So a scummy murderess gets off scot free

[fpb]

I haven't been this disgusted at my country since 1982, when we betrayed Britain over the Falklands. (The British won, too, which means that Italy got nothing for its betrayal of an ally except shame and disgrace. But then Italians are like that: they are always at their most stupid when they think they are being crafty.) The Meredith Kercher murder was one of the most squalid and cruel events in recent memory, and the guilt of Knox and Sollecito was obvious to anyone who could read. So that is how you get off with murder: be pretty, have a shameless and prosperous family who sets up a media circus on your behalf among gullible American hacks, and manage to look pathetic every time you are on screen. Then evidence be damned. Well, the need for wide structural reform of Italian justice has been cryingly obvious for decades, but this proves once and for all that a moral reformation is even more desperately needed. Nobody who took their oath to justice seriously for two minutes could ever have released such a sentence. When the Supreme Court hears the inevitable prosecution appeal and finds Knox guilty as they have to, she and her accomplices will be mocking at us from her bolthole across the ocean. And her victim can rest in her grave - abused, forgotten and unavenged.

Comments

My Two Cents

[saturndevouring.livejournal.com]

I read this in 'Rolling Stone,' and this is where trouble arises for someone like me. I read Coulter, who clearly has an axe to grind (it's all about "liberals!") and then this, which, if you read the entire article, paints her as the innocent victim from the get-go. As someone who is shamefully illiterate in Italian and unable to go to the source, I'm curious for your take on this report.

"[The list of problems with the case against Knox was long]: incompetent police work, leading to the mishandling of evidence. The lack of any physical trace of Knox in Kercher's bedroom. Italy's carnivalesque judicial process, where there is never order in the court, the lawyers and defendants constantly interrupting the proceedings with groans and catcalls and wild gesticulations, while the press in the gallery yammers away like the kids in the back of the classroom. The prosecution's failure to establish motive or intent ("We live in an age of violence with no motive," said one prosecutor). And the fact that prosecutors did not immediately drop the case against Knox and Sollecito after the bloody fingerprints and footprints came back matching a 20-year-old petty thief named Rudy Guede.

These were valid criticisms, but Knox's supporters missed one crucial point. The prosecution, despite their ineptitude, would never have been able to convict Knox and Sollecito all by themselves. They needed help. And they would get it — from Amanda Knox.

Knox had several disadvantages from the start: She was American and, despite majoring in Italian at the University of Washington, could barely speak the language. Her poor comprehension may have contributed to her second problem: her inability to realize that she was, from the first day of the investigation, suspected of murder. Most damaging, however, was her obstinate faith in the kindness of strangers.

Re: My Two Cents

[fpb.livejournal.com]

That's right, take Rolling Stone for a reliable source. Ignore Coulter because "she's got an axe to grind" (and the vile pretence at a journalist who wrote that shameful passage about the Italian courts, full of ignorant contempt because things aren't done the way they're done at home, is a valid source?) and forget that she's a lawyer and, unlike the Rolling Weed bastard, has read the original sentence. Believe Knox' lies - poor innocent wee little American girl with no Italian and no idea that she was repeatedly lying and repeatedly trying to incriminate others. Not to mention her nasty streak of racism - both her chosen targets, Lumumba and Guede, were African, and one has to wonder whether the fact that her victim was half-black also had something to do with it. If you can't see that the vile Roll-Your-Own pseudo-reporter had gone there with his mind made up and resolute to find Italians a bunch of murderous clowns, I can't do anything with you. Forget it. Just forget it.

Re: My Two Cents

[saturndevouring.livejournal.com]

Fabio,

I'm not in support of Knox, and in rereading my post, I can see how it can come across as condescending, but honestly, the two articles are so wildly divergent in their details I'm just shocked someone, anyone, would print such nonsense. That's why I'm curious about your take on the issue in relation to the segment I posted.

And while I read 'Rolling Stone' with every inch of skepticism they've earned, I read Coulter the same (don't forget, this women once claimed a soldier who lost limbs at the battle of Khe Sahn did so on "a beer run"), which is what left me scratching my head at the seemingly inconpatible versions of the events that are related. You'll note I wrote that the 'RS' article painted her innocent from the get-go, offering the "real" details of the crime before bringing Knox in and one of those naive Americans who got convicted because, well, you read what was written.

You're a much more balanced source of data, and I read your opinions seriously, so my question was about why you think a magazine, which is a respected publication on this side of the pond, would paint such a portrait of Knox.

Re: My Two Cents

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Let's just put it this way. If anyone reported on an American court - or any kind of American public proceeding - with the ignorant contempt with which the so-called reporter described Italian court proceedings, not even trying to understand what was going on and why, but vilifying it all anyway, would you take him to be a credible source on what was being debated and why?

Like I said and repeated, Italian justice is in dire need of reform; but not because some ignorant American does not understand the rules of procedure and is outraged that they are not the same as in Petaluma. One of the main issues which may need looking at is the way that almost every trial can be taken to appeal and then to the Supreme Court (Corte di Cassazione). In effect, it is commonplace for Italians not to regard any serious matter as actually judged (passata in giudicato) unless it has reached the Supreme Court. This not only means that trials take ages, but also that the Court of Appeals, reduced to the level of an intermediate stage between original and final sentence, loses responsibility and consequently self-respect. The worst and most outrageous miscarriages of justice typically happen at the appeals stage, and this is absolutely typical. But I don't suppose your brilliant Stone "journalist" knew that, did he?

