This guilty decision greatly disturbed me.

Convicting Knox of murder on the strength of a questionable single cell of the victim on what may have been or may have not been the murder weapon would be like convicting the sister of cop-killer Clemons of murder solely because her fingerprints were on the murder weapon. In both instances there is a lack of witnesses or forensic evidence placing them at the murder scene.

This was a brutal attack with multiple stab wounds, physical struggle, choking and bashing her head against the wall, but not one Knox hair or trace of DNA, but there were ample prints, DNA and admission by Guede facing the 30 year term.

In both instances there are ample grounds to charge, but not for murder. Knox challenged the initial interrogation, during which she implicated an innocent man. There is no tape or video record of it.

Actions like this aren´t unique to Italy. Please recall Gordon Walgren and Gamscam during which the recorder “mal-functioned” at critical times and evidence was withheld.

Rightfully that conviction was overturned on appeal.

What is unique is that the Italian Supreme Court ordered the statement suppressed. Yet it was the last piece of evidence shown prior to jury deliberations as it was evidence in a civil case heard simultaneously.

What ought to be recognized, not just in Italy, but around the world, is that the Internet and travel have collapsed distances and with it knowledge and perception of injustice.

If expressing outrage over whipping a woman for driving a car in Saudi, can bring them to beginning to change, then perhaps some thinking Italian could question the wisdom of selecting juries by lot and allowing them to have unhindered access to unsworn information. And to appreciate the fairness of a speedy trial.

Matt Ryan

Bremerton