I don't know whether Knox is innocent, but I do know that she did not receive a fair trial. It's absolutely appalling that she was convicted on such scant evidence.
Timothy Egan had an excellent post on the pure absurdity of this case:
In closing arguments, Knox was described as a “Luciferina” and “a dirty-minded she-devil.” Preposterous, made-up sexual motives were ascribed to her. One prosecutor speculated before the jury what Knox may have said to Meredith Kercher before, he claimed, forcing an orgy that resulted in her death:
“You are always behaving like a little saint. Now we will show you. Now we will make you have sex.”
Nobody alleges that Knox said this to Kercher. But prosecutors asked the jury to imagine her saying such a thing.
What century is this? Didn’t Joan of Arc, the Inquisition and our own American Salem witch trials teach civilized nations a thing or two about contrived sexual hysteria with a devil twist?
2 comments:
This is the problem with a system that is not based on the assumption of innocence until guilt is proven. From the articles I've read, including one a while ago in Newsweek, it seems as if it is culturally acceptable to count being arrested as evidence of guilt.
I don't know if Knox did kill her roommate. I do know that the fact her personal hygiene was a piece of evidence and that the prosecution offered little in the way of motive beyond the idea that violence these days is often without motive just flabbergasts me.
Absolutely. So much of the evidence was speculative, irrelevant, or just downright ridiculous.
Post a Comment