However, if you'd stumbled upon the Daily Mail's website, you would have thought otherwise.
This was published on the Mail's website as soon as the judge said "Guilty". However, he was referring to her being "guilty" of defamation, not murder.
Nevertheless, it appears that whoever publishes articles on the Mail's website jumped the gun. A piece went up with the URL slug-words: Amanda-Knox-verdict-GUILTY-appeal-murder-conviction-rejected.
The artice has since been removed, but a screenshot was taken by @syn for posterity.
While it has captions including "Media scum", what it interesting is that the Mail's erroneous article has "quotes" from the prosecution.
The killer paragraph is:
Prosecutors were delighted with the verdict and said "Justice has been done" although they said on a "human factor it was sad two young people would be spending years in jail"Clearly they would only make such comments upon there being a guilty verdict. Even ignoring the fact that she was innocent and so the quotes would never have been made, the timing of the article on its own (8:50 p.m.) would suggest that the "quotes" are fake. Tweet
1 comments:
Having had to suffer life in Italy with spoiled, rich, white American kids who seem to think the continent is their personal playground, I was probably biased against Knox from the beginning. But the facts remain stubborn:
1) She confessed. I know she claimed that she had done so under duress (again- this is in Italy, not China, and when are confessions not made under some degree of duress?) but the next day she rewrote her account over five pages.
2) She blamed a completely innocent man who would now be in prison for life had he not had a cast-iron alibi thanks to a Swiss businessman coming forward after reading about the case.
3) Neither she nor her boyfriend could agree on what they had been doing that night. She claims she spent the night smoking up with him before having sex. He couldn't remember! He, a young red-blooded Italian. He did claim that he had downloaded movies on his computer at the time, but computer records don't support this. Both had shut off their phones conveniently at the very time of the murder.
4) And then, who was responsible for staging the break-in?
Post a Comment