nice one!

But the bit that had me laughing out loud was the spelling mistake in the caption on one of the photos (as shown on the copy at http://davesaysthings.com/delicious-cake/dailymail-knox-guilty.png )

"Media scum: Journalists, photographers and camera crews flooded the court room"

They said it...
3 October 2011 23:14"

The comparisons are bound to be made and have been all day on the radio chat shows.

Both knox and the mccanns behaved like they couldnt give a shit shortly after the 'crime' and since.Both will get substantial help to milk the media and make loads of money from books and films.And dont be suprised if foxy knoxy T shirts are on sale soon,she's bound to have a cuddle cat as well.
The papers will print as much crap as they can,and as we have already seen,had the crap printed even before it hit the fan.
Expect a load of knoxy litigation,the ambulance chasers will be queueing up at the airport.

The only difference is knoxy has now been cleared and the mccanns havn't.

Not 'cleared'......the evidence was found to be unsafe so they had no choice but to acquit.


She also walks out with 500,000 euro in the process even though she spent 3 years out off the 4 in jail for lieing about the bar owner, so in fact....for the year she spent on jail......half Million......not a bad days work.

Amanda's dad was a member here and did make a few posts.
would be interesting to find those posts,

kitti wrote:Not 'cleared'......the evidence was found to be unsafe so they had no choice but to acquit.


She also walks out with 500,000 euro in the process even though she spent 3 years out off the 4 in jail for lieing about the bar owner, so in fact....for the year she spent on jail......half Million......not a bad days work.

Sorry Kitti,but aquitted means cleared in legal terms she is no longer guilty and can get compensation.The mccanns have not been cleared (as suspects).

Their was not trial...it Was an appeal against the DNA on the knife.....no other evidence was allowed to be given by the prosecution ....no other evidence was HEARED.


So...you can say in your eyes she was cleared ...that's up to you....they had no choice to AQUIT on that evidence that was heared.


A re-trial on all the evidence and THEN cleared is acceptable.


The third murderer is now going to appeal against his conviction.