The murder conviction of Amanda Knox is about to be overturned based on important new evidence: the convicted killer is an attractive young woman, and was not adequately advised of her right to a Pussy Pass.

At least, so goes the newest pampered princess narrative on CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/05/06/amanda.knox.profile/index.html?hpt=C2

The heart wrenching story begins with a series of baby pictures showing the killer as an adorable little girl:

1. Playing a guitar in a nighty at age 3

2. Wearing pink heart-shaped glasses at age 4

3. Dancing with her sister in matching red blazers at age 5

4. In a pink dress on her 7th birthday

5. As an 8 year old soccer girl called “foxy Knoxy”, with pony tails

6. Holding a puppy with her sister at age 9

7. Showing her “love of other cultures” in Japan at age 16

8. Surrounded by pink flowers, on her way to Italy at age 18

CNN could not be bothered to include a single picture of the evidence against Knox, or even of the victim.

The CNN article is called “Amanda Knox case resurfaces as key hearing nears”, but then makes only passing references to the upcoming hearing or the evidence involved. Instead, the majority of the article is a sympathetic description of Knox’s early life, her love of animals and culture, and her innocence. The article is so sympathetic to Knox that it can find only one sentence to discuss the evidence against her:

“Doubts over the forensic evidence used to convict Knox, 23, and Sollecito continue to linger. Knox has appealed her conviction and is awaiting the results of retesting of two controversial pieces of forensic evidence presented at her trial.”

The CNN article talks about the media portrayal of Knox, saying “the sordid saga has played out in worldwide media long enough to have broken into dual narratives.” The article then makes a passing reference to journalists who “paint her as a licentious, manipulative young American still trying to get away with murder, despite an alleged confession, which she quickly recanted, and a conviction.”

This single sentence is “balanced” with fifty-eight sentences describing an innocent, endearing, beautiful, and quirky young woman who is “the kind of person who would pick up a spider and take it outside rather than kill it.”

So who is the real Amanda Knox?

According to Italian police, Knox was so spoiled and over-pampered by her doting parents that she was driven to murder when, for the first time in her life, she did not get exactly what she wanted. Her best friend Amanda Kercher said “no” to Knox, and Knox threw a tantrum. Knox slashed Kercher’s throat, and watched as Kercher died a slow and agonizing death. Unlike Knox, Kercher was not an over-pampered princess of privilege who spent her life jetting around the world on daddy’s dime. When Knox decided she wanted a 4-way sex party with her boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito and her love interest Rudy Guede, Meredith said “no.”

That word cost her her life.

Maybe. Unlike the CNN article, I prefer not to worry too much about hear-say. Is there a reporter at CNN who can still spell the word “evidence”? Is there a prosecutor who is willing to examine evidence after a woman, or the feminist media, demands a Pussy Pass? Thankfully, at least one Italian prosecutor thinks so. So, let’s look at evidence. If you don’t care, skip to “PUSSY PASS”.

KNOX’S CONFESSION:

Confession evidence is notoriously unreliable, except with regards to credibility. So, let’s look at Knox’s credibility.

Knox confessed to the murder under interrogation. However, under Italian law, confession evidence is only admissible under strict conditions. The confession was judged inadmissible and is not available. HOWEVER, on November 6, Knox voluntarily wrote a hand-written explanation for her confession, and voluntarily handed this to the police. This voluntary, hand written note contains veiled confessions to participating in part of the crime. You can read the entire rambling statement here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1570225/Transcript-of-Amanda-Knoxs-note.html

You may not be able to get through it. Ninety percent of it is self-serving drivel and snot-filled demands for pussy pity. Here are the parts that matter:

Knox was trying to deny her original confession: “In regards to this “confession” that I made last night, I want to make clear that I’m very doubtful of the veracity of my statements because they were made under the pressures of stress, shock and extreme exhaustion.”

