Would you date a Murderer?

Ash.J.Williams · 07-05-2017 10:36am

When I saw yer one visiting Joe oreilly in arbor Hill last week I lost sympathy for her... He's in jail 10 years or more now... She was 37 when he was sentenced... That's a good chunk of her life waiting for his appeal... What must her family think.. Does she actually believe he's innocent

I often wonder if people who find it hard to find love look at these criminals and think, how the hell are they still getting the women...

beertons · 07-05-2017 4:03pm

Only if they were retired.

Atoms for Peace · 07-05-2017 4:40pm

Tyson Fury wrote: »

Foxy Knoxy, absolutely

Jennifer Pan, no chance.

Never heard of her before, but who at some point hasn't considered murdering their parents.:rolleyes:

masculinist · 11-05-2017 10:54pm

Atoms for Peace wrote: »

Never heard of her before, but who at some point hasn't considered murdering their parents.:rolleyes:

The Menendez brothers were surely misunderstood. In years to come they will be viewed as avenging angels , Robin Hood type figures acting on behalf of Millenials and Generation X'ers who were shafted by the unsustainable national debt and high property prices of selfish virtue signalling baby boomers

:pac:

Vela · 11-05-2017 11:15pm

It's not really just about whether you'd date a murderer, it's about everything that comes with it. If they've done life in prison, that's circa 16 years - which is going to have a profound impact on their personality/mental health/life experience and a ****load of other things. Then there's the stigma; you can say it doesn't matter to you, but you don't know that until you're in a position where people are talking about you and potentially about your family too. Ireland is a small country, it's bound to happen - especially if it was a very public case. And then there's explaining it to your family. Would you tell them? Or not tell them and basically lie to them by default? How would they deal with it? Could you handle how it could potentially negatively affect them and their lives if the media got involved? Or even just local gossip? And what about employment? It's unlikely they'd ever have a stable income again. Someone on parole isn't highly employable.

It's about so much more than having empathy and understanding that people can change. It's about whether you can take on all of that too. And it's a lot.

Phoebas · 11-05-2017 11:58pm

Hercule Poirot wrote: »

Honestly, it would depend on who they murdered, why they had done it and how it had affected them - but I wouldn't disregard a potential partner just because they had committed murder.

:eek:

Hercule Poirot · 12-05-2017 9:50am

Phoebas wrote: »

:eek:

Maybe I could have phrased that a bit better but I think you know what I meant - I'm not saying that murder is something to be taken lightly and brushed under the carpet whenever suits; or maybe I am.....:cool:

annascott · 12-05-2017 3:26pm

I voted 'no' but there should be an 'it depends on circumstances' option.
If someone accidentally killed someone in a car accident and was charged with murder (as has happened before) I would overlook that. But definitely no to anything deliberately premeditated and/or violent.

Glenster · 12-05-2017 3:55pm

annascott wrote: »

I voted 'no' but there should be an 'it depends on circumstances' option.
If someone accidentally killed someone in a car accident and was charged with murder (as has happened before) I would overlook that. But definitely no to anything deliberately premeditated and/or violent.

TBH if I had to get off with a murderer I'd rather it be a pre-meditated one rather than someone who has a history of accidentally or out of the blue murdering someone.

Clubkissen · 12-05-2017 4:42pm

annascott wrote: »

I voted 'no' but there should be an 'it depends on circumstances' option.
If someone accidentally killed someone in a car accident and was charged with murder (as has happened before) I would overlook that. But definitely no to anything deliberately premeditated and/or violent.

Then your answer is yes, you would date a murderer. The question doesn't ask if you would date all murderers in all circumstances, only if you would date a murderer and you would.

Cianmcliam · 12-05-2017 5:42pm

Winterlong wrote: »

She was. And then she wasn't. And then she was again.
But now she isn't.

Them Italians can't make up their minds.

In fairness they did establish that she was present when the murder took place and was the only person with any motive to perform the cleanup afterwards, plus the fact that her blood was mixed with the victims in several locations outside the locked room. The victim's DNA was present on a knife found in her boyfriend's apartment. We know she was at the very least an accessory to murder. The acquittal was entirely founded on her DNA being absent from the room where the body was found. People have hung on less evidence.

bluewizard · 12-05-2017 5:44pm

No. Competition is not my style.

Glenster · 14-05-2017 2:42pm

Cianmcliam wrote: »

In fairness they did establish that she was present when the murder took place and was the only person with any motive to perform the cleanup afterwards, plus the fact that her blood was mixed with the victims in several locations outside the locked room. The victim's DNA was present on a knife found in her boyfriend's apartment. We know she was at the very least an accessory to murder. The acquittal was entirely founded on her DNA being absent from the room where the body was found. People have hung on less evidence.

