Amanda Knox – Trial by Website

Knox3Numerous times on this blog we have bemoaned the inappropriateness of “trial by media.”  The press/media cannot possibly have an intimate understanding of all the evidence, facts, affidavits, and testimony in a criminal trial.  But to gain readership, they piece together whatever bits of information they can gather, and publish stories that tend to appeal to the sensationalistic interest of the general public.  This is no surprise.  That’s what they do.  It’s unfortunate, however, because this stuff can and does have an influence, both during and, perhaps even more so, after trial.

But nowadays, there is a new internet-age version of trial by media.  I call it “trial by website.”  This happens when someone becomes personally dedicated to the guilt or innocence of a particular defendant, and sets up a website to proffer their one-sided views.  There are both innocence-based websites and guilt-based websites.  However, my observation is that the guilt-based websites are much more vitriolic, and generally based upon much unsubstantiated, or downright false, information.

There’s been much recent discussion due to the overturning of the Amanda Knox acquittal, and the websites run by people who have dedicated themselves to her guilt are going great guns.  Two of these are the Perugia Murder File (PMF) and True Justice for Meredith Kercher (TJMK).

Nina Burleigh is a journalist who actually went to Perugia, and studied all aspects of the case for over a month.  She has recently published an article in TIME in which she talks about these “Knox Hater” websites.  And in opining about what the outcome of any new trial will be she states, “In my opinion, the new panel will agree with the last one that the case against the students is fatally flawed.”

You can read Nina Burleigh’s article here.

11 responses to “Amanda Knox – Trial by Website

  1. Phil, Great article with helpful information.

  2. Thank you for posting this Phil.

  3. Docile Jim Brady – Columbus OH 43209

    Thanks for the good write , Phil .

  4. Pingback: Amanda Knox: Trial By Website | Politiva

  5. I’m saddened that in cases like this one and the West Memphis Three, the police and prosecution misconduct which created and sustained the case, are not punished.

  6. Pingback: Judge Bans Personal Electronics From Courtroom to Protect Witnesses | Wrongful Convictions Blog

  7. Pingback: Judge Bans Personal Electronics From Courtroom to Prevent Witnesses Intimidation | Wrongful Convictions Blog

  8. Pingback: Amanda Knox Interview on ABC Tonight in U.S at 10pm EST…. | Wrongful Convictions Blog

  9. Hi just wanted to give you a brief heads up and let
    you know a few of the pictures aren’t loading correctly.
    I’m not sure why but I think its a linking issue.
    I’ve tried it in two different browsers and both show the same

  10. the substance of the article is right. Trials should not be done by media, rather by Courts. The guilt of Amanda Knox was recognised by a first instance court of assize whose written reasoning, even translated, is freely available on the internet. Overwhelming evidence against the defendant was explained in this report. Recently a court of appeal has confirmed this sentence. A last procedural appeal to Supreme Court is available to Knox. However it must be said that the first instance verdict was already seen by Supreme Court that found it procedurally correct so Knox’s chances are very slim. Trial exists and says Knox is guilty. She is convicted to 28.5 years in jail for murdering her roommate and concurring in a sexual assault against her, for the crime of calumny against an innocent man she accuse of murder (3.5 years, sentence on this crime is already final since 2013), theft, unjustified posession of a weapon and simulation of a crime. Nina B was wrong, she did wrong to justice as, speaking little Italian (and with no legal training, so unfit to be a good reporter on this case) and – most importantly – without reading the full papers of the case (she never filed to obtain the full case file in DVD and AK lawyers did not give it to her), she gave a wrong opinion against the overwhelming evidence of a trial that was having its regular course. Bad for her.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s