Photosales
niJobfinder
niCarfinder
Home Delivery
Propertynews
Why we shouldn’t scream ‘Italian job’ over Amanda Knox
Tuesday, 8 December 2009
It's strange, isn't it? One minute we have Foxy Knoxy, the promiscuous hard-faced American psychosexual harridan and the next, after she gets 26 years, we have the innocent victim railroaded by a corrupt legal system.
She’s now being compared to Joan of Arc — on trial because she’s a feisty woman in a sexist, man's world. Just as Knox was tarred at the start of the murder inquiry, she's now being whitewashed by her defenders. Her case — like that other beacon of pure justice, OJ Simpson — is moving outside the courtroom into the world of instant debate about wider ‘ishoos’.
Suddenly, it's all about how awful the media is, the cultural norms of nations, and what a misogynistic bunch we are to be so fascinated by stories of predatory sexual females.
Oh yes, and how cr*p Italians are. At everything. (Apart from running ice cream shops and organised crime syndicates, obviously.)
First, we’re told — thanks to to a bit of Cup-a-Soup cultural analysis — that the whole case was a charade because not losing face is a huge thing with Italians. (All that's missing is Marlon Brando with cotton wool stuffed in his cheeks.)
Then, it’s how the Italians are just hapless ‘Whatsamatteryou’ incompetents. Even the jury’s revelations about tears in the decision room is taken as proof they’re an unstable lot. Italy is guilty. Of something. Or other.
And after US politicians ‘raising questions’ about the trial, Hillary Clinton is being asked to get involved. Knox, you see, could be the victim of Italian anti-Americanism. (No mention of the racist anti-Italian overtones of much of the criticism heading east over the Atlantic).
There appears to be anomalies in the Knox case — no properly established motive, DNA evidence that isn’t all that it could have been. That's why the case is probably going to appeal. And Italian justice allows not one but two appeals.
During the trial, the DNA evidence was challenged. The jury decided to disregard the challenge. Evidence challenged is not evidence refuted. But there was compelling evidence as to why Knox should stand trial: she changed her story several times about what she was doing on the night in question. At one point, she confessed.
She tried to frame an innocent man. Phone records prove that she was in contact with the third person accused in Meredith's slaying, drug dealer Rudy Guede, before and after the murder. There was a botched attempt by someone to fix evidence in favour of a break-in theory. Knox did behave bizarrely, cartwheeling round the cop shop. Saying that Italians just don't ‘get’ Americans (and young Americans at that) is stretching it a bit.
Apart from the ‘break in’ (which, in fairness could have been done by somebody else), all this is now being blamed on Knox being ‘tired’, ‘confused’, even ‘brainwashed’. Of course, it could also be the behaviour of someone trying to get off the hook.
Knox and her parents claim darkly that she wasn't just confused; she was beaten by Italian police — prompting detectives to sue the Knoxs. Oh, aren’t Italians touchy!
What the evidence proved to the jury was guilt. The suggestion that it should all just somehow be dismissed as the idiosyncrasies of a strange young woman is plain silly. Equally, just saying you were beaten by police doesn't make it true.
In all our discussions we have lost sight of the only undisputed victim in all of this, Meredith Kercher, who was brutally slaughtered.
As the media frenzy rages, a rare note of sanity was spoken by Meredith's brother John. Asked if his family had any qualms about supporting the Italian prosecution, he said: “In order to be involved with this case, that's the line we needed to take. But it is not for us to decide. We are not the detectives, the lawyers, or the judge and jury.”
And neither — comfy in our armchairs — are we. Working out our cultural neuroses in the public prints is, quite simply, not the way to ensure justice for Meredith.
- Text Size
Comments
34 Comments
People who confess to crimes they did not commit, is a very rare occurance, even in the US, where questionable police tactics have been used and are still being used. Amanda Knox was not promised a lighter sentence if she confessed, but she confessed anyway. A well-spoken, educated, intelligent girl doesn't confess to something she didn't do. This is a clear case of mental illness. I believe both Knox and Sollecito are sick. They found each other and it was a volatile mix. His fascination with knives, her fascination with rape and violence (in her many stories). If the character of these 2 is confusing to you, consider the DNA evidence. They were there. Period.
Posted by Beth | 15.12.09, 19:42 GMT
Poor Amanda should not be likened to Joan of Arc but to one of the Salem witches because she is a victim of a similar contagion and hysteria (not to mention the fact that the guy who prosecuted her got advice about the case from a dead priest informant via a ladyfriend intermediary who communicates telepathically with him; apparently the priest knows all about what happened in Perugia that night).
Amanda's case IS akin to OJ's in that the case against her is flawed in terms of its viable forensic evidence.
And if you want to know what Italy is guilty of Gail, try not being able to understand English.