Re: My Two Cents

[saturndevouring.livejournal.com]

Fabio,

I went and reread the article and, just to demonstrate the completely contradictory nature of the situation, here's Rich, from the 'Rolling Stone' piece:

"The police refused to break into Kercher's bedroom, claiming respect for the girl's privacy. But on Romanelli's insistence they relented, standing by while one of the bofriends, seizing the moment, kicked down the door."

And here's Coulter:

"Also highly suspicious, when the police first arrived and Knox was the only roommate there, she lied to them, driving them away from Meredith's locked bedroom door by assuring them that Meredith always locked her door, even to go to the bathroom.

So the police continued to investigate the alleged burglary and ignored Meredith's room, until Filomena arrived, found out Meredith's door was locked and demanded the police break it down, telling them -- contra Knox -- that Meredith never locked her door."

Rich: "During Sollecito's interview, investigators accused him of covering up for Knox. He asked for a lawyer, and to speak with his father, but his requests were denied. 'Confused and nervous,' as one of the officers described him, Sollecito finally stated that Knox could have left his apartment for several hours on the night of Kercher's murder while he was asleep."

Coulter, on the other hand, writes that it was "Sollecito's admission that it was a lie" that Knox stayed at his house all night.

There are others: According to Rich, Knox wasn't in the house that night, and signed a confession she couldn't read, and gave out the club owner's name because of an intense session in which she was physically hit by the police.

So when I read such wildly varying accounts, with Coulter (who I think you'll admit is more than willing to be bold at the expense of accurate) making these claims, I have to admit I was skeptical of her position.

This is not to say I believe Rich, whose cart before the horse reasoning and fawning view of Knox read at times as downright unprofessional. It reads far more like propeganda than investigative journalism.

But as I am utterly ignorant of the Italian legal system, I thought it best to ask someone whose opinions I respect and knows more about this issue than I do, as I'm far more curious at this point on WHY people are defending her than her guilt.

Re: My Two Cents

[fpb.livejournal.com]

In other words, Rich transcribed what Knox told him. "Signed a confession she couldn't read"?? What catalogue of cheap mythology did she draw that one from? Are you sure the police did not make leering threats to her virtue, while she was at it?

Re: My Two Cents

[saturndevouring.livejournal.com]

Essentially, that's how it reads, although he does make some comments about the Italian legal system and how it operates.

Here's the article, in case you're curious:

http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/the-neverending-nightmare-of-amanda-knox-20110627

And another, which is, I would argue, even worse:

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2011/09/my_amanda_knox_obsession.html

Lawrence Auster vs Ann Coulter

[frittomisto.livejournal.com]

Auster at view from the right

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/020638.html

has an interesting discussion / debate about the case vis-a-vis Ann Coulter. He's an "innocentista". Perhaps you should go there and duke it out. And I must say, he makes a better (less emotional) case for the twosome's innocence than you do for their guilt.

Auster asks an interesting question:

"Another point: if the case is on the up and up, why did the prosecutors in the appeals trial demand that the Knox and Sollecito, after having already spent four years in prison, serve several months in solitary confinement? Doesn't that suggest some kind of out of control vindictiveness on the prosecutors' part?"

You say this: "and the guilt of Knox and Sollecito was obvious to anyone who could read" but that only makes you lose credibility as a commentator. You take for granted what needs to be proved.

By comparison, yours is merely an emotional outburst.

Re: Lawrence Auster vs Ann Coulter

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Auster's, on the other hand, is simply ignorant. As I already explained to saturndevouring, above, in Italian practice a trial is not over till the last appeal. The prosecutors were perfectly aware that if they let the murderous scum go now, they might as well kiss the case goodbye; she'd be on the next flight to Seattle - as she punctually was - and from then on, there would have been no chance of getting her back short of sending an undercover squad and kidnapping her.

I have some experience of Auster. He is worse than Coulter; for one thing, he is an out and out racist, which I don't think Coulter is.

Re: Lawrence Auster vs Ann Coulter

[fpb.livejournal.com]

http://fpb.livejournal.com/537167.html

Re: Lawrence Auster vs Ann Coulter

[frittomisto.livejournal.com]

Ciao Fabio and thanks for answering. I'd like to trouble you for an answer / opinion concerning that question Auster raised. Why do you suppose that PM Mignini asked for la Knox and Sollecito to be locked up in solitary?

This is the man we're talking about:

http://www.corriere.it/cronache/10_gennaio_22/mostro-firenze-giuttari-mignini_8d07606e-075a-11df-8946-00144f02aabe.shtml

IN ENGLISH

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6999196.ece

"Abuse of office"

Why would he ask - along with a life sentence - also for 9 months of "daylight solitary confinement." The girl had behaved very well in the slammer. What's the accanimento? How do you see it?

[sanscouronne.livejournal.com]

Would you be willing to link to your previous entries on this case? I do believe that you wrote a few.
It is interesting that you take a line so strongly for Knox's guilt, because most people I know who are into the case maintain her innocence, or at least serious doubts about it. And not in any emotional, pro-American way. I would like to read more about what you have said regarding the case.