Lies Our Mothers Told Us

First media reports on the trial started coming in a few hours ago and I have just read this interesting report in the Telegraph

Tears in the courtroom? Whatever next? A crack in the armour or a bid to assure the public and (more importantly) the jury she is responding emotionally to what is happening around her? Appearing more human at this stage certainly won’t do her any harm. Perhaps Amanda has actually started to realise the enormity of the case against her or perhaps her lawyers have finally told her to stop grinning and sit still. Either way she might win back a few brownie points, I can’t imagine the jury have been impressed with her behaviour so far.

The first DNA evidence will be discussed today in the form of the knife, the reported murder weapon. The 13.4 inch kitchen knife has Amanda’s DNA on the handle and the victims DNA on the tip. Nicki’s post over at TJMK on the DNA evidence which will be presented over the next few weeks/months is very interesting and gives a good outline of what we can expect to hear in terms of evidence in the near future and it’s reliability. It looks like Amanda’s lawyers are going to have a hard time convincing the jury that the DNA on the knife was the result of contamination.

I’m curious about Amanda’s sudden change from happy, smiling and relaxed to sombre and teary. Her father says “Amanda is doing OK but she’s had her freedom taken away from her for 16 months. You tell me how you would cope.” Though I can understand what he is trying to say I find it hard to believe Amanda’s reaction to her confinement would have changed so dramatically in a week, unless her parents have finally been honest about her chances of remaining in jail for the next 20-30 years.

Somebody has had a word with Amanda and about time too. Whoever let her wear that tactless t-shirt to court should have been sacked on the spot and I’m astonished that she wasn’t  told to stop grinning from ear to ear on day one.

It will be interesting to see how Amanda’s mood/observed behaviour in the courtroom changes over the next few weeks.

Raffaele Sollecito remains somewhat of an enigma to me (and it seems to others following this case too), I feel that as so much media attention has been focused on the young, attractive, female defendant Amanda Knox, exploration of his personality and character to date has been somewhat limited. Raffaele has been less than vocal throughout the ongoing investigation and although his recent spontaneous statement to the court in Perugia shed a little more light on his possible character, I have read very few media reports devoted equally to discussion about Knox and Sollecito. Certainly in some US and UK media reports he is only fleetingly mentioned and usually only serves to ‘fill-out’ the reports that are mainly concerned with Knox. The media have however made rather a lot of his supposed knife collection, penchant for Japanese manga comics, that photo of him holding a meat cleaver and a bottle of bleach, as well as his status as Amana Knox’s former lover. It does not surprise me that Knox’s story has dominated the news, not least because of the PR campaign, Sollecito however is a very interesting character and, given that the prosecution believe he may have played a key role in what happened to poor Meredith Kercher that night, understanding his character is just as important as examining that of Amanda Knox.

As with ‘Passing for Human’ the following observations about Raffaele’s character are entirely my own and do not represent a clinical diagnosis of a personality disorder, nor should they be used as such. These observations and ideas, like the ones I made about Amanda are also the sum of their individual parts and again it is important to consider that these individual parts when put into a different context may not be evident of a problem at all. Bearing all this in mind I’d like to examine the character of Raffaele in a similar way to my previous post on Amanda Knox. What kind of person is he? What is he like? And what the hell does any of this have to do with the case? Well, I believe that understanding Raffaele and his behaviour after the body was found, in the subsequent investigation and now during the trial, is key to putting together the pieces of what happened that night. My ideas and thoughts are pure speculation and I firmly believe that the hard evidence should always be the main focus for anyone interested in this case, though it is crucial, hard evidence might still leave the question ‘Why?’ unanswered. Why did this happen to poor Meredith Kercher? Who could so something so terrible? Considering the case against both Amanda and Raffaele is pretty strong we can entertain the possibility that both were involved in the murder of Meredith and hence we crave the answer to the question: why? The answer may or may not lie in the murky and speculative world of psychology, let’s try and put some of this together and see if it makes any sense:

Cold, distant demeanour and apparent lack of empathy or remorse

In a similar way to Amanda, Raffaele showed a remarkable lack of emotion or empathy after the body of Meredith Kercher was found, though this has been noticed by people following the case it may have been overshadowed for two reasons: firstly, it doesn’t sound like Raffaele and Meredith were close, merely acquaintances, and as such people would maybe have expected him to show slightly less of an emotional reaction than they would have expected Amanda to have displayed. Secondly, Amanda’s lack of emotional response was noticed immediately and people focused on this not just because she was a housemate and (apparently) a friend of Meredith’s but because she is female and as traditional female behaviour is associated with more dramatic displays of emotion her complete lack of emotion seemed even more inappropriate under the circumstances. Because of this Raffaele’s coldness, lack of empathy and emotion may, to a certain extent have been noticed less than Knox’s. Testimony from those present at the police station after the body had been discovered noticed that the defendants were laughing, passing notes, kissing, cuddling and making faces at each other, just as people have been critical of Amanda for this callous and tactless disregard for the emotional significance of what had happened, the same people noted this cold and distant behaviour in Raffaele. It could be that as those present in the police station that day were focusing on the behaviour of Amanda, the behaviour of Raffaele may have gone unnoticed to a certain degree.

In the courtroom
Raffaele’s observed behaviour in the courtroom has been markedly different to that of Knox. His demeanour, attire and attitude have been appropriate throughout and he has not smiled or laughed. I believe Raffaele is connecting with his emotional surroundings and, if found guilty and with a few more years in which to mature, he will be able to express remorse in some capacity. Raffaele is literally terrified; photos from the courtroom show a look of permanent bemusement, alarm and fear on his face, this is in stark contrast to his former girlfriend Amanda who seems to be expressing very little emotion at all, not even fear. It could be possible that Raffaele understands the case against him a little better than Knox does and it may well be that his family and defence team have given him a slighty more realistic idea of what his future might hold. His recent behaviour in court could indicate he is about to ‘crack’ or break completely away from Amanda Knox.

Personality, habits and interests

General
Raffaele is a smart young man; he was studying computer science in Perugia and has proven to be just as cunning as Knox in his statements to police (which I will discuss in more detail later). Raffaele’s father is a wealthy doctor from southern Italy and as such he was never short of money. Raffaele had an apartment in Perugia, an expensive car, a cleaner and dressed himself well. Children from wealthy families sometimes grow up to take money for granted or indeed believe they are invincible and can do as they please.