Posted by John Winters | 12.12.09, 22:27 GMT
Ms. Walker,
There is NO reliable evidence to put Amanda Knox at the crime scene. Each eyewitness came forth long after the crime was committed and was found to have serious credibility issues.
So we have no eyewitness credibility, no reliable DNA evidence, and all that's left is Amanda's behavior. Having sex with multiple men before the tragedy does not make you a sex addict or into sex games. Not crying enough in public, softly kissing your boyfriend while your arms console each other, going to school after a tragedy, and doing yoga, a split, and a cartwheel in a police station does not a murderer make. Have none of you been to a funeral where people laugh, make jokes, play act, and do other inappropriate things? But even if you think all these things are horrifyingly awful, they still are not anywhere sufficient to prove that Amanda is a murderer. Anyone saying this behavior proves she is a sociopath or a psychopath knows nothing about psychology.
Jason is correct.
Posted by Theresa | 11.12.09, 08:39 GMT
This is all a comedy. It's sickening how many people will run to the aid of serial killers, psychopaths and serious murderers like Amanda Knox.
Posted by ireland abu | 10.12.09, 21:02 GMT
Ms. Walker,
Your column is correct in that Meredith will not get justice while people are involved in a media frenzy. Justice, through a trial, comes from examining the evidence presented in the trial. Unfortunately, the evidence you cite in your column is largely incorrect. You correctly state that the motive in this case was not properly established. The DNA evidence for Ms. Know was not just challenged, but interpreted incorrectly. None of the DNA found in the cottage or on the knife says anything about Ms. Knox because she was in her boyfriend's apartment and her home. You cannot tell when DNA was left, only that it was there. Therefore, the conclusion that any DNA found on the knife or in blood in the house is related to Meredith's death is specious. Anything said in the interrogation is not evidence as it was illegally collected, and thus tainted. The others below have shown how the phone evidence you said existed is incorrect. Everything you say shows guilt is wrong.
Posted by Theresa | 10.12.09, 08:15 GMT
Amanda Knox was never on the phone with Rudy Guede. Of all the misinformation reported on this case, it 's the first time I ever heard that one.
Posted by Sofia | 10.12.09, 05:40 GMT
Besides being really well written, I thought this put this whole thing in proper perspective. Nobody, not the parents or anyone here, knows the truth for certain. But I and many other Americans respect the verdict. The real tragedy is the British girl and her family. The girl who does cartwheels at the police station after the murder, guilty or not, is either sociopathic or just a jerk. She is also a convicted murderer.
Posted by Alan Shapiro | 10.12.09, 04:24 GMT
Love this article. Sums up exactly how I feel about the response of the US and my own Senator.
Posted by Jeff | 10.12.09, 01:49 GMT
Guilty as hell.
Thank God for Italian justice in the face of Yankee bullying. The blindingly obvious strikes again.
If Meredith had been north African or Amanda beefy blotchy trailer trash or just an Arab, we wouldn't be hearing so much from the transatlantic lobby.
Mind you, if Amanda had been lifted in the US she'd be facing the trapdoor or the on switch right now.
And no bad thing either.
Posted by ireland abu | 09.12.09, 22:49 GMT
It was the police and not Knox who originated the idea that Lumumba was guilty. They jumped to conclusions because they had found a text message between Knox and Lumumba. They then pressured Knox to confirm their theory.
The police have never been able to produce any recording of the interrogation. What does this tell us?
The forensic experts who testified for the defence, e.g. Carlo Torre, are also highly qualified experts. So are the dozens of other experts who have challenged the DNA evidence.
The likelihood of DNA contamination is far more credible than the nonsense theory that someone brings a kitchen knife with them to a murder, then takes it back home and puts it right back in the kitchen draw.
Knox's DNA on the handle doesn't prove a damn thing because she cooked with it.
If Knox had been involved in a violent sex attack then she would have left ample evidence at the scene. None was ever found.
Posted by Jason | 09.12.09, 22:11 GMT
I find it partially shocking to read your opinion and it gives me a bad feeling about English people.
Nobody who has studied this case can not be sure that Amanda and Raffaele are completely innocent. There was misinterpreted circumstantial evidence witch then was backed with created physical evidence and bribed witnesses. This can be showed easily with statistics, because there were happening so many coincidences in gathering the physical evidence, that it is virtually impossible that this evidence is for real. And then there are the witnesses which are a real travesty.
This case is a crime of the prosecutors Mignini and Comodi and their henchmen as much as of the press who has propagated their leaked and flawed evidence. But not to forget the English and Italian mob who has absorbed this obviously tainted information with joy and lived since than happily evermore.
Posted by Michael Lueber | 09.12.09, 19:38 GMT
Excellent column, the best on this horrible crime on the entire net.
Posted by Jeff | 09.12.09, 16:37 GMT
DoctorJohn
" If you were helping out after your mother has been raped and murdered would you expect the police to video you?"
