Amanda Knox
Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2020 10:55 am
I was digging into some of the details of the case recently...I've always kinda taken for granted that she was innocent based on the superficial media spectacle and conjectures...but I'm kinda shook now because, unless I read false information, too many of the details point to her and her boyfriend's involvement. Reminds me of the OJ case in the sense that maybe the evidence isn't strong enough convict beyond a reasonable doubt, but there is enough evidence that it should give any reasonable person pause regarding her innocence. But everyone is so sure OJ is guilty, while it seems more and more people are willing to accept her innocence and are certain she was the victim of injustice.
I remember Cash being adamant about her guilt, which I thought was odd at the time...but Cash was a solid, critical-thinker, and so even though I still believed in her innocence, his statements about the case have always kinda remained in the back my mind. I watched her do an interview with a comic named Theo Von and I was thinking there's no way this chick can kill somebody. She came across really kind, thoughtful, self-reflective, emotionally-intelligent, etc. Then I remembered Cash's comments and was like..."lemme just go down this rabbit hole real quick".
When you ignore all the media spectacle stuff, and the weird fighting between the two camps(fighting over superficial stuff like her strange behavior and facial expressions: "is she a quirky, anxious girl in a foreign country or a cold psychopath who couldn't even pretend to care"?), and just look at the physical evidence and the lies/inconsistencies, witnesses, timelines...it really does not look good...maybe not enough to convict, but it's not good...but then all the weird superficial stuff starts to appear sinister. People say the media spectacle, salacious narratives, and politics kept an innocent person in jail, which may be true, but if she was involved it actually helped free her.
Lack of motive/intent helps her case tho. It makes more sense for the roommate to have been killed by a random burglar no one knew, than for a woman without a history of violence to suddenly conspire with other people to commit a monstrous crime. She would have to be a straight up psychopath.
I remember Cash being adamant about her guilt, which I thought was odd at the time...but Cash was a solid, critical-thinker, and so even though I still believed in her innocence, his statements about the case have always kinda remained in the back my mind. I watched her do an interview with a comic named Theo Von and I was thinking there's no way this chick can kill somebody. She came across really kind, thoughtful, self-reflective, emotionally-intelligent, etc. Then I remembered Cash's comments and was like..."lemme just go down this rabbit hole real quick".
When you ignore all the media spectacle stuff, and the weird fighting between the two camps(fighting over superficial stuff like her strange behavior and facial expressions: "is she a quirky, anxious girl in a foreign country or a cold psychopath who couldn't even pretend to care"?), and just look at the physical evidence and the lies/inconsistencies, witnesses, timelines...it really does not look good...maybe not enough to convict, but it's not good...but then all the weird superficial stuff starts to appear sinister. People say the media spectacle, salacious narratives, and politics kept an innocent person in jail, which may be true, but if she was involved it actually helped free her.
Lack of motive/intent helps her case tho. It makes more sense for the roommate to have been killed by a random burglar no one knew, than for a woman without a history of violence to suddenly conspire with other people to commit a monstrous crime. She would have to be a straight up psychopath.