COMMENT: why shouldn't Amanda Knox write a book?

Reports this week suggest that Amanda Knox is to be paid $4 million (£2.5 million) for a book telling her side of the story that lead to the murder of British student Meredith Kercher, Knox's trial, initial conviction, appeal and acquittal.

Some say this is wrong and that nobody should benefit from crime, but, hang on a minute, Amanda Knox isn't benefitting from crime. She was found not guilty on appeal. She was released. She is innocent.

Why shouldn't she sell her story? After all, chances are it's quite an interesting story.

At this point those who oppose the decision of Harper Collins, the publishing house that has offered Amanda Knox this large sum of money, tend to lose the plot. They seem to know better than the Italian judges who overturned the guilty decision, and who, quite categorically, said that she should be released because she did not commit the crime.

Then they refer to OJ Simpson and his trial for murder back in 1995. They say that he was really guilty of his crimes, despite the decision of the court. We may all have opinions on OJ, or Knox, or anyone else who is found guilty in a trial, or through an appeal, but whether we like it or not, if they are acquitted they are innocent in the eyes of the law and no amount of Daily Mail-esque tubthumping is going to stop that.

Now, unless your were in court for the whole of the appeal trial, or read every inch of the court report, unless you looked closely at every scrap of evidence, I don't think it's fair or reasonable to say she is really guilty and the court got it wrong.

Some, it seems, think she is guilty because they don't approve of her sexual morality, the sex games she is reported to have been part of. And because they don't like that they consider her a loose woman and so, obviously, guilty of murder and therefore shouldn't profit from the events.

It's a ridiculous argument.

Well, it's a ridiculous argument if the person is innocent. If the person has been found guilty it is, of course, another matter entirely.

What if Ian Huntley or Rose West had written a book about their life, detailing their crimes and giving their version of events? If that was the case I agree it would be wrong for them to benefit from any book, television programme or movie that they were involved in.

Having said that, I have no problem with people such as Huntley or West writing a book. Surely it is the right of every man, woman or child to present their story and if it is interesting the public will read it. But I do think the profits from any such book should be compulsorily given to charity, or in a kitty for the victims of crime.

And let's not forget that one of the greatest pieces of literature in the English language, The Ballad of Reading Gaol, was written by Oscar Wilde, a convicted felon about his time in prison.

The law in the UK was changed about 6 years ago, so that criminals cannot profit from the proceeds of crime. In fact, the law went further and made it possible for monies earnt after time had been served, even through non-criminal means, could be used for compensation to the victims of crime. A man who became known as the "Lottery Rapist" who money through the National Lottery many years after his crime. He had already served time in prison for his crimes but, when he won a small fortune on the lottery, the court said his victims were entitled to the money, even though he didn't have that money when he carried out his offences. To me that seems very odd indeed, but it was the sort of knee-jerk, tabloid approving law of which the last Labour government was fond.

So why would Amanda Knox decide to write this book? Sure, $4 million is a lot of money and will set her up for life but shouldn't she be moving on now? Shouldn't she be trying to put this behind her and getting on with her life? She is, after all, still very young and, as an innocent person, could still have a profession.

And what about the reaction to it? She was vilified in the press. Many column inches have expressed hatred for her based on the original trial and initial conviction and, sadly, as I have said, some people simply don't want to accept that the appeal court judges made it perfectly clear that she was guilty. Does she really want to go raking up the whole story again? Is it really worth the hassle of trying to set the record straight? Is telling her side of the story really that important to her?

And then there's the Kercher family. They've lost their daughter. They've been through the trial and thought that their daughter's killers were behind bars only to have to sit through an appeal trial and find that the police have the wrong person. Their daughter's killer is still not known, and could still be at large.

I cannot see any good reason why, if she wants to tell her story and make $4 million, Amanda Knox shouldn't write the book that Harper Collins have asked her to write but, at the same time, I think it is important, for the sake of justice and the sake of the Kercher family, that the police investigation is stepped up. And, of course, if the person who did actually murder Meredith Kercher were to be imprisoned it would help Amanda Knox get on with her life, with less of a shadow hanging over her.


~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Those of you who are saying that the murderer has been convicted and is in jail. Yes, Rudy Guede DID admit to having been in Kercher's room, and there was plenty of DNA evidence that proved this. However, he also said there was someone else there too. This, of course, tallied with the convictions of Knox and her boyfriend but now they have been acquitted the question of who the other man is needs addressing. Yes, it's very easy to say the murderer has been caught but his conviction was strongly linked to the convictions that have now been overturned. I maintain there is more to be established and the Kercher's do not know who killed their daughter.

OPINION: FA wins Rooney appeal

This morning, the FA won its appeal and had Wayne Rooney's three-match ban at the Euro 2012 tournament reduced to two matches.

This means, assuming that Capello selects Rooney, he will be available t play in the final group stage match against the co-hosts, Ukraine.

But what sort of message does this send out to youngsters, as well as other players?

At best, Rooney's tackle was petulant. At worst, it was thuggery of a type Rooney regularly exhibits. He'll feel he's got away with it to some extent.

Rooney, and all other footballing thugs, should be banned and fined far more dramatically. When Eric Cantona Kung fu kicked a fan in the crowd he was banned for the rest of that season. That is the sort of punishment that Rooney deserves. And, if there is a repeat (and there have been many repeats from this dullard yob) he should be banned for life.

He is a danger to himself, to the teams he plays for and, more seriously, to the opposition because, the chances are, his violent tendencies will, one day, lead to a player being seriously injured.

Today, UEFA lost my respect. The FA, by appealing the original decision, had already lost my respect. Rooney is scum, sporting detritus, and should not be allowed to play again, in any competition, until he cleans up his act and learns how to play within the rules ofthe game.

OPINION: Charity Collections at Schools

I'm sure the following is a scenario familiar to households up and down the country each November:

Yesterday, my daughter, Olivia (aged 5) asked me if she could have some money to take into school next week because they were selling poppies.

Now, it's true, I do have an issue with the British Legion's red poppy appeal but that isn't my major gripe with the situation.

I asked Olivia what she knew about the poppies or what the money donated was used for. I'm sure you know her response. She knew virtually nothing and what she did know was sufficiently vague as to be meaningless.

But, despite that, her teacher was asking her for money to buy a poppy.

Doesn't this amount to theft?

Now I do think there is a particular issue with the British Legion's red poppy; very few charity badges are sold through schools and it is rare for schools to be asking for money for something that isn't part if a bigger charitable fundraising campaign, but surely, if any charity is to be promoted in school it should be fully explained to the pupils what the charity is, why the appeal is happening, what the money is used for and then, rather than a verbal message, a letter should be sent home explaining why the school is involved with that charity?

I find it deeply offensive that my daughter was asked for money for something she doesn't understand and which hasn't been explained to her properly.

Maybe it's best that schools stop charity fundraising? Certainly the sale of poppies and other lapel badges in class, and all the pressure and expectation that carries, should be outlawed - as far as I can see it is not far from mugging a 5-year old!