Click here for today's Project 366 photo, music and word.
Tower Bridge
Bartok
Spruce
Showing posts with label amanda knox. Show all posts
Showing posts with label amanda knox. Show all posts
Sunday, 19 February 2012
COMMENT: why shouldn't Amanda Knox write a book?
Reports this week suggest that Amanda Knox is to be paid $4 million (£2.5 million) for a book telling her side of the story that lead to the murder of British student Meredith Kercher, Knox's trial, initial conviction, appeal and acquittal.
Some say this is wrong and that nobody should benefit from crime, but, hang on a minute, Amanda Knox isn't benefitting from crime. She was found not guilty on appeal. She was released. She is innocent.
Why shouldn't she sell her story? After all, chances are it's quite an interesting story.
At this point those who oppose the decision of Harper Collins, the publishing house that has offered Amanda Knox this large sum of money, tend to lose the plot. They seem to know better than the Italian judges who overturned the guilty decision, and who, quite categorically, said that she should be released because she did not commit the crime.
Then they refer to OJ Simpson and his trial for murder back in 1995. They say that he was really guilty of his crimes, despite the decision of the court. We may all have opinions on OJ, or Knox, or anyone else who is found guilty in a trial, or through an appeal, but whether we like it or not, if they are acquitted they are innocent in the eyes of the law and no amount of Daily Mail-esque tubthumping is going to stop that.
Now, unless your were in court for the whole of the appeal trial, or read every inch of the court report, unless you looked closely at every scrap of evidence, I don't think it's fair or reasonable to say she is really guilty and the court got it wrong.
Some, it seems, think she is guilty because they don't approve of her sexual morality, the sex games she is reported to have been part of. And because they don't like that they consider her a loose woman and so, obviously, guilty of murder and therefore shouldn't profit from the events.
It's a ridiculous argument.
Well, it's a ridiculous argument if the person is innocent. If the person has been found guilty it is, of course, another matter entirely.
What if Ian Huntley or Rose West had written a book about their life, detailing their crimes and giving their version of events? If that was the case I agree it would be wrong for them to benefit from any book, television programme or movie that they were involved in.
Having said that, I have no problem with people such as Huntley or West writing a book. Surely it is the right of every man, woman or child to present their story and if it is interesting the public will read it. But I do think the profits from any such book should be compulsorily given to charity, or in a kitty for the victims of crime.
And let's not forget that one of the greatest pieces of literature in the English language, The Ballad of Reading Gaol, was written by Oscar Wilde, a convicted felon about his time in prison.
The law in the UK was changed about 6 years ago, so that criminals cannot profit from the proceeds of crime. In fact, the law went further and made it possible for monies earnt after time had been served, even through non-criminal means, could be used for compensation to the victims of crime. A man who became known as the "Lottery Rapist" who money through the National Lottery many years after his crime. He had already served time in prison for his crimes but, when he won a small fortune on the lottery, the court said his victims were entitled to the money, even though he didn't have that money when he carried out his offences. To me that seems very odd indeed, but it was the sort of knee-jerk, tabloid approving law of which the last Labour government was fond.
So why would Amanda Knox decide to write this book? Sure, $4 million is a lot of money and will set her up for life but shouldn't she be moving on now? Shouldn't she be trying to put this behind her and getting on with her life? She is, after all, still very young and, as an innocent person, could still have a profession.
And what about the reaction to it? She was vilified in the press. Many column inches have expressed hatred for her based on the original trial and initial conviction and, sadly, as I have said, some people simply don't want to accept that the appeal court judges made it perfectly clear that she was guilty. Does she really want to go raking up the whole story again? Is it really worth the hassle of trying to set the record straight? Is telling her side of the story really that important to her?
And then there's the Kercher family. They've lost their daughter. They've been through the trial and thought that their daughter's killers were behind bars only to have to sit through an appeal trial and find that the police have the wrong person. Their daughter's killer is still not known, and could still be at large.
