do you think she will donate any of the £20M to finding out what actually happened? I suppose not.

 

I'm sure I heard she wants nothing to do with the offers for her story, that might change in the future though.

In my eyes, mainland Euro justice has flocked it up again, if instead of working on the premise that she/they were guilty and trying to force a full confession out of them, they could have found the truth like the Police are meant to do. Now the evidence is well gone, and Knox will be forever under the microscope. No-one will evere know the truth, like in the Maddy case due to ineptitude.

 

Would you?

 

If she is innocent then I think she deserves every penny

Only problem is we'll never know for sure

 

She doesn't deserve a penny, she was in custody for 3yrs 11mths. However, 3yrs of that was for being found guilty of slander where she tried to frame an innocent man for the crime. (She's certainly no angel)

She has therefore served an 'extra' 11months, worth £20m?

From what I have read, the girl is guilty, perhaps not for murdering her but she was there with the 2 others. She changed her story and has lied so much throughout the questioning..

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-answered.html

Now she gets to live the life of a celebrity with millions stashed away in the bank for her story.

 

But she isn't guilt in the eyes of the law which is all that counts

Though I personally think she did it! the one who count don't

 

OJ anyone?

 

you wont get any straight answers from the media, they will spin it to there own way of thinking.

a court of law has found her not guilty, so in my eyes shes inocent and free to do what she wants.

although i will admit, its all a bit fishy

 

20 Million, why give her a lottery win, if she is innocent, compensation is due but three years of someones life is not 20 millions worth, perhaps that is why we are up **** creek financially ?

 

Her parents seem like the types who would discourage her from taking the money.

It's hard to say you want to just get on with your life whilst selling your privacy for money. Taking the money would be to legitimise a life of being a infamous piece of public property. It's a little faustian.

 

The money isn't a award for injustice, it's just to buy her privacy.

 

20M clams for a story that has more holes than St Andrews. she is laughing all the way to the bank. I suppose she does have to pay back the million dollar PR campaign that got her release. I wonder if the black guy she framed has started working on his revenge plan yet. 25 years to perfect it now.

 

'Deserving' doesn't even come into it. She's been offered money by someone willing to give it to her, it's not compensation.

 

When a court of law find someone guilty do we give a second thought to the fact that they might be innocent?

No. (proof: the amount of threads on here weekly bashing x,y,z criminal)

Therefore, when a court of law finds this women innocent we should not give a second thought to that.

If you adopt any other attitude you are a hypocrite.

I for one believe courts can/do get things very wrong...

 

the moneys not compensation as others ahve said, she served 3 years for trying to implicate an innocent person - from what i gather,

as siad the money is to buy into her life and generate more money

if everyone didnt want to read about it, talk/discuss it, then she wouldve offered nothing.

 

anyone who thinks palms in the Italian judiciary and police were not greased is very niaeve

 

Only after searching her bag for knives

Chip

 

Turning Kercher into Kerching.

More annoyed by the cheerign that accompanied the verdict. What a bunch of insensitive clowns and yet they'll wonder why people don't like them.

5t.

 

Whilst the courts get things wrong both ways, the verdict is heavily weighted to find a guilty person innocent (ie "Beyond all reasonable doubt"), or on a scale of 1-10 for the jury of "Do you think they did it?" about a 9 for guilty, 8 and under = innocent (yes this is over simplified, I know).

Conversely, it's rare to find an innocent person guilty. This is in my view correct, because it's better to let a guilty person off than send an innocent to prison.

I don't think I'm a hypocrite for being more sceptical about innocent verdicts, for the very reasons I've just outlined.

 

She has been cleared of committing the murder only. That doesn't clear her of being involved as in being present when the murder took place though does it? She was there, she was involved but she has been cleared of being the one who put the knife to Ms Kerchers throat. And that has only happened due to lack of useable evidence/police **** ups.

She is a manipulative lieing evil b!tch who tried to stitch up an innocent man for a murder he had no involvement with, unlike her. She knows what happened and she has protected all involved by keeping quiet.

 

This is quite an amusing post. It is quite clear you have utter contempt for Knox and you believe she is guilty from what you have read, you then go on to post a Daily Mail link.

It would appear you are quite happy to swallow all the slurs published by the media, who exists to make money from publishing sensationlist claims to sell more papers. If you would have read the US papers over the last few years, you would most likely never have come to such a conclusion.

To answer the original question, would I sell my story if I was innocent, yes. Would I donate any of it to finding out what actually happened, no.

 

More fool those who are prepared to pay her all that money!

Les