Now the true question is whether or not she did it. I personally don’t think she did. Knox’s main argument for the appeal was the fact that her DNA was not found on the knife that slit victim Meredith Kercher’s throat. And the prosecution analysis of the weapon was declared shoddy and unreliable during the appeal case. Um, if this doesn’t scream reasonable doubt (thanks, mock trial), then I don’t know what does. How can someone be guilty of a murder if they didn’t even hold the murder weapon?
Throughout the trial, Knox has been named “Foxy-Knoxy” and even “she-devil” by lawyers. There were so many interpretations of Knox’s character, it was hard to decide if she was “angelic” or “diabolic”. I’m sure that the “diabolic” side could have been attributed to the fact that Knox was doing cartwheels outside the police station or making out with her ex-boyfriend and co-defendent at the crime scene. But last time I checked, these are not signs of murder. At all.
As with the Casey Anthony trial, the media played a ginormous role throughout the trial. Thanks to Nancy Grace (and her loud mouth), the media convicted Anthony as a baby-killer. But in Knox’s case, the American media portrayed Knox as innocent and as a victim of a corrupted foregin justice system. Knox is a Seattle native who was studying in Perugia, Italy. So is there a sense of bias in American journalism? Um, probably.
England (the victim’s home country) portrayed Knox as guilty. Italy (where the crime occured) portrayed Knox as guilty. When the verdict was read, shouts of “Shame! Shame!” could be heard outside the courtroom. This is exactly what happened in the Anthony trial: outburts of anger at the verdict.
What’s going down here is that people are too lazy to read into the respective case itself. They rely on the media to give them the whole details. This really shouldn’t be an issue, seeing as though journalism should represent an objective, unbiased perspective. But, in both Anthony’s and Knox’s cases, this didn’t happen. I’m not saying that the media shouldn’t be relied upon (especially since I want you to rely on me when I become a journalist); I’m saying that people should research each case on their own before making a decision. This includes reading about both sides and what each side has to offer. Don’t just jump to conclusions because Nancy Grace gives her heated argument. Obviously, it is biased.
The media has a powerful influence: people all over the world depend upon it to give them the latest news. It is a disservice to the profession when only one side is represented in an only positive or an only negative way.
So if you are angry at Knox’s accquittal, can you provide any reason that has presented in the case as to why she is truly guilty? I would love to be enlightened.