Miss Ann is talking

That means that YOU are listening!

Whether it is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Weather Underground, Central Park rapists, Mumia Abu-Jamal, Jim Jones and the People's Temple, welfare recipients, Palestinian terrorists, murderers, abortionists, strippers or common criminals -- liberals always take the side of the enemies of civilization against civilization.

In the view of The New York Times, every criminal trial is a shocking miscarriage of justice -- except the ones that actually are shocking miscarriages of justice.

Thus, in last week's Times, Timothy Egan wrote about a shocking miscarriage of justice being carried out against a "high-spirited" American girl accused of murder by a crazed prosecutor in Perugia, Italy.

Egan's column bears as much relationship to the facts of the case as -- well, I guess as anything printed in the Times. And yet every American news network has embraced Egan's version and is flacking for the accused.

Amanda Knox, her erstwhile boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, and another man, Rudy Guede, stand accused of murdering Knox's roommate, Meredith Kercher, on Nov. 1, 2007, at the house Knox and Kercher shared with two other girls in Perugia.

Egan triumphantly cites an "outside expert hired by CBS News" who calls Knox's prosecution, "the railroad job from hell." Egan does not mention that the "outside investigator" is Paul Ciolino of the "Innocence Project," whose investigations always seem to conclude that the accused is being railroaded.

Ciolino's theory of the crime -- adopted unquestioningly by Egan -- is that the third man, Guede, who has already confessed to the crime, acted alone.

Despite Ciolino's careful analysis of the evidence, his theory is contradicted by Guede himself, as well as the coroner and a leading forensic geneticist, both of whom have testified that Kercher's massive injuries could only have been inflicted by multiple assailants.

It is also contradicted by the court's 106-page report, released in January, explaining the judge's reasons for refusing to release Knox and Sollecito pending trial.

Even the "48 Hours" executive producer doesn't endorse Ciolino's preposterous "single knifeman" theory, admitting: "Do we know every piece of data? No. Is there some troubling DNA? Yes."

Hey, does anyone know if CBS hired more than one "outside investigator" to look at the Knox case? Because if Egan considers one CBS "outside investigator" the Rosetta Stone of this case, it would be odd if he didn't mention the conclusions of another CBS outside investigator.

Why yes there was!

The second investigator, Paolo Sfriso, didn't pronounce judgment, but he did cite some of the evidence. The evidence includes:

-- a large kitchen knife, believed by forensic investigators to have caused at least one of Kercher's three wounds, found at Sollecito's house. Despite having been thoroughly washed, the knife had Knox's DNA on the handle and the murder victim's DNA on the blade.

-- a bloody footprint at the crime scene that matches Sollecito's. The floor had been cleaned so that the footprint was invisible to the naked eye, but was revealed with Luminol (just like on "CSI").

-- Knox's bloody footprints, mixed with Kercher's blood, were found in another roommate's room, where a window had been broken to make it look like there had been a break-in -- a theory discounted immediately by investigators. Knox's footprints, too, had been scrubbed but were discovered with Luminol.

-- Kercher's bloody bra strap at the crime scene that had abundant amounts of Sollecito's DNA on it.

Egan explains away the devastating DNA evidence by denying it exists. Delusionally, he writes:

"(I)f Knox and Sollecito had killed Kercher, and were in that blood-splattered room, why is there no physical trace from them on the body? A print? A swap of DNA somewhere? After all, Kercher had died after a brutal strangulation, evidence of considerable struggle, with knife pokes in the neck."

Read the trial transcript, Matlock.

Egan does acknowledge the bloody bra strap covered with Sollecito's DNA, but dismissively writes: "(T)hey discovered Kercher's clasp nearly six weeks after the murder -- a highly suspect and tainted piece of evidence from a contaminated crime scene."

Even the defense isn't complaining about the amount of time that passed before the bra strap was tested. The bra strap was found during the initial search of the crime scene -- which was promptly sealed off -- and then was collected for testing during the second search of the sealed crime scene some weeks later.