Drug taking and financial habits
Raffaele smoked a LOT of marijuana and it seems he may have had a bit of a problem with it. Most (but not all) habitual users of marijuana can lack motivation, energy and direction in life. Though this is a problem for some young people who realise that at some point they will need to find a job and support themselves it does not seem Raffaele had to worry about this as he was financially well looked after by his Dad. I do find it interesting that Raffaele had only €40 left in the bank around the time of the murder, I can imagine his father gave him a generous allowance. I find it hard to believe he spent it all on weed. Apparently Raffaele was known to local police in Bari for his drug use and Knox has mentioned that he admitted to having used cocaine and LSD. Maybe it got him into trouble in Bari. Though drug experimentation is normal it does seem that Raffaele spent rather a lot of his time high as a kite, this could indicate he was seeking to detach himself from reality, he may have even been paranoid.

Interests
Raffaele collected knives and reportedly carried a flick knife with him everywhere. He describes himself as “honest, peaceable, sweet but sometimes totally creazy [sic]” and says favourite sport is kick-boxing. Police searching his house reportedly seized several violent Japanese manga comics and one, Blood: The Last Vampire reportedly contains eerily similar illustrations to what the prosecution believe may have happened to Meredith that night. Though this in itself does not prove any kind of violent inclination I’d wager that Raffaele had some violent sexual fantasies or urges, it would be very interesting to know what kind of pornography he watched and I can imagine, just like any (reportedly) 23 year old virgin, there was probably a lot of it on his computer. Raffaele seemed like a fairly ordinary kind of guy who may have been perceived as a bit odd or a bit of a loner, it sounds like he kept himself to himself and got on with the things he found enjoyable whilst smoking an inordinate amount of pot. It does sound like he may have been paranoid and, with a seemingly passive nature was probably slow to anger, however, when angered I can imagine it was not particularly pleasant.

So all in all, a knife/violent manga fetish + paranoia + drug problem + lots of money = high probability of trouble on the horizon. I’m surprised nobody noticed the signs earlier but, like with the Knox/Mellas camp, Raffaele’s family probably thought it was ‘just a phase’ which would eventually fade with maturity. The evidence seems to suggest otherwise.

Raffaele seems passive and hence was was probably very inexperienced with women so I’d also wager that he became completely and totally infatuated with Knox the minute he slept with her (if not the minute he’d met her), she would have had a big hold on him and known how to use it, these two should never have met.

[addendum] I’d be very interested to know if Raffaele played any online role playing games such as World of Warcraft or any other ‘Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games’ (known as MMORPG) or had any ‘fantasy’ forum presence, as Raffaele was a computer science major and it seems, a bit of a loner,  an online violent/fantasy presence could be a possibility. If this is the case, he may have developed certain fantasies from his interaction with these games or on the forums and any information avalible on this subject may help us further understand his individual fantasies, this in turn may shed light on the individual fantasies of those present that night.

Cunning, manipulative and devious behaviour

Raffaele has a devious and cunning side. He has lied with the same ferocity as his former girlfriend Amanda Knox, some of his whoppers include: telling the postal police he’d already phoned the Carabinieri when in fact he phoned them after the postal police had arrived, he also said that Knox was crying and screaming when the body was found yet testimony from those present and in the subsequent hours suggests there was no emotional reaction from her at all let alone tears, he admitted that he ‘told a load of rubbish’ to the police because he had believed Knox’s ‘version of events’ about what happened that night, when told that the victims DNA was on the tip of a knife found in his apartment and Amanda’s DNA was on the handle, instead of claiming this could not be possible (as Meredith had never been to his apartment) he invented a story about pricking Meredith’s hand whilst cooking. The evidence so far indicates that Raffaele has something to hide as he has repeatedly lied to police. The evidence also suggests he was involved in the clean up and staging of the burglary and possibly the rape, in a similar way with Knox, the staging and cleaning of the crime scene is extremely devious and shows a level of detachment from the crime that is disturbing.

Ideas and conclusions

Though they are very different people, Raffaele and Amanda displayed remarkably similar behaviour following the discovery of Meredith Kercher’s body and as such appear to be as guilty as each other. Raffaele (like Knox) was an accident waiting to happen, he had too much freedom, too much money and seemed to be floating nonchalantly through life. He appears to be as cold, calculating and shrewd as Knox but is mature enough to realise the enormity of what is happening around him and looks more and more childlike with each passing day of the trial.

It would not surprise me if Sollecito made further moves to distance himself from Knox, testimony from Guede (if he decides to tell the truth) could be catastrophic and he is unlikely to fare well during cross-examination if they put him on the stand. Amanda and Raffaele seem to be linked together in the most bizarre and unusual way, it almost seems like they have some sort of pact.

I wonder who will be the first to break it.

For a long time I have been fascinated with the behaviour of Amanda Knox who is currently on trial (along with her former lover Raffaele Sollecito) for her part in the murder and sexual assault of Meredith Kercher.  Following the discovery of Meredith’s body, during the subsequent investigation, arrest and in the ongoing trial, Amanda’s behaviour has been perceived at best as kooky and at worst, bordering on psychopathic.

There are many people who believe Amanda’s personality is irrelevant and as such, any attempt so far to draw conclusions from her behaviour have been met with equal parts of criticism and aggressive scorn.  But there are also a great number of people who believe that understanding Amanda may be the key to unlocking the secrets of what happened to poor Meredith that night and more importantly why.

I’d like to assure you that whilst writing this particular post, my individual preconceptions about her guilt or innocence have been entirely cast aside in order that I may investigate the curious facets of her unique personality and the insights this may give us, objectively and without bias.  In any case, my opinions will in no way influence the trial or court proceedings, likewise I do not feel that anything I have to say on this matter will further tarnish the reputation of Amanda Knox who (with a little help from her media friends) has already succeeded admirably in this respect.

It is certainly true that there are light and dark sides to Amanda Knox’s personality as this is the case for every human being on earth, despite this I have become increasingly troubled by her apparent lack of empathy, concern, fear or emotion throughout the trial, this, coupled with her flamboyant gestures of apathy and (at times) arrogance, lead me to feel it is important to explore her character in more depth. Some people might at this stage be wondering how on earth I could presume to analyse the character of a young woman I have never interviewed in a clinical setting or even met, but we must consider the wealth of information about Amanda which is currently in the public domain. This information has not been provided entirely by the media but by the Friends of Amanda (FOA) PR campaign and, through letters, emails, diaries, testimony and observed behaviour in the courtroom, Amanda Knox herself.

The following conclusions are my own and are in no way a clinical diagnosis of a personality disorder. They are also the sum of their individual parts and as such it is important to consider that these individual parts when put into a different context may not be evident of a problem at all. I have come to believe that the sum of these parts indicates a deep routed psychological problem which, if continually ignored will only cause more problems further down the line.

