We have little idea whether Knox or her co-defendant did the crime. As usual, we;d have to be on the jury to see if there is any evidence to rely on. If the appeal fails I suspect she will try the Human Rights Act over the ‘witch’ accusations. I think if such matters were put to me as a juror I’d just start to question everything the prosecution put forward – if they were concerned with such piss and wind I’d doubt there was any. It’s even less relevant than the stuff dug up on the innocent Mr Jefferies by our hapless press, but this is coming out of the mouths of lawyers. I also wonder what the general relevance of stuff on Facebook and the rest has on character – if we take this stuff as real be’d have to lock up a few million.
Newsnight produced some harpies to make out this is a feminist issue, but it’s wider than that. Whether Knox offered it up on a plate is hardly relevant to much other than the wise man’s barge pole effect. If she has some demonic shadows lurking you’d expect a psychologist to be explaining or an antecedent history of real events. Otherwise I’d have put my hand up to ask the judge why he was letting us hear any of it, because if likely to be influenced by it I’d not be fit to be on a jury.
When I did jury service, we were instructed we could take notes but be careful this didn’t distract us from juror demeanor and such. Most people are so hapless on behavioural cues they should be instructed to ignore them, especially as witnesses are coached. The wider issue is our antiquated court systems. It seems we can’t challenge some gold digging slapper (unless rich like DSK) as without credibility, but can appeal to crass Idols that are sexist elsewhere. It’s embarrassing.