Amanda Knox’s book raises awkward questions.

While it is disturbing to think that Amanda Knox suffered a lengthy and wretched incarceration in an Italian jail for a crime she did not commit, even worse (as a reviewer of the American’s new book has pointed out) is the possibility that she might not be so innocent and is now amassing considerable undeserved wealth on the back of her version of events.

What are we to make of Amanda’s case? In her favour, the whole Italian legal system – or more specifically, our perception of it. The law there has never had a great reputation, which inclines us to give Amanda the benefit of the doubt. That the courts found her guilty, then not guilty, and then ordered a retrial doesn’t inspire faith in their judgements.

Consider also the behaviour of Italian prosecutors – and menacing prison officials – and you soon begin to realise what the young woman was up against.

On the other hand, how do we explain her lack of emotion (unless you count her smooching with boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito) in the sombre days following the discovery of Meredith Kercher’s body?

Possibly Amanda has a good explanation for her odd actions, though I think the reviewer would have mentioned it. A more illuminating insight at this point of the narrative could only be provided by a neutral but fair-minded observer who had interviewed Amanda and all involved parties. And it’s better that the person who gains financially from sales of a book about a murder case is a professional journalist than a suspected murder accomplice.
scales of justice