The Meredith Kercher murder case has finally come to a close, with Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito being found guilty for their parts in the British student's death. Of course, Rudy Guede was already convicted some time ago, so that's three people who have been held responsible for this crime.
This should bring great relief to the family of Meredith, but I can't help being a little confused by the verdict, which I think is largely thanks to inconsistent reporting from the mainstream press.
For a start, I'd managed to completely forget what Sollecito looked like, because in about 90% of the stories about this case, his ex-girlfriend Knox was the main focus. It seems to me that the press were only interested in creating a femme fatale character, so his image was largely excluded from reports. Just like Myra Hindley, Knox has gained notoriety by being a female murderer, while her male accomplice is ignored.
I'm not doubting the verdict of the case, but I do question how fair Knox's trial was in light of such biased reporting. With the press keen to paint the image of the wicked woman, was any other verdict likely?
Assuming that the various sentences given to the defendants were deserved, who actually committed the murder, and what part did the others play? According to the trial of Knox and Sollecito, the latter held down Kercher while Knox stabbed her and slit her throat. For this, Knox has been sentenced to 26 years and Sollecito to 25.
What, then, was the part played by Rudy Guede? Considering he was sentenced to 30 years, I'm assuming it must be something worse than stabbing someone to death. Of course, in a country where racism and anti-Semitism are alive and well, it doesn't really come as a surprise.
Hopefully, at some point in the near future we'll find out what really happened, without stereotypical representations being forced into the story. However, somehow I doubt it.
0 comments:
Post a Comment