IN A controversial ruling last night, a Perugia appeals court acquitted American Amanda Knox and her former boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, of the November 2007 murder of English Erasmus student, Meredith Kercher. Two years ago, a Perugia court had found both students guilty, sentencing them to 26 and 25 years in prison respectively.
It would appear that doubts about some of the forensic evidence produced in the first trial swayed the jury of two judges and six civilians.
Furthermore, the fact that this remains a murder, albeit horrifically brutal, without either motive or an undisputed murder weapon may have moved the court to overrule the previous decision.
Both Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito, as well as members of both their families, were in court last night for the decision. Amanda Knox, who had appeared under stress throughout the day, burst into tears as soon as the verdict was announced. Within seconds, she was whisked out of the courtroom ahead of her “immediate” release as ordered by the court.
Earlier in the day Ms Knox had made an emotional appeal to the court, once again declaring her innocence. Close to tears and with her voice wracked with emotion, she had addressed the court in fluent Italian, saying:
“After four years of total desperation, I insist that I, that we are innocent because this is true . . . I am not what they say I am, a violent, perverse person with no respect for life. I didn’t kill anyone, I didn’t rape, I didn’t rob, I wasn’t present at the crime scene . . .
Ms Knox finished her address by expressing her respect for the court and the manner in which her case had been conducted, but she still ended with a heartfelt cry of desperation:
“I want to go home. I want to go back to my life. I don’t want to be punished, to be deprived of my life and my future because of something that I didn’t do . . . I am innocent.”
From the very beginning this has been a difficult and highly controversial case, prominently played out on the stage of world media opinion. US commentators have alleged that Ms Knox was the victim both of anti-American prejudice and of a “baroque” Italian legal system, and highlighted the questionable value of much of the evidence on which her initial conviction in December 2009 was based.
Italian and British commentators, in contrast, have consistently pointed out that Ms Knox’s behaviour, especially at the moment of her arrest in November 2007, provided at the very least grounds for serious suspicions.
The case began on the morning of November 2nd, 2007, when police came knocking at the door of No 7, Via della Pergola, Perugia, a house shared by a number of Erasmus students including both Meredith Kercher and Amanda Knox. The Umbrian town of Perugia has long been a favourite destination for foreign students in Italy.
The police had gone to Via della Pergola looking for the owner [Meredith Kercher] of two mobile phones that had been handed into the police. Instead, they found a murder scene. When they broke down the door to Ms Kercher’s room, they found her lifeless, semi-naked body under a duvet on her bed. She was covered in bruises, her windpipe had been crushed and her throat partially slashed.
In both the original trial and this appeal, the prosecution claimed that Ms Kercher had been killed in some sort of drug- and drink-driven sexual assault involving not only Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito but also the Ivory Coast national Rudy Guede. In October 2008, in a fast track trial, Guede was given a 30-year sentence, subsequently commuted to 16 years, for his part in the murder of Ms Kercher. Tellingly, however, the prosecution failed to produce either a convincing motive for the murder or even an undisputed murder weapon.
For Ms Knox, problems began almost immediately following the killing with some media commentators seemingly engaged in a character assassination.
On the day Ms Kercher’s body was discovered, Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito were picked up by TV cameras embracing one another and kissing outside the crime scene house. For many, the attractive Knox looked like someone more concerned with the camera angles than the fact that her housemate had just been murdered. Two days later, she and Mr Sollecito were spotted by reporters as, giggling and much amused, they went shopping for sexy lingerie.
Nor did Ms Knox’s behaviour subsequent to her arrest on November 6th do much to help her. It was widely reported that during her interrogation in the police barracks, she had done “cartwheels” to pass the time and had brought her textbooks with her in order to study.
More importantly, in initial interrogations Ms Knox had accused Congolese bar owner Patrick Lumumba of the killing, saying that he had been in the house at the time.
Thanks to the evidence of a regular bar client who testified that Mr Lumumba was in the bar at the time of the killing (some time from 8.30pm to 11pm on November 1st), he was released without charge.
Ms Knox was seen by some as a “She-Devil” rather than an unfortunate Erasmus student who had blundered into a horrendous murder.
Despite yesterday’s acquittal, a number of awkward questions relative to this case remained unanswered. Firstly, why did Ms Knox accuse the obviously innocent Patrick Lumumba?
For a second, why did she and Mr Sollecito try to stage a false break-in to the Via Della Pergola house?
Thirdly, why did the two occasionally contradict one another in their evidence?
So have we had “closure” on this case? Hardly. It remains a crime with no obvious motive, no agreed murder weapon and no confession.