Knox found her front door open and blood in her house and did not call the police, claiming to be in shock: “I know the police are confused as to why it took me so long to call someone after I found the door to my house open and blood in the bathroom. The truth is, I wasn’t sure what to think, but I definitely didn’t think the worst, that someone was murdered. I thought a lot of things, mainly that perhaps someone got hurt and left quickly to take care of it. I also thought that maybe one of my room-mates was having menstrual problems and hadn’t cleaned up. Perhaps I was in shock, but at the time I didn’t know what to think and that’s the truth.”

Knox was high on drugs and drunk: “I admit that this period of time is rather strange because I am not quite sure. I smoked marijuana with him and I might even have fallen asleep. These things I am not sure about and I know they are important to the case …”

Knox admits to visions of the murder, but not to the murder itself: “However, it was under this pressure and after many hours of confusion that my mind came up with these answers. In my mind I saw Patrick in flashes of blurred images. I saw him near the basketball court. I saw him at my front door. I saw myself cowering in the kitchen with my hands over my ears because in my head I could hear Meredith screaming. But I’ve said this many times so as to make myself clear: these things seem unreal to me, like a dream …”

How could Knox be in shock about the blood if she thought it was nothing?

PHYSICAL EVIDENCE:

Rudy Guede’s DNA was not found on the victim or on the murder weapon. His DNA was found elsewhere in the house, which matches his statement that he was at the home and attempting to convince the victim to have sex with him. He was convicted, probably because he was male, black, and “a drifter.” No pussy pass for him.

Sollecito’s DNA was found on Kercher’s bra clasp, which was cut from her bra. He was convicted. Hard to see how he could be innocent, given the evidence.

Knox was the sole contributor to DNA found on the handle of the murder weapon, and Kercher’s DNA was found in skin taken from the blade. The blade was carefully washed, but microscopic pieces of skin and flesh were embedded between serrations. Knox was convicted, but is now seeking a pussy pass re-trial.

REASONABLE DOUBT?

Confession under interrogation is unreliable, and I agree with the Italian court’s decision to throw out Knox’s confession. Hundreds of thousands of innocent men sit in American prisons because of false confessions obtained under interrogation. A good police interrogation team will convince anyone to confess to anything in 12 to 18 hours. Coerced confessions are basically meaningless.

A voluntary confession delivered in a hand written note to the police is VERY DIFFERENT. Why does Knox claim to have visions of the murder? Why does her hand written, voluntary confession neatly offer two versions of events, (1) Knox was not there, and (2) if she was there, she was covering her ears and not a participant in the murder?

The DNA evidence is extremely damning. Sollecito is certainly guilty, there is no plausible explanation for why his DNA would be found on a clasp that was forcefully cut from the victim at the time of the assault.

Knox could claim that her DNA was on the murder weapon because it was her knife. If so, why did the killer take pains to thoroughly wash the blade, but not the handle?

Sollecito and Guede both implicated Knox in various confessions. Again, jail-bird confessions are pretty much worthless, so who cares.

Guilt can never be established beyond all possible doubt. Personally, I think that the evidence warrants a finding of “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” (prova “al di là di ogni ragionevole dubbio”), which is the standard in Italy. This is a higher standard than “guilt beyond a reasonable doubt,” which prevails in the US. If two people descend alive in a small submarine, and when the submarine surfaces one of them is dead, there is no evidence of guilt, but clearly there is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This is why Italy is so strict concerning confession evidence. Physical evidence is the gold standard in Italy. In the Knox case, there is strong, but possibly not irrefutable, physical evidence. If I was on a jury, I would be convinced. But I can understand how a reasonable person can disagree.

PUSSY PASS

There is one thing we know for sure. Baby pictures and cute puppies have nothing to do with the facts of this case. If the evidence is weak, Knox should be found not guilty. If the evidence is strong, she should be found guilty. The evidence of cuteness and huggability that is so important to CNN is irrelevant.

The fact that new trials are demanded based on such Pussy Pass Privilege, and furthered in the out-of-court arena of the feminist media, is a testament to just how sexist and bigoted the system has become.

Pussy pass articles are mainstream and completely accepted as a normal part of our process for determining guilt and innocence in the court of public opinion. So much so, that CNN no longer bothers to discuss evidence in articles about attractive young female killers. Instead, the “news organization” jumps directly to baby pictures and pink parasols.

Vomit.