The trial of Amanda Knox
Four long years have dragged on since the trial of Amanda Knox began, and it seems that the circumstances surrounding this case are as clouded and confusing as they were in the very beginning. The more we know, the less we seem to understand!
A little backdrop: Amanda Knox is a 24 year old American student who went in 2007 for a semester to Perugia, Italy to study. During her time in Italy, her roommate, British student Meredith Kercher, was murdered. Amanda Knox and her friend Raffael Sollecito became suspects and were charged and convicted for the murder, Knox being sentenced to 26 years in prison and Sollecito sentenced to 25 years. Why the latter was sentenced to a year less was never clearly explained, amongst all the other confusing events surrounding this case.
So, if Knox was convicted of murder, why is this trial still dragging on is the obvious question to ask. The reason is that she and her defence team have disputed the charges. To add to the mayhem and confusion involving this case, it is said by the Italian police that Amanda Knox admitted to the crime on the day that she was arrested. However, shortly afterwards, she claimed that she was coerced by the Italian police to confess and that her Italian was not good enough. Why there was no interpreter for a murder charge is highly unclear.
This is obviously strongly contested by the police who stand by their version of the story, to the extent that Knox and her family were sued by her interrogators for slander. Whatever the truth is, the Italian Supreme Court ruled that Knox's rights were violated during the questioning and therefore allowed her and her defence team to be heard once again.
Add to the drama a third murder suspect, a parallel story, an Ivorian man called Rudy Guede, who has also been convicted and is now serving a 30 year murder sentence. Guede's DNA samples were found at the scene of the crime and he was tried completely separately from the others. He also changed his testimony during the trial.
Sollecito and Knox have also changed their own testimonies and given statements such as "I can't remember" about their accounts of the events on the night of the murder. Forensic reports also indicate that two knives must have been used for the murder but only one has been found.
If all this is not mind boggling enough, it is perhaps the fact that for most, the Italian justice system is unfamiliar territory. Perhaps the long delays based on testimonies which were later changed due to a failure of memory on the part of the accused and the lack of all items of murder weapons being found have hampered a logical investigation and due legal process. Furthermore, there were no witnesses, only those who have been accused.
In a criminal case, we as the public are conditioned to have some opinion, a gut feeling, a liking for one suspect or an immediate suspicion and dislike for another. However, I for one have never been able to get a grasp on this case, despite the tremendous media coverage it has received, a point which will be made shortly. Could it be that the three accused were in this together, or two or only one is the accused? If so, did the others know about the crime? Are they covering up? If so, why? Why should Guede get a sentencing of 30 years and why has he, like Knox and Sollecito, not disputed the charges against him? Because his DNA sample was found at the scene of the crime does not without a shadow of a doubt indicate that he is guilty. Or….could the killer be a completely unknown person who has successfully escaped and the police were obliged to arrest these three in order to deliver some accountability for this hideous crime to society?
Let us no forget that this is a saga which involves several nationalities. Should the murderer(s) actually be someone else with no ties to the three accused, it would shed a very negative and incompetent light on the Italian police force and justice system. Could this also possibly have a bearing on why this case has dragged on and on for four long years based on what can be considered as perhaps circumstantial evidence and shaky testimonies?
Between Knox, Sollecito and Guede we have heard several accounts of "he/she was at the house at the time of the crime," "only he was in the house, she was outside," "I was watching a movie at the time the crime occurred," "I can't remember if I was watching a movie or who I was with……" Yes, all bizarre accounts which have, in the view of this writer at least, not shed any light whatsoever on why an innocent woman lost her life on this infamous night.
Referring to the extensive media coverage of this case, without a doubt that hampers the sound and unbiased decision making on the part of any judge or jury. Would it not have been more sensible for the judge to issue a gag order in order for this trial to proceed in the most unbiased way possible?
Knox and Sollecito are making their final pleas before the jury to overturn their convictions as I write this, so the decision of the jury is not yet known. However, that hardly alters the fact that this case has been hazy from day one and an innocent or guilty plea will not reveal the truth about this murder, why it happened and by whom. It may very well be that innocent people have paid for the crime or that the guilty will walk away free. In any case, all sympathies go out to the victim and her family.
Comments