Lack of empathy, fear or observable emotion

Lack of empathy and fear
There is a great deal of evidence that suggests Amanda is not really connecting with her emotional surroundings and it often appears that even though she is well aware that something significant is happening, she doesn’t seem to know how to react to it. The FOA explanation for Amanda’s apparent lack of empathy is often to say she is frightened or intimidated by her surroundings, why then does she often appear in stark contrast to her former lover Raffaele who often looks quite literally terrified? If Amanda was afraid we would expect to see evidence of this in the courtroom, as such, Amanda often appears to be a combination of relaxed, bored, fidgety, excited or blank. The lack of emotion or fear in the courtroom proceedings is merely the tip of the iceberg when we consider the email sent to 23 of her friends and family two days after the murder as well as her inappropriately intimate behaviour with Raffaele immediately after the body was discovered and later at the police station where the two were seen kissing, cuddling, passing notes, laughing and making faces at each other. According to the testimony of one of Meredith Kercher’s English friends Natalie Hayward, Amanda did not cry and on occasion seemed angry, frustrated and even excited. When Natalie expressed the hope that Meredith did not suffer, Amanda replied: “They slit her throat Natalie, she would have died slowly and in a lot of pain.” This statement is crude, insensitive and certainly shows a lack of concern or empathy. Not only that, but when considering that the evidence so far suggests she may have killed Meredith Kercher this statement also implies that Amanda may have derived some kind of pleasure from the immediate (and assumingly horrified) reaction of Natalie Hayward. Similarly, testimony from Sophie Purton, another of Meredith’s English friends showed further evidence of Knox’s lack of empathy or consideration for the emotional significance of what was happening, when a visibly distraught Purton attempted to comfort or seek comfort from Knox with a hug “It was not reciprocated”, instead Amanda “seemed quite cold, and then when I asked what had happened she said, ‘What do you want to know, because I know everything.’ ” There is a significant body of evidence to suggest that Amanda displayed and is continuing to display no emotional response to the murder of her housemate and friend Meredith Kercher.

Facial expressions and body language
Humans are on the whole quite good at indentifying facial expressions and deriving appropriate responses from them. Amanda has been receiving a great deal of criticism for smiling and laughing in court. Despite this, if you actually look at the way Amanda is smiling, it is hard to derive any actual emotional expression in her smile or the rest of her face. Amanda’s smile is all mouth and no eyes, this not only makes her appear slightly manic in many of the photos but is actually quite disturbing, especially when we consider that she is currently on trial for murder. Amanda’s body language is often blank and her facial expressions seem empty and emotionless.

One of the preliminary judges Claudia Matteini said: “Your conduct after the murder is symptomatic of a personality which, considering your young age, provokes no small measure of dismay and apprehension, considering how extremely easy it was for you to control your states of mind.” Worrying indeed.

Sense of grandiose self worth/importance, attention seeking and interaction with others

In her prison diary
Despite the enormous body of evidence against her and the possibility of a very long sentence if convicted, Amanda Knox appears to be enjoying the attention of the world media and her new celebrity status, this is supported by her apparent glee at receiving fan mail in the form of letters from admirers: “I have received letters from fellow inmates and ADMIRERS TELLING ME THAT I AM HOT AND THEY WANT TO HAVE SEX WITH ME.” In a similar sentence she states that people “are acting like I’m the prettiest thing since Helen of Troy.” Though Amanda doesn’t directly compare herself to Helen of Troy, implying that people think this suggests a fairly grandiose ego or sense of self worth. The small sections of the diary that I have read seem as empty and as transparent an attempt to ‘remember’ as her ongoing ‘promise’ to tell the truth. I believe the diary is a show piece that will eventually be sold for cash and Amanda was probably very aware that her diary could be admitted as evidence, therefore it’s content is about as credible and truthful as her statements to the police. Amanda continues to show a lack of emotional response to the death of Meredith in her diary, instead choosing to scrawl the lyrics from the Beetles ‘Let it Be’ over and over which, incidentally, she spends singing loudly for hours a day much to the annoyance of her cellmates. Amanda also devotes a great deal of time commenting on her preoccupation with her looks, weight, tan and moaning about how unfair everything is and how much she wants to go home. The FOA claim this is evidence of how ‘strong’ and ‘optimistic’ Amanda is yet, without deliberately making outrageous presumptions it seems instead to read like the incessant ‘it’s not fair’ style ramblings of a spoiled little girl.

In her observed behaviour
Testimony from friends of Meredith and people that knew Amanda in Perugia indicate that people thought her behaviour was unusual; some even went as far as saying they didn’t like her. Amanda seems to be a very open person and prone to doing whatever she wants to do, whenever she feels like doing it. Testimony from housemate Filomena Romanelli indicates that Amanda was not used to observing the social rules of conversation or proper interaction: “Sometimes she had unusual attitudes, like she would start doing yoga while we were speaking, or she would play guitar while we were watching TV.” Similarly Amanda reportedly sang loudly in a restaurant shortly after meeting a group of people with whom she dined. Robyn Butterworth testified that Meredith felt awkward because “Amanda didn’t flush the toilet” she also testified that Meredith “told us about a bag Amanda had in the bathroom. It had condoms and a vibrator in it. Meredith thought it was strange it was there for all to see.” The testimony of people who lived with and knew Amanda in Perugia indicates some strange ideas about social interaction and living with others: pulling yoga poses in the middle of conversation, playing guitar when others are watching TV (reportedly the same chord over and over again), not flushing the toilet, singing loudly at inappropriate moments and leaving personal items in the bathroom, possibly in the hope of causing the reaction it did. Amanda’s attention seeking and lack of consideration for her housemates was probably seen as quite annoying, they may have distanced themselves from her because of this, thereby making her feel isolated and possibly prone to further attention seeking behaviour. Amanda is certainly aware of her looks and also how to use them and it seems she was rather possessive of the boys downstairs, sleeping with one and having had a crush on another. Testimony from Amy Frost indicates that a slight tension had formed between Amanda and Meredith when Meredith learnt that Giacomo Silenzi, one of the boys downstairs had a crush on her. Amanda reportedly stated “I like Giacomo too but you can have him.” This statement seems to convey arrogance, possessiveness and possibly the implication that Amanda though she was ‘doing Meredith a favour’ by ‘letting her go out with the boy I like’. This, understandably irritated Meredith who, in the interests of sharing some girly gossip with her housemate and friend maybe in the hope of getting some advice, was instead promptly told that she was ‘allowed’ to go out with him. Amanda really doesn’t seem to have many social skills, has a rather inflated ego, a sense of entitlement and self importance.

