So last Friday a good friend of mine sent me an IM to say they weren't sure how they felt about the Amanda Knox verdict and included a link to a news article.
This was the first I'd ever heard about anyone named Amanda Knox, and from the article it sounded like a guilty person had been found so in an Italian court of law. A bit of teenage teenagerness gone horribly wrong. Still, my good friend is very sane and rational (for the most part) so I was curious as to why they would be so unsure about something which was written so clear cut.
So I did what I do.
And now I'm just even more aggravated with the modern day media than I was before. Has journalism really died? Personally I gave up watching news years ago because of the blatant subjectivity, but a small part of me still hoped there was at least a basis of truth left. So much for that.
So anyway, it become very clear very quickly that the only reporting on the Amanda Knox case is purely subjective. Even those who claim to be objective are confused with the concept - let me clear that up: removing the important facts that make your subjective article appear objective is not actually being objective, it only looks that way.
I keep digressing, sorry.
So there are two distinct sides to the Amanda Knox case: The For and The Against. The For will subjectively tell you that there is not a shred of evidence to tie her to the crime scene. The Against will tell you the evidence is overwhelming. Both post very convincing arguments because they only tell you the information that supports their argument. Let me give you an example:
The For will argue that there is no evidence to tie her to the crime scene, without telling you the police interrupted her cleaning her apartment with bleach the morning after the murder. That's a pretty key point to conveniently leave out.
The Against will argue that she and her boyfriend were high on drugs the night of the murder, without telling you the drug she had smoked was marijuana. I be specific on that point because reports of a person being violent under the influence of it are all but non-existant.
The For will argue that there was absolutely no DNA from Amanda Knox found at the crime scene, without telling you the crime scene was the victim's room in an apartment that she shared with five other girls. It seems particularly odd to me that none of her DNA was found in the room. Having lived with roommates in the past it is incredibly hard not to get your DNA everywhere.
The Against will argue that Amanda Knox's DNA was found on a knife handle, with the victim's DNA found on the tip, without telling you that knife blade is not consistent with the reported wounds and the victim's DNA sample is marginal.
The list is extensive.
I'm not claiming the above are facts, it is only the information I've gathered from various reports on the net. The facts, from initial searching, elude me.
So now that we've ascertained that the reporting on the case is terribly subjective, the second and more important point to note is that regardless of any evidence (or lack thereof) this has all happened in Italy and their law applies. If they do not require evidence, they do not require evidence. If they wish to hold a person for two years without trial, they will hold a person for two years without trial. It is naive to expect the laws of her home country to apply... but on that note, that brings me to my post title..
LET'S DO A DEAL.
There is a man, Roman Polanski, and his home country laws are a little different to the laws of a country he committed a crime in, and that country wants him back so they can sentence him accordingly, but his home country doesn't want to give him up.
There is a girl, Amanda Knox, and her home country laws are a little different to the laws of a country she committed a crime in, and that country has sentenced her accordingly, and her home country wants her back.
Both home countries argue that crime was not committed. Both offended countries argue it was. And it just so happens that his home country and her offended country, and his offended country and her home country are almost the same, so I propose that the two home countries do a swap. Him for Her.
Deal? Can we shake hands now and call it square?
Recent Comments