YES! If it is required by law, yes. If it is information I want saved and it's important for my "mother" - absolutely. Usually all people interviewed have everything recorded-- how else can you compile evidence and information if you don't save it somehow! You have to document all questionings, not just 'suspects.'
And there wouldn't be all this "he said/she said" if there were appropriate transcripts of all of this. Please, someone, tell me there are transcripts of this!
Posted by MasterT | 09.12.09, 16:25 GMT
When Jean correctly points out the error in the article about phone records (Guede doesn't have a phone),
Libby replies:
It is true, but not by direct communication between them. The phone records show that she wasn't at Raffaele's when she received Lumumba's text, as she claimed, but instead the tower "pings" show that she was in the same street where Rudy said he was, buying his kebab before the murder.
8:18 Lumumba's text to Amanda
8:35 Amanda's reply to Lumumba
8:40-5 Joanna Poppovich sees Amanda at Raffaele's flat
8:47 Amanda switches off phone for a quiet night
The towers by which phones connect cannot give precise locations as the calls can shift between close towers. Thus the problem in determining where Meredith's phone was when being used by the killer at 10:00 & 10:13.
Always worth checking facts whether you're a journalist or a commenter.
Posted by Al | 09.12.09, 14:57 GMT
yet dear Jason
when a person repeatedly tells lies and it is proven o be so, a what point do you stop accepting their word, at what point do you have grave concerns about their credibility?
Within the circumspect nature of events in progress, it became clear that Amanda Knox equalled Pinocchio in he nose growing department.
The scientist on the other hand, brilliant and well-respected, offered yet another sound piece of evidence, why-ever in the world would anyone, in their right mind, believe that she'd be risking her reputation, for anything, when next month such a professional provides testimony that actually sees someone else, who she also does not know, getting released.
The forensic scientist in question underwent very strict tests in order to gain her position in the Rome office, of specialised police.
Okay, one lie, two lies but 2 dozen? give us a break, Knox's credibility is like Dylan's song where she built a fire on main street then shot it dull of holes!
Posted by DoctorJohn | 09.12.09, 14:26 GMT
That's incorrect Mr Jason.
Knox was only assisting the police. Would you, if your neighbour had been murdered, refuse to help if you could?
Would you, after starting to help, immediately have demanded a lawyer?
Whatever for, if your answer is yes?
No, when helping out, and not as you wrote, interrogated, it became clear that Knox was unable to match her story to her boyfriend's one, and these things are not even something police went after, it all became clear, the police did not even have to try, all as they needed to do was listen.
The prosecutor Mignini, was not even present when Knox started accusing the black man Mr Lumumba of having raped and murdered Meredith Kercher.
I point out that he was black because as it turned out, not her ex-boss Mr Lumumba from the Congo had been involved but another black male, from the Ivory Coast.
Now isn't that a coincidence!
If you were helping out after your mother has been raped and murdered would you expect the police to video you?
Posted by DoctorJohn | 09.12.09, 14:16 GMT
....Or maybe she is guilty, and because she likely resembles a daughter, grandaughter, neice etc. we don't want to believe it to be true. Not all killers look like gangsters.
Posted by Sean Donohue | 09.12.09, 14:08 GMT
As the media frenzy rages, Belfast Telegraph gets the facts wrong. Reliable fact checking, along with reliable evidence is quite important in these cases, I would have thought.
Posted by Matthew | 09.12.09, 13:43 GMT
Knox's so-called "confession" is inadmissable evidence because there was no lawyer or translator present. Nor did the police record the interrogation as required by law.
With no recording produced, Knox's claims of intimidation are entirely credible. It was the police, rather than Knox herself, who were determined to finger Knox's boss.
In fact the whole matter is yet another example of how the police bungled the investigation, which is grounds for acquittal.
The police "accidently" destroyed the computer servers that might have confirmed the defendants' alibis. More grounds for acquittal.
The DNA evidence on the knife (which does not fit the wounds) was also "destroyed in testing" so no one can confirm the results independently. More grounds for acquittal.
The list of cock-ups goes on and on.
Posted by Jason | 09.12.09, 11:26 GMT
Jean said:
"Phone records prove that she was in contact with the third person accused in Meredith's slaying, drug dealer Rudy Guede, before and after the murder."
That's untrue. There were texts between herself and Lumumba, her boss who she formerly implicated in the murder. Prosecution had been trying to connect her to Guede but have still to establish a direct connection.
* * * *
It is true, but not by direct communication between them. The phone records show that she wasn't at Raffaele's when she received Lumumba's text, as she claimed, but instead the tower "pings" show that she was in the same street where Rudy said he was, buying his kebab before the murder.
Posted by Libby | 09.12.09, 11:24 GMT
34 Comments