It is interesting to consider that Amanda was at risk of losing her job at Le Chic because she flirted with customers instead of working, she may have been well aware that her looks and nationality got her the job as her boss (later falsely implicated by Amanda for murder) stated: “She was the first American we met and we hired her because of that.” I certainly doubt that Amanda’s potential motive for the murder was the chance of her losing her job to Meredith at Le Chic, I do however, feel it is possible that Amanda may have falsely implicated Lumumba out of spite as he did eventually fire her.

Sexual promiscuity, impulsivity and risk taking behaviour

The fact that Amanda was sexually active and used drugs and alcohol does not on its own imply that Amanda is in any way different to the many students that go abroad to have a good time, explore and be free of restraint. But Amanda seems to have been particularly enthusiastic about sex, drugs and alcohol to the extent that indicates a level of impulsivity and unreasonable risk taking. Amanda has been portrayed as sexually vivacious, when in reality she was probably just a little promiscuous. Amanda’s ideas about sex and relationships may have been at odds with others and it has been suggested that Meredith disliked the strange men Amanda brought back to the house. Sex alone does not imply impulsiveness and provided it is safe and consensual there is nothing ‘weird’ about it, yet Amanda seemed to have deliberately displayed overtly sexualised behaviour possibly to show off or even to annoy others. Amanda reportedly had random sex with a man on a train whom she did not know as well as several others within a very short time after arriving in Perugia, Meredith and others may have commented on this behaviour and Amanda may have thought them prudish or boring. Amy Frost has testified that Meredith told her that one of the boys from downstairs, Daniel, liked Amanda. Despite the fact he had a sore from herpes on his mouth, Amanda found him exciting and interesting as in her eyes, having herpes made him good in bed. Amanda eventually had sex with him. This testimony suggests that Amanda made a conscious decision to have sex with an individual infected with herpes, knowing there was a risk of contracting this incurable sexually transmitted disease, risk-taking behaviour? You’d better believe it (anyone notice that sore on her mouth recently)

Likewise with the drugs. Amanda has so far only admitted to smoking (massive amounts of) hashish and her friends back home say she would not have tried anything harder. I find this hard to believe for two reasons:  Firstly Amanda’s friends back home didn’t seem to know (or won’t admit) this impulsive risk taking side to her character, Amanda herself admits she was “intoxicated with freedom”  when she arrived, implying that the Amanda they knew in Seattle was a very different Amanda to the one in Perugia. Secondly, drugs are easy to come by in Perugia and probably a little bit more acceptable than they would be in the US, Amanda is impulsive and drugs were there, I’d say it’s more likely than not.

Manipulative and deceitful behaviour

Amanda Knox has above all been rather manipulative and certainly deceitful. Amanda lied about virtually everything since the minute the body was found. Some examples: she claimed to have seen the body when it was discovered whilst at the same time claiming to have been ushered from the house before she could see it, she and Raffaele claimed to have phoned the Carabinieri but did not do so until after the postal police arrived, she told the postal police that Meredith always kept her door locked when the opposite was true, she claimed that Lumumba was at the cottage that night and had gone into the bedroom with Meredith upon which she heard a scream and covered her ears and later retracted this statement as false, the lies go on and on and on, they really are excruciating, exhausting and embarrassing . Amanda also frequently lied in the email she sent to her family and friends. Amanda is a terrible liar and has been caught doing it so many times. I really don’t think she can help herself. The staging of the burglary and possibly the rape, coupled with accusations and changing her story multiple times indicates that Amanda is highly intelligent, manipulative and devious. If the clean-up operation in the house can be proved it will be devastating for Knox and Sollecito, as the cleanup operation left multiple traces of Guede’s DNA yet barely a trace of the other defendants (odd to find only a couple of her fingerprints in the whole house don’t you think?). Committing a murder is one thing, cleaning it up is another but actually attempting to pin all the blame on Rudy Guede is extremely, desperately manipulative and if proved could result in a much stiffer sentence. Amanda’s actions and attempts to cover her tracks, speak louder than words and she has been described as “crafty and cunning” by Judge Massimo Riccarelli. Not a good start at all.

Ideas and conclusions

Each of these parts of Amanda’s observed behaviour and personality when considered individually do not provide the bigger picture of what sort of person we are looking at when we see Amanda. If we believe the FOA that Amanda is a kind, loving, sweet, wonderful person then surely Amanda’s behaviour in Perugia was decidedly different to her behaviour back home, this could indicate that she had been repressing these desires or hiding her behaviour from her family. Amanda’s family have hit back at the media, claiming that she has been portrayed as a devil and Meredith an angel, angel/devil really has nothing to do with it, what we must consider is Amanda’s personality and what insight it could provide into what happened that night, there is no reason to compare Amanda and Meredith. What I have written above is an amalgamation of different sources, reports, testimony etc (none of which contain Foxy Knoxy in the title), the reports I have read have been crossed referenced with others and I believe it is all there and accurate. I could have written more but there really is so much out there to suggest Amanda Knox is certainly not your typical American girl abroad.

Amanda Knox seems to have some deep-rooted psychological problems including an inability to relate emotionally to others or to process emotion; if she is found guilty we will be able to add to this her complete lack of remorse. Amanda is sexually promiscuous, impulsive, restless, tactless and has a rather inflated opinion of herself and her own level of entitlement. She has shown no care or concern for Meredith Kercher or her family, even wearing to court a t-shirt emblazoned with the words ‘all you need is love’ (somebody sack whoever thought that was a good idea). She has put her family through a horrendous ordeal and even now does not realise the gravity of the situation. She has been described as “completely detached from reality” and I doubt that’s too far from the truth.

I wonder why people are still surprised that she has lied, continues to lie and will continue to lie regardless of what eventually happens in this case.

In this post, without implying that the case against Raffaele Sollecito and Rudy Guede are in any way less important to the overall outcome of the case or justice for Meredith and her family, I would like to focus on the case against Amanda Knox as I believe it is extremely important for a number of reasons, most crucially in helping us to unlock secrets about the female gender, the crimes they commit and the reasons they may have for doing do.

I recently began thinking about Amanda in more detail as well as the society that created, unleashed and ultimately unraveled her.

I would like to point out at this stage that Amanda Knox is not the first female to be accused of such a heinous and brutal act against a fellow human being (nor will she be the last) but surprisingly this is the first real international case to be so publicly (and brutally) critical of a female defendant in a way that has become normal and totally acceptable when trying male defendants for similarly violent crimes. I believe the overwhelming fascination with Amanda Knox is that she has defied a feminist stereotype about the kinds of women that commit crime and the reasons they have for doing so and by doing this, people are more willing to be critical of her.