I cannot see any good reason why, if she wants to tell her story and make $4 million, Amanda Knox shouldn't write the book that Harper Collins have asked her to write but, at the same time, I think it is important, for the sake of justice and the sake of the Kercher family, that the police investigation is stepped up. And, of course, if the person who did actually murder Meredith Kercher were to be imprisoned it would help Amanda Knox get on with her life, with less of a shadow hanging over her.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Those of you who are saying that the murderer has been convicted and is in jail. Yes, Rudy Guede DID admit to having been in Kercher's room, and there was plenty of DNA evidence that proved this. However, he also said there was someone else there too. This, of course, tallied with the convictions of Knox and her boyfriend but now they have been acquitted the question of who the other man is needs addressing. Yes, it's very easy to say the murderer has been caught but his conviction was strongly linked to the convictions that have now been overturned. I maintain there is more to be established and the Kercher's do not know who killed their daughter.
Some say this is wrong and that nobody should benefit from crime, but, hang on a minute, Amanda Knox isn't benefitting from crime. She was found not guilty on appeal. She was released. She is innocent.
Why shouldn't she sell her story? After all, chances are it's quite an interesting story.
At this point those who oppose the decision of Harper Collins, the publishing house that has offered Amanda Knox this large sum of money, tend to lose the plot. They seem to know better than the Italian judges who overturned the guilty decision, and who, quite categorically, said that she should be released because she did not commit the crime.
Then they refer to OJ Simpson and his trial for murder back in 1995. They say that he was really guilty of his crimes, despite the decision of the court. We may all have opinions on OJ, or Knox, or anyone else who is found guilty in a trial, or through an appeal, but whether we like it or not, if they are acquitted they are innocent in the eyes of the law and no amount of Daily Mail-esque tubthumping is going to stop that.
Now, unless your were in court for the whole of the appeal trial, or read every inch of the court report, unless you looked closely at every scrap of evidence, I don't think it's fair or reasonable to say she is really guilty and the court got it wrong.
Some, it seems, think she is guilty because they don't approve of her sexual morality, the sex games she is reported to have been part of. And because they don't like that they consider her a loose woman and so, obviously, guilty of murder and therefore shouldn't profit from the events.
It's a ridiculous argument.
Well, it's a ridiculous argument if the person is innocent. If the person has been found guilty it is, of course, another matter entirely.
What if Ian Huntley or Rose West had written a book about their life, detailing their crimes and giving their version of events? If that was the case I agree it would be wrong for them to benefit from any book, television programme or movie that they were involved in.
Having said that, I have no problem with people such as Huntley or West writing a book. Surely it is the right of every man, woman or child to present their story and if it is interesting the public will read it. But I do think the profits from any such book should be compulsorily given to charity, or in a kitty for the victims of crime.
And let's not forget that one of the greatest pieces of literature in the English language, The Ballad of Reading Gaol, was written by Oscar Wilde, a convicted felon about his time in prison.
The law in the UK was changed about 6 years ago, so that criminals cannot profit from the proceeds of crime. In fact, the law went further and made it possible for monies earnt after time had been served, even through non-criminal means, could be used for compensation to the victims of crime. A man who became known as the "Lottery Rapist" who money through the National Lottery many years after his crime. He had already served time in prison for his crimes but, when he won a small fortune on the lottery, the court said his victims were entitled to the money, even though he didn't have that money when he carried out his offences. To me that seems very odd indeed, but it was the sort of knee-jerk, tabloid approving law of which the last Labour government was fond.
So why would Amanda Knox decide to write this book? Sure, $4 million is a lot of money and will set her up for life but shouldn't she be moving on now? Shouldn't she be trying to put this behind her and getting on with her life? She is, after all, still very young and, as an innocent person, could still have a profession.
And what about the reaction to it? She was vilified in the press. Many column inches have expressed hatred for her based on the original trial and initial conviction and, sadly, as I have said, some people simply don't want to accept that the appeal court judges made it perfectly clear that she was guilty. Does she really want to go raking up the whole story again? Is it really worth the hassle of trying to set the record straight? Is telling her side of the story really that important to her?