You'd still give her one though.

Outlaw Pete · 14-05-2017 3:52pm

Maybe Karla Homolka for little while perhaps.

If I got her evil stare though, I'd be over the back wall quick sharp.

Underarmoured · 14-05-2017 4:30pm

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

No straight man would ever get any so.

Lol

retro:electro · 27-05-2017 3:11pm

badabing106 wrote: »

Someone renowned like Oscar Pistorius or Amanda Knox?

Amanda Knox isn't a murderer

ThinkProgress · 27-05-2017 3:16pm

anna080 wrote: »

Amanda Knox isn't a murderer

Yeah, she is... Just like OJ, and everyone else who played the system and won!!

Actually, I think I would date Foxy Knoxy... could be exciting knowing she had the capability to kill you! lol (like that movie Mr&Mrs Smith) :pac::pac:

Hector Bellend · 27-05-2017 3:38pm

tomwaterford wrote: »

Amanda knox yes

Oscars pistorious....no

I'd definitely bang amanda knox

archer22 · 27-05-2017 4:06pm

No, marrying a murderer would be like bringing a landmine into the house...only a question of time before something set it off.

munster87 · 27-05-2017 4:12pm

Hector Bellend wrote: »

I'd definitely bang amanda knox

I'd take things slow, dinner gifts etc. to sweep her off her feet...I'd be stumped when it came to Oscar though.

retro:electro · 27-05-2017 4:45pm

ThinkProgress wrote: »

Yeah, she is... Just like OJ, and everyone else who played the system and won!!

Actually, I think I would date Foxy Knoxy... could be exciting knowing she had the capability to kill you! lol (like that movie Mr&Mrs Smith) :pac::pac:

Nope. OJ clearly killed Ron and Nicole, the prosecution just botched the case. Rudy Guede killed Meredith Kercher and admitted it. But that was too boring for the British media. No evidence places her in the room.

Cianmcliam · 27-05-2017 6:37pm

anna080 wrote: »

Nope. OJ clearly killed Ron and Nicole, the prosecution just botched the case. Rudy Guide killed Meredith Kercher and admitted it. But that was too boring for the British media. No evidence places her in the room.

She placed herself at the crime scene. No evidence, apart from a cigarette butt, places her at her own house so the lack of evidence of her in the room is not surprising. Her boyfriends DNA was found on a ripped off bra clasp in the room where the murder took place. Guede could not have killed her alone and even if he did, he would not have cleaned up the house like Amanda did. Amanda made a big mistake leaving the only lamp in her room inside the locked murder room after she cleaned up, she also told friends details of the murder she could not have known.

She is guilty, but her family and supported pulled off a spectacularly successful PR disinformation campaign.

retro:electro · 27-05-2017 7:03pm

Cianmcliam wrote: »

She placed herself at the crime scene. No evidence, apart from a cigarette butt, places her at her own house so the lack of evidence of her in the room is not surprising. Her boyfriends DNA was found on a ripped off bra clasp in the room where the murder took place. Guede could not have killed her alone and even if he did, he would not have cleaned up the house like Amanda did. Amanda made a big mistake leaving the only lamp in her room inside the locked murder room after she cleaned up, she also told friends details of the murder she could not have known.

She is guilty, but her family and supported pulled off a spectacularly successful PR disinformation campaign.

Guede has admitted to killing her alone. Of course he could have done this alone, why do you think he couldn't have? The DNA evidence should have been thrown out as the forensic officers didn't adhere to protocol and clearly their lack of forensic adherence corrupted and compromised the evidence that was there. They didn't change gloves. Raphael touched the handle on Merediths door on the morning of the murder as he tried to get in. The forensic officers, after touching this door, then went on to touch the bra clasp without changing gloves. There is zero evidence which places them in the room at the time of her murder.

Cianmcliam · 28-05-2017 9:20am

anna080 wrote: »

Guede has admitted to killing her alone. Of course he could have done this alone, why do you think he couldn't have? The DNA evidence should have been thrown out as the forensic officers didn't adhere to protocol and clearly their lack of forensic adherence corrupted and compromised the evidence that was there. They didn't change gloves. Raphael touched the handle on Merediths door on the morning of the murder as he tried to get in. The forensic officers, after touching this door, then went on to touch the bra clasp without changing gloves. There is zero evidence which places them in the room at the time of her murder.

Guede never said he did it alone. Two different knives were used from two different directions while Meredith was continuously restrained. He also had no reason at all to stage a burglary or clean up the hallway and bathroom like Amanda did. He also wore shoes while Knox and Sollecito left bare footprints in blood that they tried to wash away.