The idea of the feminist movement was to liberate women, give them access to better jobs, better rates of pay, a platform in important social and political matters as well equal rights and privileges alongside men in society. But feminism is a bit like communism, it only works on paper and this is because there are still a great number of women who demand the perks of being treated equally without also taking equal responsibility.  Amanda Knox is a case in point and it makes me furious that other women are vocally (despite all the evidence so far) defending and hence condoning her actions simply because she is female. The victim was female too. She no longer has a voice and Amanda doesn’t need two! Amanda has a voice of her own and has already used it to tell an astronomical amount of malicious lies.

While we are on the subject of malicious, aggravated and astonishing lies, what was the tactless, omnipresent voice of the FOA saying last week? Apparently: ‘All you need is love.’ How charming,  I’m sure the family of the young woman Amanda Knox is on trial for killing will bear that in mind *sighs*

The problem with feminism, coupled with the new and equally unworkable socialist idea that anyone can do anything they want, whenever they want and without thinking about the consequences, is that is has falsely encouraged young people (particularly women like Amanda) in the notion that they are invincible and that no matter what happens somebody will always be there to pick up the pieces  and clean up the mess (even murder). Young women like Amanda are born underneath an idealistic umbrella and brought up safe in the knowledge that they can be anything they want to be or have anything they want to have just by demanding it (go look at Cosmopolitan and Teen Vogue if you don’t believe me).

Sexual liberation is another contentious issue (Amanda again is a case in point), nobody is saying you can’t be sexually liberated , it’s just that some people don’t want to have a pink rampant rabbit vibrator practically shoved in their face in order to let everyone know how absolutely wonderful is it to be able to have random sex on a train with whoever they like and all in the name of being sexually liberated. So childish and unnecessary.

Feminism has formed the dangerous and uncontrollable principle that all women are equal because they say they are and anyone that disagrees is anti-women, even if you point out how they refuse to accept responsibility for bad things they have done. You cannot  condone behaviour for women that would simply be unacceptable for men. I condone equality amongst both sexes but wish more women would take responsibility too! That’s feminism.

Kids are brought up to believe they can do anything they like, why then are we surprised when someone gets hurt or killed?

Kids like Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy were brought up around these ideas, believing that other people exist to parasite off and to clean up their mess when they go out into the world and leave in their wake absolute havoc, mayhem and destruction.

I’ve noticed that most feminists who are reading or writing about this case are squealing about the ‘total injustice being done to Amanda-wa-wa-wa!’ by the horrible, horrible, nasty Italian men, seemingly forgetting that it would be these same men that would be in charge of ensuring justice was served had it been Amanda Knox who’d been brutally killed that night.

So to the people that have been using gender as an excuse for why Amanda should be given a slap on the wrist and promptly flown back to Seattle on a private jet with a hand-written note of apology from prosecutor Mignini, I’d like to say this: the victim is still a victim and the perpetrator is still a perpetrator, regardless of who the victim happens to be and regardless of the gender of said perpetrator. This is called justice you can find it in the dictionary, under ‘J’ you can also find the word gender under ‘G’, I hope you’ve noticed they are separate words, start with separate letters and are should be completely and utterly unrelated.

Luckily, it seems the idea of ‘selective justice’ (i.e. one rule for me and another for my male friend here) is not very popular in Italy, where Amanda is currently being held equally responsible to her male counterparts for murder and sexual violence. As we all knew it would, the truth is gradually coming out, ugly as it is, and remember it’s only just begun. The case is unique and important, not because of what she did, but because of the equal way she is being prosecuted.

I urge you all to put aside your preconceptions and look at the evidence closely, justice for Meredith depends on it.

* I have added to the end of this post a simply excellent comment I recieved from Greggy in response to this post, which outlines perfectly how we would have expected Amanda to have behaved had she been completely innocent of any involvement.

The body of Meredith Kercher was discovered on the floor of her bedroom on the 2nd November 2007. She had been stabbed in the neck, sexually assaulted and left to die. Just two days after the body was found, her American housemate Amanda Knox (by that time, probably well on her way to becoming a suspect) wrote this email to 23 of her family and friends.

I must confess I have never seen anything like this. To put it in some sort of context: Sending this email just days after your housemate (and friend) has been brutally murdered in the house you share, is a little bit like taking all your clothes off, walking to the police station and presenting them with a selection of handmade cakes, decorated (in blood) with the words ‘I killed my friend and I really don’t want to get caught’. It’s completely unnecessary, totally bonkers and a good indication that she was almost certainly involved in some capacity.

I’m currently working from the assumption that the formatting, content and structure of the email are Amanda’s own and that it has been posted ‘warts and all’ including structural and grammatical errors. With these points in mind, a few things about this email strike me as particularly indicative of guilt:

Lack of emotional response or fear and evidence of psychological detachment

The first thing that struck me when I read the email was its cold statement like tone. It’s almost as if Amanda is talking to the police, not her friends and family. At no point does Amanda directly indicate that she was afraid even when walking around the house she suspected had recently been burgled. After the discovery of the body she does not mention her emotional reaction to it or the reactions of other people present. This is supported by the testimony of Meredith’s friends who were surprised and disturbed by Amanda’s bizarre behaviour and lack of emotion or empathy at the police station. Sure it’s true that many people take death in different ways and some may go into shock. Amanda was not in shock. Amanda wasn’t feeling anything at all.

Amanda does briefly mention how she felt about Meredith at the beginning of the email where she describes her friend as being “english, beautiful, funny.” Yet Amanda has no praise for Meredith in life or in death other than to comment on her nationality, level of attractiveness and sense of humour which is an interesting insight into traits that are important or significant for her. Amanda expresses no kind words for the family and no reaction to the news that her friend is dead.

One point that interested me was, despite her lack of ability to process emotion, she mentions a guy she doesn’t like (Shaky) arriving at the police station, this is seemingly one of the only emotions she expresses, one of personal distaste. Also another interesting point to bear in mind; Amanda refers to her email as an “update”, either this implies she already knows that people are aware of the situation (and it is actually an update) which would contradict the content which implies this is not true, or she genuinely believes that this sort of message is actually an update instead of life-changing news.

Selective detail, contradictions and chronological order of events

Amanda states the purpose of the email is to inform family and friends of her account of “how i found my roommate murdered the morning of friday, november 2nd.” Though Amanda never found Meredith’s body or even saw it when the door was broken down, she later goes on to say “but when they opened merediths door and i heard filomena scream “a foot! a foot!” in italian i immedaitely tried to get to merediths room but raffael grabbed me and took me out of the house.” This is the first of many contradictions in this email. Firstly Amanda states that her email contains the details of how she found her friends body, then she states she was taken out of the house before she could get to the room where the body was found. Which is it Amanda? Did you find the body or didn’t you? Other people present at the police station and in Perugia in the subsequent days following the murder remember Amanda seeming proud about ‘finding the body’.

