Monday, 3 October 2011

Knox - guilty or innocent?

For the past few days I have been devouring all the articles and essays I could find online about the Amanda Knox case. Or rather, as it seems to have been forgotten in the midst of this media frenzy, the Meredith Kercher case.

It is truly fascinating. Everywhere I turn there is conflicting information - the pro Knox supporters (Knoxophiles) tarnishing the prosecution's case with disputes, such as Knox having bought bleach the morning after the killing. They say it took the shop owner a year to come forward and he only did so after receiving a low level of fame through his chats with a reporter. That a shop assistant also working the same day never saw her - because they assert - Knox was never there in the first place. This is merely one small detail amongst many that the defense insist did not happen. The general view in the pro Knox camp is that prosecutor Giuliano Mignini made up the sex crazed orgy story and fitted Knox and her boyfriend into the story - a tale that he created to appease the Italian authorities who wanted a quick resolution to a case that had garnered worldwide interest. They say his tale is fabricated and flawed.

Upon first glance it would appear that it was in fact a lone wolf attack - Rudy Guede, a drifter and petty thief has already been convicted of the murder and sentenced in a 'fast track' trial. His DNA was found on, inside, and all around Meredith - and his bloody hand print was left on her pillow. Why on earth would Knox, seemingly a bright student with no previous record, be involved in a crazed sex game with a man she had only fleetingly met, and her new boyfriend? It isn't exactly the stuff of early dating rituals.

However, I just can't get past the fact she blamed an entirely innocent man, due to a 'vision' she had that he was killing poor Meredith. Patrick Lumumba is currently suing Knox as it was proved he had a cast iron alibi. Why would you blame an innocent man? Why change your story so many times? Why did her boyfriend and co - accused Raffaele Sollecito explain Meredith's DNA arriving on a knife he owned by way of her having dinner at his place - he cut her accidentally when cooking - when she had never been to his home? Then there is the whole break-in issue - was it staged? It was a damp night and yet there were no footprints or scuffs on the wall outside the window that was broken - no signs that someone climbed in. Guede's DNA was not found in the room with the broken window - proving that is not how he entered. Again, this is one mere detail that could potentially point at their guilt - why stage a break-in? When nothing was tacken from any other room than Meredith's? There is debate over when Sollecito called the police, the prosecution arguing he only did so when postal police arrived at the scene, checking out mobile phones that had been found in a nearby garden.

Then there is the DNA - which appears to be inadequate in proof that Knox and Sollecito were in fact there. Guede left prints all the way out the front door - however, the DNA found showing Knox's blood mixed with Meredith's could in fact just be DNA shared from living together. The DNA issues are the reason the appeal has been lodged in the first place. If the two lovers had killed Meredith, why was the room free of their DNA? Had they cleaned it away, if indeed Know bought the bleach after all?

It is mind boggling how conflicting each side is. At the heart of it is potentially two innocent young people who could spend the rest of their lives in jail if today's appeal is quashed and the prosecution wins a longer sentance for them both. But, there are so many odd things to think about - not least Knox's behaviour after finding Meredith dead in her room - that perhaps there is no smoke without fire... Today we will find out the appeal verdict, but will we ever really know what happened to that beautiful, happy kind girl with so much to live for, so much hope for her Italian adventure?

In all the foggy maze, it is Meredith that we should think of and not some trial by media. However, it would be a lie if I said I wasn't on tenterhooks awaiting the verdict. I cannot explain why this case has fascinated me so. The horror in such a beautiful place, the tragedy of it all, the fact it seems unending. I have no idea what the outcome today will be. I hope though that Meredith's family find some peace and finallity in it, as they have suffered enough.

Did she do it? What do you think?


jkelsofarrell said...

I don't think she did it, per se, but she was definitely an active (even if just verbally) participant.

Liz said...

I have been reading up on this, too. I don't think she did it -I just think she's weird. i don't think she was an accessory, either. I'm not sure what I would say if I felt pressured and had no sleep and was being questioned in another language. Well, I'm American, I would lawyer up, but who knows what she was thinking. It seems to me that Knox literally could not handle the basic details of life abroad, she seems like she was very young and naive.

I understand it's overwhelming, epecially for Americans who do not travel alone until this study abroad moment. I really think she is a victim of her inexperience. As for her exboyfriend, I think he got dragged into it by her. But what do I know?

jkelsofarrell said...

I just know that in the US we like to remove agency from pretty young women and to do our damnedest to make them innocent. There are have been a few high profile cases where a guilty young woman has been found not-guilty because of the gender bias.

To that end, I'm predisposed to not give her the benefit of the doubt. I watched part of the trial and while I agree that she's not an adult mentally, I also think some of her demeanor was a calculated act to make her seem younger and more innocent than she actually is.

Again, I don't think she was the one who did the killing, but I don't think she was just an innocent victim.

Crummy Mummy said...

I have to say that I agree with you Jkelsofarrell. I don't think she murdered her friend, but perhaps she let Guede in. Maybe she was involved in some way. I do not think any rational person would blame another - also it bothers me that they claim to have been at Sollecito's pad, on the computer, when it was proved that he was no longer on line after 9pm... Why not have two matching stories that prove they are not guilty. Something is fishy. In a matter of minutes we may find out what will happen...

jkelsofarrell said...

People are really divided on this one. On one hand, there's a contingency who think she was treated unfairly as an American abroad. On the other hand, there's those that think she's been exonerated because she's a pretty white girl. And there's tons of comparisons to Casey Anthony and well, it's become a bit of a mess.

I stand by my original claim that I don't think she's completely innocent, but we'll never get the whole story now. She'll write a heavily edited book, maybe sell some film rights, but we'll never know the truth.

Monica said...

I totally agree with everything Liz said. She was a super naive girl who acted like an idiot (cartwheels and splits in the police halls) in the aftermath of Meredith's murder but people laugh and act weird at really inappropriate times. I got the giggles throughout my grandma's funeral and even though I was horrified I was laughing, I couldn't stop. I think after 14 hours of questioning in a foreign language wherein police tell you you're crazy and lying and must've forgot - well, she was super confused and freaked out. Have you read her prison journal? I think it proves she is totally naive and was super confused. I think the dude who did it is in jail. He had a history of breaking and entering and robbery and only his DNA is all over the room. Also, I think Knox met her boyfriend only like a week before the murders. So she meets a guy and within days plans and executes a murder? No way.