If the nonsense excuse of the 'door handle' DNA were true then Sollecito's DNA would have been found in several places, in fact it was only ever discovered on a cigarrete butt removed weeks earlier and on the bra clasp. DNA does not transfer easily, it has to be gouged out from below the outer layer of skin and it doesn't cover something like a door handle.

retro:electro · 28-05-2017 11:36am

Cianmcliam wrote: »

Guede never said he did it alone. Two different knives were used from two different directions while Meredith was continuously restrained. He also had no reason at all to stage a burglary or clean up the hallway and bathroom like Amanda did. He also wore shoes while Knox and Sollecito left bare footprints in blood that they tried to wash away.

If the nonsense excuse of the 'door handle' DNA were true then Sollecito's DNA would have been found in several places, in fact it was only ever discovered on a cigarrete butt removed weeks earlier and on the bra clasp. DNA does not transfer easily, it has to be gouged out from below the outer layer of skin and it doesn't cover something like a door handle.

DNA does not transfer easily? Where are you getting that from? It transfers incredibly easily and there is a high risk of transfer through latex gloves. The footage of them finding the bra clasp is available to view online- they do not change gloves before picking it up by the clasp itself and examining it. They then drop it back down on the floor- further contaminating it- and start to take photos of it as if this is their first time seeing it. They are meant to change gloves before they touch any piece of evidence. They didn't. Also they found the clasp six weeks after the murder took place. This footage clearly shows their inept collection methodologies. They also walked all over the apartment without ever changing their boots. They are required to be changed constantly. There was absolutely no footprint in that apartment that contained a mix of Amanda's and Meredith's DNA-none. The footprints presented in court were not Amanda's and Raphael's and this was ruled out in court. They were Guede's partial footprints. The other bare footprints were deemed indistinguishable in court.

Have you watched the Netflix documentary? It unearths most of the sensationalist crap that your post entails. Guede didn't clean up all of the bathroom, quite the opposite in fact. Are you saying because she was stabbed three times, this means three people were involved? He was more than capable to overpower Meredith. The prosecution was absurd in suggesting it was not possible that this act was carried out by one person. There are a gazillion cases throughout history which prove this statement invalid. It's impossible to have Rudy's DNA ALL OVER the crime scene, and not Amanda's and Raphael's if they were involved- impossible. The minuscule amount of their DNA that was found has been attributed to transfer in the process as the officers were inept. Even the amount of DNA found on "the knife" was considerably minute- the same knife that has apparently slashed her throat. This was not a legitimate sample and not a profile. Meredith's wounds attest to the fact that she struggled for her life and fought back- she would not have been able to do this had their been 3 people over powering her and holding her down as the prosecution claimed.

He also didn't "stage a burglary". He was burglarising the house and Meredith arrived home and disturbed him. He was a known burglar in the area, and was arrested for one two weeks earlier. A close contact crime such as this nature would have meant the offender would be covered in her blood. A&R were not. She is supposed to have taken part in a sex orgy and very bloody killing where there was evidence of a struggle; and its accepted there was no cleanup yet not one bit of DNA of her was found in the room or on Meredith; yet Guede's was found everywhere. Similarly, there was zero wounds found on A&R consistent with a defense struggle by Meredith. All Meredith's clothes had Guede's DNA on them- not A&R's. What more evidence do you need?

It's quite scary actually that someone can be convicted of murder, with zero evidence placing them at the scene and zero forensic evidence of them ever being involved. I don't even remember Guede's trial, do you? And he pleaded guilty! In fact- I think his trial got fast tracked. The fact is, this wasn't enough for the British media- they wanted Amanda. If you watch this Netflix doc you will see the scumbag behaviour from British journalists that I am on about. They didn't even bother to fact check, and their absolute goal was to add a bit of spice to a boring old rape and murder case. And people like you have fallen for their salacious and incredulous headlines.
Stop reading nonsence articles on the internet and pay attention to the cold hard facts.

SpitItOut · 28-05-2017 11:48am

Men would be more willing to date a murderer. I wouldn't date one, but I would go for a FWB relationship. It's hard to get laid after all. All you'd have to do is make sure you don't eat or drink anything she serves you.

A woman dating a male murderer is a different matter!

