So I describe to you a murder case, where an attractive young American woman is accused of committing – and put on trial for – a horrific crime for which the prosecution has no hard evidence. Immediately after the crime, this young woman behaves like (some might say) an inhumane, guilty-looking sociopath. It is factually accurate to say she misled law enforcement officials and nearly as easy to say that she knowingly lied to them during the course of their investigations.
It is the horrible nature of the crime, her behavior immediately after the crime, and her willful misleading of investigators, as well as her looks, that have brought her case into the public eye.
Would I be describing Casey Anthony?
Or Amanda Knox?
I ask because many of the media pundits (if not most), and quite a few members of the general public (I’m sure), outraged by the Casey Anthony verdict, are the same people proclaiming Amanda Knox’s innocence, using much of the same logic that the jurors probably used to return a not guilty verdict for Anthony. That, to me, is interesting. How someone like Nancy Grace can come to two such disparate opinions on these cases and still be considered credible is interesting.
Or am I wrong to think that she and many others are being wildly inconsistent?
Granted, a lot of controversy around Knox is the way in which the case played out in the Italian legal system. And granted, there IS hard evidence against Knox, though its legitimacy is now under question (at least by the media). Both of those points are beside the point of this post.