""Knox is diabolical" says lawyer" was the headline on the front page of the BBC News website today. And when you think that that's a lawyer saying that it puts it into perspective. If she's diabolical even to a lawyer I can't imagine that there is even a word to describe her for a normal person with any sense of morality. Surely the judge should have wound it all up right there - "Hold on, you're a lawyer and you're saying she's diabolical? That's good enough for me. Let's move on."
The lawyer also said
that Knox is a "witch of deception", which makes one wonder if Italian courts are lagging somewhat behind the rest of Europe. I wonder if they took a recess to chuck her in the nearest pond to see if she floated or sank. Though a clever lawyer who believed in witches could always argue if she sank (usually indicating her innocence), that as a witch of deception this is exactly what you'd expect. Once you've proved she's a witch then it doesn't really matter if she did a murder or not. Burn her, obviously.
It's emotive and unusual language for a 21st Century murder trial, but then this whole case seems to be less about facts and more about trying to guess whether a pretty girl is evil or not. There are two schools of thought - she looks all sweet and innocent and thus can not be guilty or she is all sexy and smouldering so she's clearly a murderer. And I think it is always best to try and guess the outcome of a case based on how they look.
The Italian lawyer, rather than saying, "Can we have a go at judging this by the evidence?" has tried to unite the opposing - she looks innocent/she looks guilty camps by bringing those both together with a third option claiming she "has a double-faced soul" with a split personality. I am not sure but I think this might mean she actually has four different personalities. Her soul is double-faced, but then that double face has a split personality. He's adding in whole new layers of sophistication. Before I heard that I assumed people were either completely good or completely evil. The idea of someone being a bit of both is mind-blowing, but then to add on top of that that those two parts might also be divided, giving one person four different traits of personality is almost too much for me to take in. It's a sophisticated argument, which I think might have left the jurors behind. Come on she's either evil or good - what's all this with the sometimes evil, sometimes good and sometimes when she's being evil she might do something good and vice versa?
It is only going to confuse people if we start to say that human personalities are multi-faceted and that someone who has been good their whole lives, might, in the right or wrong circumstances choose to do something completely evil. But then maybe in the modern world it is incorrect to judge someone's innocence or guilt based on what their face is like or if they are looking a bit shifty or breaking off every now and again to give a diabolical laugh. I don't know, tossing a coin? And if there is an appeal, best of three? And if someone feels really strongly about it then they can keep appealing until eventually the case goes all the way to the monarch, whose coin flip is the final word on the matter?
Make it a bit like "Red or Black". Rather than the current system of "White or Black" where if you're black you're guilty. Are you with me? Is this thing on?
Alternatively instead of arguing the case at all each lawyer gets 30 minutes with the client with a dressing up box and some face paints and has to make them look as guilty or innocent as they can and the jury decides who did the best job.
Also any sexy ladies who have committed a crime are let off for being pretty and sexy. Especially if you can make their name rhyme with something that makes them sound double sexy, like Sexy Lexy, Foxy Knoxy or Chesty Westy (surely Rose West will be released on the strength of this rhyme alone - though she might also need a slight makeover).
And if women are ugly and their names rhyme with unattractive things then they go to prison for life - don't they Spindly Hindley? See it works, it works!
If you wish to demonstrate your anger at Ian Post-Office for charging £1.58 for an envelope from SCOPE that was franked (just inefficiently) then the best way to do so is to head to my
sponsorship page and donate £1.58 to SCOPE. If 1000 of you do that then it will send out a clear message to Ian Post-Office that his greed is not appreciated, as well as raising over £1500 for a brilliant cause. So if you haven't donated yet, surely you can afford £1.58. And use the comments box to let Ian Post-Office know how you feel about him and I will forward the messages on. Thanks.
