fpb | So a scummy murderess gets off scot free

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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

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?

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.

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?

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

So a scummy murderess gets off scot free

Re: My Two Cents

Re: My Two Cents

Re: My Two Cents

Re: My Two Cents