D'Juhn Keep on 5/12/2009 at 12:14
Yeah, it is rather worrying that the press is trying to show her guilt by portraying her as a "party girl" who, and you might want to sit down here, drinks alcohol and sleeps with men. The other thing related to this to consider is that these things are the very worst things the media could find about her, or the worse things would be publicised. Another item of seeming irrelevance is her story involving a girl being drugged and raped. She's a creative writing student, should she steer clear of any illegal subject? That said she has been found guilty so we can't exactly rule out the possibility that she in fact is.
Scots Taffer on 5/12/2009 at 13:16
The first few paragraphs of that article read like a synopsis for a David Lynch movie.
Aerothorn on 5/12/2009 at 14:00
I'm not saying she's innocent. As I said, I haven't read about the trial, and frankly I don't want to - if it does end up looking "unfair" it's just going to make me depressed. I'm just focusing on the press reaction. Not saying the USA doesn't do stuff like this, but it seems less common, and I think the idea of "innocent until proven guilty" is a bit stronger in the press there. Maybe I'm just not paying close enough attention, though.
It's weird, given that the USA has a lot stronger freedom of speech protection, and therefore it's a lot harder to press libel cases; yet here in Britain there seems to be more libelous activities (not saying any of this was libel, just other stuff). I dunno, the whole contrast is just strange to me. I was walking through the main building here and there was some sort of ceremony (some graduation or something?) and I had never seen so much pomp and circumstance - all these people sitting on a stage in ridiculous robes, including one on - get this - a THRONE. And there was some huge golden staff and it was just ridiculous.
And then these people go home and read The Daily Mirror. I don't get it.
Aerothorn on 8/12/2009 at 18:33
By sheer coincidence, the final mock-trial I have for my Media Law & Ethics class is on this case.
"We are going to imagine that the US citizen Amanda Knox had been tried in London for the murder of Meredith Kercher and the legal team for Ms. Knock is appealing her convinction to the Court of Appeal - Criminal Division on the grounds of media prejudice during the trial and prejudicial evidence (that was more prejudicial than probative) during her trial."
So far every time I've been the advocate (read: lawyer) in these things I've always represented the side that I don't actually believe in, so I've successfully convinced the seminar leader to let me represent Knox this go-round. Should be fun! Particularly since I'm a Seattlite representing a Seattlite before a British jury.
Matthew on 8/12/2009 at 18:48
We'll give you McKinnon if you throw it.
Aerothorn on 8/12/2009 at 19:47
I actually (if I was a lawyer, which I'm not, and if I was in the business of choosing sides, which many lawyers or not) would sooner represent McKinnon than the Pentagon. Not least of which because I find the Asperger's defence extreme interesting (and -assuming an accurate diagnosis- a defense that I actually think has merit, though I also recognize that the ramifications of such a defense are widespread).
Thankfully this is purely small-fry stuff - very few law students in this class, most are either wannabe-journalists or just general media studies people. Plus, real lawyers aren't given a maximum of five minutes total to argue their case!
Matthew on 9/12/2009 at 12:21
Quote Posted by Aerothorn
Plus, real lawyers aren't given a maximum of five minutes total to argue their case!
You've obviously never seen our local county court in action. :p
SubJeff on 9/12/2009 at 12:35
Just request the hearing be in Gaelic.
Matthew on 9/12/2009 at 12:55
Ouch, I'd be a marked man with the judge for life.
SubJeff on 9/12/2009 at 13:03
Yeah, but it'd be over in 5 mins! :p