Cianmcliam · 28-05-2017 2:13pm

anna080 wrote: »

DNA does not transfer easily? Where are you getting that from? It transfers incredibly easily and there is a high risk of transfer through latex gloves. The footage of them finding the bra clasp is available to view online- they do not change gloves before picking it up by the clasp itself and examining it. They then drop it back down on the floor- further contaminating it- and start to take photos of it as if this is their first time seeing it. They are meant to change gloves before they touch any piece of evidence. They didn't. Also they found the clasp six weeks after the murder took place. This footage clearly shows their inept collection methodologies. They also walked all over the apartment without ever changing their boots. They are required to be changed constantly. There was absolutely no footprint in that apartment that contained a mix of Amanda's and Meredith's DNA-none. The footprints presented in court were not Amanda's and Raphael's and this was ruled out in court. They were Guede's partial footprints. The other bare footprints were deemed indistinguishable in court.

Have you watched the Netflix documentary? It unearths most of the sensationalist crap that your post entails. Guede didn't clean up all of the bathroom, quite the opposite in fact. Are you saying because she was stabbed three times, this means three people were involved? He was more than capable to overpower Meredith. The prosecution was absurd in suggesting it was not possible that this act was carried out by one person. There are a gazillion cases throughout history which prove this statement invalid. It's impossible to have Rudy's DNA ALL OVER the crime scene, and not Amanda's and Raphael's if they were involved- impossible. The minuscule amount of their DNA that was found has been attributed to transfer in the process as the officers were inept. Even the amount of blood found on "the knife" was considerably minute- the same knife that has apparently slashed her throat. This was not a legitimate sample and not a profile. Meredith's wounds attest to the fact that she struggled for her life and fought back- she would not have been able to do this had their been 3 people over powering her and holding her down as the prosecution claimed.

He also didn't "stage a burglary". He was burglarising the house and Meredith arrived home and disturbed him. He was a known burglar in the area, and was arrested for one two weeks earlier. A close contact crime such as this nature would have meant the offender would be covered in her blood. A&R were not. She is supposed to have taken part in a sex orgy and very bloody killing where there was evidence of a struggle; and its accepted there was no cleanup yet not one bit of DNA of her was found in the room or on Meredith; yet Guede's was found everywhere. Similarly, there was zero wounds found on A&R consistent with a defense struggle by Meredith. All Meredith's clothes had Guede's DNA on them- not A&R's. What more evidence do you need?

It's quite scary actually that someone can be convicted of murder, with zero evidence placing them at the scene and zero forensic evidence of them ever being involved. I don't even remember Guede's trial, do you? And he pleaded guilty! In fact- I think his trial got fast tracked. The fact is, this wasn't enough for the British media- they wanted Amanda. If you watch this Netflix doc you will see the scumbag behaviour from British journalists that I am on about. They didn't even bother to fact check, and their absolute goal was to add a bit of spice to a boring old rape and murder case. And people like you have fallen for their salacious and incredulous headlines.
Stop reading nonsence articles on the internet and pay attention to the cold hard facts.

The last sentence is irony personified. This is all PR talking points from the Knox campaign. Have you read any of the actual judgements or court documents?

Have I watched the Netflix documentary? Jesus wept.

retro:electro · 28-05-2017 2:14pm

Cianmcliam wrote: »

The last sentence is irony personified. This is all PR talking points from the Knox campaign. Have you read any of the actual judgements or court documents? Have I watched the Netflix documentary? Jesus wept.

Yes I have. I actually know this case inside out, to be honest. And I'm inclined to go with the evidence and facts, rather than headline grabbing nonsence. Let's not forget that Knox was acquitted by the Supreme Court due to monumental flaws in the investigation. Also, if the Netflix doc isn't sophisicated enough for you, I'd advise you listen to the podcast Real Crime Profile, where retired New York prosecutor and FBI criminal profiler Jim Clemente assesses the evidence and he too thinks the fact that A&R were involved is preposterous.
Outside of that, I don't know what else to refer you to that doesn't confirm your own unfounded bias.
Let's hope you never end up on a jury.

SpitItOut · 28-05-2017 2:18pm

Hector Bellend wrote: »

I'd definitely bang amanda knox

Me too. I'd probably throw up after tho!

wakka12 · 28-05-2017 2:19pm

Cianmcliam wrote: »

She placed herself at the crime scene. No evidence, apart from a cigarette butt, places her at her own house so the lack of evidence of her in the room is not surprising. Her boyfriends DNA was found on a ripped off bra clasp in the room where the murder took place. Guede could not have killed her alone and even if he did, he would not have cleaned up the house like Amanda did. Amanda made a big mistake leaving the only lamp in her room inside the locked murder room after she cleaned up, she also told friends details of the murder she could not have known.

She is guilty, but her family and supported pulled off a spectacularly successful PR disinformation campaign.

Whatever about her guilt, the italian police just completely ****ed up anything, Id nearly trust anything the defendants said more than the italian police after I heard some of the things they did

Would you date a Murderer?

Comments