True, the defense has tried to minimize all the evidence by throwing out the old "contamination" chestnut, but without proof of systematic contamination of the evidence, this is just a boilerplate defense, much like "but he hit me first." (Next the defense will be vowing to look for the "real killer.")

Egan also dismissed the knife at Sollecito's house with Knox's DNA on the handle and Kercher's DNA on the blade, claiming the knife contained only "a tiny amount of DNA that might match that of the victim." (I know I'm constantly finding small amounts of other people's DNA on the blades of my kitchen knives.)

When the defense tried the "small amount of DNA" argument at trial, forensic biologist Patrizia Stefanoni replied, "If the blood evidence is a positive match, it is not always important how much there is -- and the material on the blade matches the victim."

Even the accused murderess has a better theory to explain the DNA on the knife. Knox wrote in her prison diary: "I think it is possible Raffaele went to Meredith's house, raped her, then killed her and then when he got home, while I was sleeping, he pressed my fingerprints on the knife."

These are only a few examples of the wildly deceptive account of the Amanda Knox trial printed in the Times. The reason this is important is that this is how the Times portrays all criminal prosecutions: Ruthless prosecutor railroads innocent bystanders for mysterious reasons. (Unless the victim is a late-term abortionist or the accused is a Duke lacrosse player.)

The only difference in the Knox case, compared to run-of-the-mill criminal cases, is that the copious foreign reporting on the case makes it child's play to see how egregiously the Times is lying this time.

I don't know if Knox murdered her roommate, but I am sure that America's news coverage of this case is a crime.

As Miss Ann points out the left considers all criminals (other than people who shoot abortionists or committ "hate crimes" against protected minorities) to be victims.

The Blonde One isn't the only person to comment on this fact. In an American Thinker piece a couple of days ago Robin of Berkley reflected upon an incident in her past:

several years ago I was coming out of a restaurant in a decent area and was mugged. As Gavin de Becker states in his seminal book, The Gift of Fear, (which I, unfortunately, read after the fact), victims generally sense when they're about to be victimized but ignore the signs in order to be nice and not judgmental. This was my situation exactly. I could tell right away that the guy looked sinister. But it was a major street, at high noon, and I didn't want to seem racist, so I turned the corner a few feet to reach my car, and a minute later, had my purse stolen as well as all my feelings of being safe in the world.

I'll spare you (and me) the horrible details, but the incident ended with my having a broken nose and two black eyes, and needing surgery for the nose several days later. People wrote bad checks and stole rental cars in my name for a year afterwards. I developed a fear not only of people, but of the phone and the mail, as every day was another reminder of what happened.

Witness the response of a left wing friend, Judy, when I told her I was mugged. She said, and I quote, "I don't think what you went through was so bad. And anyway he was a victim too." (Maybe it's a good thing I wasn't armed back then.)

Robin, a psychotherapist by trade, attributes the left's attitude toward evildoers to Stockholm Syndrome where victims come to identify with and even "love" their tormentors. I have also had this thought. During the Cold War I believed that many liberals simply snapped under the pressure of all those Soviet nukes being aimed at them and began to take the Evil Empire's side in the superpower struggle. They did this in the twisted belief that if they could just get their own side to surrender then the danger would pass.

Some of this seems to be playing itself out in the great civilizational battle between Islam and the West as well. Those on our side who lack the stomach for a protracted conflict (or any conflict at all) cleave to the Islamofascist cause blaming the Crusades or America's support for Israel for a state of mind which has belonged to Islam from its very founding.

Does Stockholm Syndrome explain why the left reflexively sides with evil over good in nearly every circumstance?

In the end it doesn't really matter. For whatever reason the left has sold themselves out to evil. If an idea or practice or ideology is hostile toward what is good then the left will be attracted to it. They will make excuses for its brutality, insist on its moral equivalence with the good and ultimately blame its crimes upon its victims, as the Jewish people are blamed for the Satanic hatred of the Arab/Muslim world.

All we need to remember is that the left is the enemy.