And then there's the Kercher family. They've lost their daughter. They've been through the trial and thought that their daughter's killers were behind bars only to have to sit through an appeal trial and find that the police have the wrong person. Their daughter's killer is still not known, and could still be at large.
I cannot see any good reason why, if she wants to tell her story and make $4 million, Amanda Knox shouldn't write the book that Harper Collins have asked her to write but, at the same time, I think it is important, for the sake of justice and the sake of the Kercher family, that the police investigation is stepped up. And, of course, if the person who did actually murder Meredith Kercher were to be imprisoned it would help Amanda Knox get on with her life, with less of a shadow hanging over her.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Those of you who are saying that the murderer has been convicted and is in jail. Yes, Rudy Guede DID admit to having been in Kercher's room, and there was plenty of DNA evidence that proved this. However, he also said there was someone else there too. This, of course, tallied with the convictions of Knox and her boyfriend but now they have been acquitted the question of who the other man is needs addressing. Yes, it's very easy to say the murderer has been caught but his conviction was strongly linked to the convictions that have now been overturned. I maintain there is more to be established and the Kercher's do not know who killed their daughter.
Tuesday, 4 October 2011
OPINION: Slow and sure wins the race...
Let's be honest, we all make mistakes.
Sometimes the mistakes are serious and life changing, sometimes they're inconsequential and forgotten before they've happened.
When yesterday, both the Daily Mail and Sky News wrongly announced that Amanda Knox had lost her appeal for the murder of Meredith Kercher, the Twitterverse (alongside various ant-Mail and anti-Murdoch commentators) exploded in outrage accusing these news outlets of trying to predict the news.
Now I'm sure every news broadcaster was ready with both guilty and not guilty graphics, information and discussions. It would be foolish not to be prepared for both circumstances as nobody was sure which way the judgment was going to go.
Surely it's like the obituaries of famous people... newspapers don't wait until someone dies then hastily scramble around for someone to write a few hundred words by way of tribute. No, all the leading newspapers will have ongoing obituaries that are regularly updated when new information is available or when they have done something else worthy.
I'm sure, for instance, that The Times has had an obituary for Margaret Thatcher since the early 1970s. In recent years, through a number of bouts of ill health and rumour, it must have been dusted down on many occasions and ready to publish should the Grim Reaper finally dare come for the Iron Lady!
But, I hear you cry, that doesn't excuse Sky News or the Daily Mail from using the wrong result. True, they were being professional by being prepared but to use the wrong result requires another explanation.
I think there are two reasons for the mistakes.
First. Simple human error. Pressing the wrong button, or pressing it too early.
The judgment handed down in Perugia wasn't straightforward and, of course, for the English-speaking press, it was in Italian and required translation.
The judge did find Amanda Knox guilty but of defamation, not the murder of her friend. I guess, via interpreters or translators some journalists weren't listening to all the detail, heard the word 'guilty' and went into action, launching headlines, pre-prepared column inches and appropriate comments to support the court's decision. A simple error.
Or was it?
The second reason is that they were in a race to be the first to announce the result. They were only skim-listening.
Just like when, at a general election, there's a handful of constituencies desperate to be the first to declare their result and the broadcasters all want to be the first to predict and call the final number of seats won by each party, so on rolling news programmes they want to be the first with the headline. Being first attracts viewers. Being first increases ratings. But being right is more important.
In fact, if a rolling news broadcaster isn't first with the news what is their point?
So maybe the mistake made by the Daily Mail and Sky News, amongst a myriad of other, lesser news organisations, is really our fault, and can be laid at the door of our seemingly insatiable desire for information AND NOW!
When I was growing up in Basingstoke in the late 1970s and early 1980s there was one infamous occasion when the local newspaper got the news very wrong.