Memory of the events of the morning and afternoon (Nov 1st)
Amanda seems to have a virtually perfect memory of the events before and after the murder took place. She remembers exactly what she was doing the morning and afternoon of the 1st of November, allegedly the last time she saw Meredith alive. Amanda remembers in very precise detail when she went home, that Meredith was sleeping, her own location within the kitchen ,what Meredith was saying and doing, the fact she still had blood on her chin from the costume she’d worn out for Halloween, what Raffaele was eating and when Meredith took a shower.

I believe the detail: “meredith came out of the shower and grabbed some laundry or put some laundry in, one or the other and returned into her room after saying hi to raffael”, is highly deceptive.  In the previous paragraph Amanda has demonstrated an almost perfect recall of what Meredith had been saying and doing that morning, almost as if she had been watching her the whole time. With the previously alarming recall of Meredith’s precise movements and the fact that it’s pretty obvious whether someone is loading or unloading a washing machine it seems that the washing machine is a stress point for Amanda, the mop is also a stress point which I will discuss in more detail later.

Memory of the events of the evening and of the subsequent day (Nov 2nd)
Now I don’t know about you but if I was going to write a narrative odyssey of my precise actions and whereabouts before and after the murder of my housemate and friend I’d probably remember to include at least some detail about what I was doing the night my friend was actually killed. Bearing in mind Amanda’s penchant for detail, she offers this as an explanation for what she was doing that afternoon and evening: “after a little while of playing guitar me and raffael went to his house to watch movies and after to eat dinner and generally spend the evening and night indoors. we didnt go out.” Does this strike anyone as particularly odd? With the previous level of detail about the mornings events and details of the day after the murder continuing for pages and pages. Amanda offers the reader the most benign, vague and convenient excuse that they ‘generally’ spent ‘the evening and night indoors’ and ‘did not go out’.  Telling indeed. Amanda also discusses in great detail what happened when she got up the following morning around 10.30am and went back to the cottage. Amanda takes the readers on a journey through the cottage, making sure to point out the seemingly ‘obvious’ evidence of a break-in. It’s overly dramatic and completely detached, it felt like I was reading a bad CSI script.

At one point she tries to explain the presence of blood in the bathroom as being from her ears which she had recently had pierced “extensively”, then discounts this as insignificant. As with the previous section of the email (and assuming her version of events is true) she has seemingly excellent recall of what happened before, during and after the discovery of the body but not what she was doing at the time Meredith was killed. We could always blame the magic cop out bud, but we all know it doesn’t exist.

Amanda’s recollection of detail is too good and in her email she comes across like an actress practising her lines to the only audience that will believe what she has to say.

People construct lies in chronological order; therefore it would make sense that Amanda is telling her lie in chronological order but without referring to precise actions and whereabouts the night of the murder. It’s too vague. Some people might argue that as she is talking to her family and friends she does not need to defend herself and say what she was doing that night as they would assume she had nothing to do with it. If this is the case, why the spiel? Why the defensive tone? She might not be at the police station making a statement but it certainly seems she perceives it that way.

Bad spelling, grammar and punctuation

The spelling, grammar and punctuation are appalling as is the sentence structure and flow. As a language student (and we are led to believe a very smart one at that) one would expect her grasp of the English language to be slightly better, after all she’s telling the story of a lifetime. The errors could indicate that she was very tired when the email was written or in a state of high panic and/or stress.

Defensive tone and too much detail

The email is highly defensive in nature. Right from the very beginning Amanda wants the readers to know it is her side of the story. Rather than displaying any kind of empathy for the victim she launches into a scatty and badly structured rant about: the front door, the hairdryer, the faeces in the toilet, the faucet in the bathroom, the mat and why she needed to bring the mop back to Raffaele’s house. The mop is another stress point for Amanda. When the postal police arrived Amanda and Raffaele were holding a mop looking “embarrassed and surprised”.  As the evidence indicates a fairly thorough clean-up of the house, I imagine that Amanda would be fairly eager to explain away the presence of that mop pretty quickly.

Amanda claims that they needed to bring the mop “because after dinner raffael had spilled a lot of water on thefloor of his kitchen by accident and didnt have a mop to clean it up.” This is highly indicative of deception; a liar will often use too much detail and elaborate in order to convince you that their version of events is so full of detail and so specific that they couldn’t possibly have made it up. However the liar usually falls down in a similar way to people who stage a crime scene, they will often create the lie in a way that makes sense to them which is often illogical and lacking in common sense or any basis in reality. The fact that Amanda simply had to get the mop to clean up the water on the floor is nonsense; nobody would leave a big puddle of water on the floor overnight because they didn’t have a mop to clean it up you’d use a towel or some newspaper.  Also, if you simply had to have the mop, why not take the five minute walk over to the house and get it, it’s not far. It seems Amanda’s version of events does not add up, she wanted to clear up the water but she didn’t want to do it that night and she definitely, definitely wants them to know she didn’t go to the cottage *sighs* how amateur.

Identification with victim, self and others

I find the following comment about why the police were asking her too many questions very strange: “because i was the closest to her”. Anyone could have testified that Meredith and Amanda were close initially but drifted their own separate ways. Amanda is almost boasting here and seemingly trying to insinuate a close personal relationship with the victim that did not really exist.  Amanda mentions Meredith roughly 22 times in the whole email and uses first person singular words (such as I) nearly a thousand times. We would expect her to use quite a few of these words as she is telling a story, but Amanda rarely mentions anyone other than herself. She frequently spells the names of other people wrong, including her boyfriend Raffaele, whom she refers to as her ‘friend’ throughout. Amanda does not identify with any of the other ‘characters’ in the story and at no point does she make any effort to understand how they must be feeling. She is very detached, almost like she is writing a rather disjointed short story.

Certain parts of the email detail how she was annoyed at only having her bag and passport at the police station, being cold, having a stomach ache because of vending machine food, not wanting to repeat herself (despite repeatedly doing so throughout the email), not being able to leave Italy, not having any underwear or clothes and having to pay the next months’ rent without being able to live in the house. It reads like a narcissists manifesto. All this without expressing a single, solitary drop of emotion for the victim or her family and without even a flicker of fear. Truly, frighteningly disturbing.

Purpose of email

At this stage I believe Amanda already knew she was a suspect and was distancing herself from Raffaele. She mentions not being able to leave Italy and wanting to continue her studies without knowing if it will be possible, this is not exactly the sort of thing you worry about in an email informing people that the body of your friend has been found in the house you shared.

At this stage of the investigation the police had almost certainly noted her odd behaviour as had the people close to Meredith and were seriously considering her as a suspect. This email was both a bitter lie and a cry for help as the police were closing in and Amanda realised she really had nobody left to turn to who would believe what she had to say.  She knew she was going to be arrested.

