It is a rare thing for a WSU student to come to the defense of a UW student, but blatant injustice sometimes brings people together. Amanda Knox was found guilty of murder last week in Italy and sentenced to a 26-year imprisonment. Two other suspects, Rudy Guede and Raffaele Sollecito, received similar sentences in the case, which dealt with the murder of Knox’s former roommate, Meredith Kercher.

Critics of the decision have claimed the court and jury allowed themselves to be influenced by tabloid reporting, which spent more time documenting Knox’s risqué sex life than the details of the court proceedings. While it is no surprise that UW might produce an alleged drug-addicted nymphomaniac, there is plenty of reason to doubt Knox’s guilt.

Kercher was murdered on Nov. 1, 2007. Knox claims she was not in the room that night and instead claims to have been with her lover, Sollecito – a claim Sollecito backs up. The prosecutors claim they have DNA evidence putting them both at the scene of the crime, ignoring the fact that Knox lived with Kercher, and Sollecito probably visited the apartment. Of course they would both have DNA lying around the scene. A stronger piece of evidence links Guede to the scene. His DNA was found on Kercher and on a bloody palm print at the scene. Knox’s attorneys claimed the DNA was mishandled by police, further casting doubt on the validity of the forensic data.

With insubstantial forensic evidence, the prosecutors also turned their attention to Knox’s behavior. They described her as an immoral, manipulative person who despised her roommate’s uptightness. They claim she seduced both Sollecito and Guede into doing her bidding and assisting her in the murder and sexual assault of Kercher. All three defendants have denied these allegations.

Italy’s tabloids picked up on these stories and had a field day, detailing Knox’s alleged depravities. These same tabloids were then read by the jurors in the case, who were not properly screened to detect or block biases from following the heavily biased reporting of the case. Such steps represent crucial components in the modern American justice system that takes great lengths to keep jurors isolated from outside influences.

The favorite part of this case for the tabloids to report on is the “confession” Knox gave shortly after her arrest. Knox claimed to have had a “vision” of the murder but was not in the room in reality. Knox later retracted that statement, claiming she made it while under stress after Italian interrogators had knocked her in the back of the head. In this vision, Knox claimed to have seen her employer, Patrick Lumumba, at the scene. However, no connection was found to the case, and Lumumba has since sued Knox for slander.

In all seriousness, what we have here is a case worthy of further scrutiny. I cannot say for certain whether Knox is guilty or not, but I can state that she has a strong case for appeal. The lack of physical evidence, the motive that seems to have been crafted from a cheap novel, the poor handling of the jurors by the court and the overreaction by the public made this a highly unfair trial.

While I am generally suspicious of people who claim to have visions, particularly if they come from UW, that does not mean Knox is a cold-blooded killer. This is something that Cougars and Huskies alike can agree upon.