Arthur Atwood was the elderly reviewer of local concerts and plays for the Basingstoke Gazette and he always gave, what appeared to be, very fair and thorough comments. The problem was that while I was reading his comments about an orchestral concert in which I should have played I realised that his detailed review was about a concert that had been cancelled. He'd written and submitted his x hundred words before the event and, when it was postponed, hadn't remembered to pull it from publication. Whoops!
So, I guess, we all mistakes but, as with so many of the personal mistakes we all make every day, maybe a little more time taken over things, a tad more care and a dose of honesty would prevent the errors and stop things going awry.
Let's be honest, if we heard the result of the Amanda Knox appeal at 8.48 last night or at 8.50 would it have mattered? Of course not. All that mattered was the accuracy of the information.
Sometimes the mistakes are serious and life changing, sometimes they're inconsequential and forgotten before they've happened.
When yesterday, both the Daily Mail and Sky News wrongly announced that Amanda Knox had lost her appeal for the murder of Meredith Kercher, the Twitterverse (alongside various ant-Mail and anti-Murdoch commentators) exploded in outrage accusing these news outlets of trying to predict the news.
Now I'm sure every news broadcaster was ready with both guilty and not guilty graphics, information and discussions. It would be foolish not to be prepared for both circumstances as nobody was sure which way the judgment was going to go.
Surely it's like the obituaries of famous people... newspapers don't wait until someone dies then hastily scramble around for someone to write a few hundred words by way of tribute. No, all the leading newspapers will have ongoing obituaries that are regularly updated when new information is available or when they have done something else worthy.
I'm sure, for instance, that The Times has had an obituary for Margaret Thatcher since the early 1970s. In recent years, through a number of bouts of ill health and rumour, it must have been dusted down on many occasions and ready to publish should the Grim Reaper finally dare come for the Iron Lady!
But, I hear you cry, that doesn't excuse Sky News or the Daily Mail from using the wrong result. True, they were being professional by being prepared but to use the wrong result requires another explanation.
I think there are two reasons for the mistakes.
First. Simple human error. Pressing the wrong button, or pressing it too early.
The judgment handed down in Perugia wasn't straightforward and, of course, for the English-speaking press, it was in Italian and required translation.
The judge did find Amanda Knox guilty but of defamation, not the murder of her friend. I guess, via interpreters or translators some journalists weren't listening to all the detail, heard the word 'guilty' and went into action, launching headlines, pre-prepared column inches and appropriate comments to support the court's decision. A simple error.
Or was it?
The second reason is that they were in a race to be the first to announce the result. They were only skim-listening.
Just like when, at a general election, there's a handful of constituencies desperate to be the first to declare their result and the broadcasters all want to be the first to predict and call the final number of seats won by each party, so on rolling news programmes they want to be the first with the headline. Being first attracts viewers. Being first increases ratings. But being right is more important.
In fact, if a rolling news broadcaster isn't first with the news what is their point?
So maybe the mistake made by the Daily Mail and Sky News, amongst a myriad of other, lesser news organisations, is really our fault, and can be laid at the door of our seemingly insatiable desire for information AND NOW!
When I was growing up in Basingstoke in the late 1970s and early 1980s there was one infamous occasion when the local newspaper got the news very wrong.
Arthur Atwood was the elderly reviewer of local concerts and plays for the Basingstoke Gazette and he always gave, what appeared to be, very fair and thorough comments. The problem was that while I was reading his comments about an orchestral concert in which I should have played I realised that his detailed review was about a concert that had been cancelled. He'd written and submitted his x hundred words before the event and, when it was postponed, hadn't remembered to pull it from publication. Whoops!
So, I guess, we all mistakes but, as with so many of the personal mistakes we all make every day, maybe a little more time taken over things, a tad more care and a dose of honesty would prevent the errors and stop things going awry.
Let's be honest, if we heard the result of the Amanda Knox appeal at 8.48 last night or at 8.50 would it have mattered? Of course not. All that mattered was the accuracy of the information.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)