(update below)

Greggy wrote: “To a narcissist, everything is me, me, me. How should of AK reacted if she was an innocent narcissist? First, she would have run screaming from the house as soon as she saw blood, called the police several times, and bragged to everyone about being at the murder scene and the trauma it inflicted on her. She would brag that she found the body (wait, she did do that). She would demand immediate police protection from the killer who came to the cottage, not for that British girl but to kill her. She would quickly leave school because she no longer had a nice place to live and wouldn’t go near her old house ever again. She would say her old clothes and belongings had bad karma now and demand that her parents buy her all new things. She would give newspaper interviews emphasizing that she was Miss Kercher’s best friend (take my picture, I am gorgeous!). She would adore talking to the police and everyone else about the crime exaggerating more and more details until the police realized she was a worthless witness and deport her back to Seattle. She would tell the Seattle newspapers that she was writing a book about the crime and its effects on her. She would thank Italy for being a wonderful country with nice people. These are some of the activities an innocent narcissist would possibly do. Miss Knox’s behavior has been decidedly different.”

Couldn’t have said it better myself. Why didn’t you do this Amanda? Are you ever going to tell us the truth?

A key witness for the prosecution has been arrested after several grams of cocaine were found in his home.

Quoting from the article:

“In a separate development overnight, Italian police arrested an Albanian man in Perugia who is among the key witnesses cited by the prosecution, the ANSA news agency and local media reported. He was picked up on drug charges and cocaine had been found in his apartment, the reports said.The man has told prosecutors that he saw Knox, Sollecito and Guede together the night before the slaying in front of Knox’s and Kercher’s apartment.

He already gave testimony during a preliminary hearing and had been scheduled to appear in court in upcoming hearings”

If this is true and he saw all three together we may have reason to question whether he knew one or all of the three on a more ‘personal’ level.

I would also be interested to know why his house was searched. Though this may potentially discredit him further as a ‘reliable’ witness it also raises a few interesting questions, namely: what was he doing near the cottage that night? Did he know one or all of the defendants? Why did he come forward as a witness if he has been dealing drugs, bit risky…

I have recently read a Le Monde article (kindly translated by Skeptical Bystander) that suggests Perugia has a very high rate of deaths due to cocaine overdose and believe that cocaine may well have played a very key role in what happened that night.

Just another odd coincidence…

“To protect the sheep you have to catch the wolf, and it takes a wolf to catch a wolf.” Training Day

After reading reports about the testimony of those present that fateful November afternoon in 2007, I began thinking about the implications of the events that happened that day and the decisions that whipped this Giallo into an international feeding frenzy with a full spotlight on the Italian judicial system.

The reporting of this case and the ‘facts’ that surround it have been marred by the personal, political and financial motivations of the people orchestrating the defence and PR campaign of the (seemingly) un-defendable Amanda Knox.

Amanda has a fantastic legal team, a supportive family and a lot of ‘journalists’ and media organisations on her side. Despite this there seems to be an overwhelming and growing population of media organisations (and in particular the online community) that are looking at the hard evidence and not fancying Amanda’s chances in the dock one bit.

Amanda’s PR campaigners (FOA) have attempted to derail the investigation from the start, making false allegations of abuse in custody and attempting to discredit the fine work of the forensic experts involved in collecting and processing the evidence collected from the scene. FOA have even tried to bully prosecutor Mignini by accusing him of being mentally unstable. Why? Because he dared to prosecute an American girl using 10,000 pages of hard evidence, a great team of legal experts and the support of a massive community of people who want justice for Meredith Kercher.

FOA are scragging with Mignini as if he is the only person responsible for the case against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. The case against the defendants is the work of a dedicated team of people who above all were determined to find out what happened to Meredith Kercher and catch the person/s responsible:

Let’s not forget the team of investigators that found Meredith and correctly preserved the crime scene, the team responsible for gathering and processing the forensic evidence, the team responsible for conducting all the elements of a thorough and careful police investigation without bias or fear of international wrath, the team of people responsible for compiling and processing the evidence, the same team that used the evidence to release an innocent man framed by the defendant Amanda Knox and last but not least; the team that are currently prosecuting the defendants and headed up by an extraordinary prosecutor who won’t be bullied, shamed or intimidated by a relentless and unashamed PR campaign.

This is not a witch hunt for Amanda Knox as FOA would have you believe. The prosecution has a strong case with a fantastic team of legal and forensic experts with one objective: justice for the victim and her family.

This has become a wolf hunt. The FOA including Paul Ciolino, Anne Bremner and family and friends of Amanda who seem to think that being a ‘nice person’ somehow disqualifies you from ever accepting responsibility for your actions, has acted with the ferocity and rabid narcissism of a pack of wolves.

Amanda Knox herself is sharp, canny and absolutely ruthless. Evident by her repeated lying and manipulation.

It takes a wolf to catch a wolf and there is no sharper wolf than Giuliano Mignini.

I’m fairly sure that Inspector Battistelli had the same feeling about Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito as Prosecutor Mignini and probably the same feeling Judge Micheli did a while later. Now it seems and we only have to look at the recent court photos to see: it is precisely this same feeling Curt Knox is currently experiencing. Doubt. Doubt previously overshadowed by complete and utter denial.

If the PR campaign had been that little bit less ruthless, that little bit more sensitive and the situation weren’t so grave (or the stakes so high), I could almost sympathise with Curt Knox.

I think he has just realised his daughter is probably a killer and that no amount of money will make it go away.

In the previous post I discussed the evidence suggesting that Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito and Rudy Guede attempted to conceal the underlying motives behind the attack on Meredith Kercher by smashing a window and scattering clothes around to simulate a burglary attempt which turned violent.

In the excellent summary of the 106 page report by Judge Micheli, he outlines his reasons why Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito have been brought to trial.

Two of the most significant points in the brief summary include the assertion that the victim’s body was moved after death and that she was wearing her bra at the time of death, yet when her body was discovered the bra had been cut off. There was also evidence that a cleanup attempt had occurred.

The evidence put forward seems to indicate that the perpetrator/s involved in the murder of Meredith Kercher, returned to the cottage, moved the body and cut off the bra to lead investigators to believe the bra had been removed before death. This seems to indicate that the perpetrator/s was attempting to lead the investigators to the conclusion that the motivation for the attack was rape.

I would like to emphasise that despite my belief the rape was staged, in no way do I doubt that Meredith Kercher was subjected to a cruel and degrading sexual assault by Rudy Guede most likely with the two defendants present. The aim of this sexual assault was to frighten and humiliate the victim, whose resulting reaction, coupled with the excitement and escalation of tension and violence resulted in the fatal neck wound, most likely administered by the defendant Amanda Knox.

From the evidence put forward so far, some questions about the rape remain:

Why would the perpetrator/s stage a rape when the crime scene had already been staged to look like a burglary?

I believe the burglary was staged immediately after the attack on Meredith, upon which the accused fled the scene and were reportedly seen by a number of witnesses. Meredith was wearing her bra when she was killed yet forensic evidence recovered from the scene suggests that the person/s involved returned to the crime scene and cut off Meredith’s bra in order to suggest a rape had taken place. This may have happened for a number of reasons:

Firstly it is quite common for violent attacks on women resulting in death to involve some sort of sexual assault and or rape, whoever altered the crime scene had the primary motive of concealing what took place and why. Like with the burglary, the perpetrator/s may have had some sort of preconceived or stereotyped idea about what the crime scene should look like and staged the rape make the scene consistent with the perpetrator/s individual schema.

If the rape had actually happened the person/s involved would not have been interested in making it look more like a rape, it could be suggested that the person/s covering up the actual underlying motive for the attack knew that some sort of sexual assault had taken place and wanted to steer investigators in this direction in the hope that this would become the primary focus of the investigation. Rudy Guede’s DNA was found inside Meredith, the judge believed this was consistent with manual sexual assault. Whoever staged the rape wanted investigators to focus on Guede, the best way to do this would be to draw attention to his primary role in the attack. Rape is a predominantly male crime, it could be suggested that whoever staged the rape was not expecting investigators to link the crime to a female perpetrator.

The burglary was a terrible attempt at staging the crime scene; this is evident in the testimony of Inspector Michele Battistelli who spotted it almost immediately. The perpetrator/s would have been intensely stressed and probably in a great deal of shock when the burglary was staged. Whoever staged the rape had all night to do so and probably returned to the house knowing that Guede had gone out clubbing in order to pin all the blame on him and divert attention away from themselves.

Who was involved in staging the rape? Could they just have been covering for Guede?

Witnesses report seeing Rudy Guede out on the town after the attack on Meredith. It seems he fled the scene, went home, showered and went out, probably in the naive hope that a number of witnesses would come forward to provide him with an alibi. This of course was catastrophic, both for Guede and the defendants Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.

Guede had gone out and was seen by a number of witnesses in town. Forensic evidence suggests that Meredith’s bra was removed after death and when the clean up attempt began. Guede could not have been involved in this as he was in town at the time. Witnesses have placed Guede outside the cottage at this time and forensic evidence has placed Knox and Sollecito inside.

Not only does this further annihilate the lone wolf theory it also seriously implicates Knox and Sollecito in the murder of Meredith Kercher. Why? Because the defendants would have absolutely no motive to implicate themselves in a murder investigation and commit a fairly serious criminal offence by covering up for Rudy Guede. Even if one of the accused attempted the ‘I was just a cleaner’ defence it would implicate the other defendant in both the murder and in the admission that at least one of the defendants knew Rudy Guede prior to the murder of Meredith Kercher. Something both defendants adamantly deny.

Amanda and Raffaele freaked, panicked and returned to the cottage to begin the cleanup operation. Evidence seems to suggest that Amanda and Raffaele didn’t do a terrible job of cleaning up their own involvement I suppose the job was made infinitely easier by the fact that any fingerprints found would be relatively easy to explain away considering Amanda lived in the same house as Meredith. Unsurprisingly plenty of Guede’s DNA, footprints, a bloody handprint on a pillow as well as his faecal matter was left in the toilet for investigators to find. The defendants moved the body, cut off Meredith’s bra and staged the rape. They covered the body, took the knife and left.

What does the staged rape tell us about the defendants and the underlying motives behind the crime?

As with the burglary, the staging of the rape implies a prior relationship between the defendants and the victim, this is further supported by the fact that Meredith was found partially clothed and not fully naked. Research and analysis of previous cases indicates that offenders who stage a crime scene to look like rape are extremely unlikely to leave the victim completely naked and are much more likely to cover the body than offenders who have committed violent sexual homicides. This is because the person/s staging the crime scene often knows the victim personally. This was not a random attack, whoever covered Meredith’s body didn’t want to look at her (or couldn’t).

The fact that a rape was implied may indicate that rape fantasies were involved or that rape was the primary objective of the attack. It has been suggested that bruising on the victim is consistent with being forcibly held, with a knife to the throat and an attack from behind. Media coverage of the case also indicated that Guede attempted to rape Meredith. Guede may not have been able to go through with the attack for a number of reasons: he may have been put off by the presence of the two defendants or he may have been scared. Similarly, Meredith may have attempted to scream. It does appear that a rape was attempted and tensions escalated which culminated in the fatal would.

The original motivation behind the attack may have lead to the idea of staging the rape in order to implicate Guede who was certainly out of his depth and in his panic, presumably sloppy about any trace evidence he left behind. This could certainly have been exploited by the cleverer Knox and Sollecito who would have both been desperate to conceal their involvement in what had happened.

The staging of the rape also provides an interesting insight into the defendant’s rape schema. If a rapist had broken into the apartment and attacked Meredith there would be no real need to remove the bra to complete the rape. If the rapist had a particular need to expose the breasts why not cut the bra off at the time of the attack? The bra did not come off until much later and was cut off at the back indicating a further schema about how a bra is ‘supposed’ to come off, surely a rapist with a need to expose the breasts would remove the bra at the time of the attack and in the most convenient way possible, not wait until after death to move the body and cut the bra off at the back. DNA evidence found on the bra clasp has implicated Raffaele Sollecito.

Furthermore, a lot has been made of Amanda’s ‘Baby Brother’ short story, which despite its plotline being virtually impossible to follow does provide an interesting and unique insight into her individual rape fantasies. Rape fantasies are very common amongst young women and Amanda may have been driven to act upon them during the attack and probably when staging the crime scene.

What really happened?

I fear that we will never really know what happened to Meredith Kercher or why. The evidence available so far seems to indicate that this was a complex, unique and multilayered crime. The tragic death of Meredith Kercher has certainly captured the attention of people all over the world.

Though the details of what happened to poor Meredith are extremely unpleasant, we must remember that she died a slow and agonising death and for what? Seemingly no reason at all? Questions must be asked and evidence followed in order to ascertain why this beautiful young woman with her whole life ahead of her was attacked and killed in such a brutal way.

I firmly believe that Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito and Rudy Guede were equally culpable in what happened to Meredith that night and that Amanda and Raffaele had motive and opportunity to conceal what they had done by attempting to stage the rape and blame Rudy Guede. Justice must be served. The defendants need to stop hiding behind large wads of cash.

Let the evidence speak for itself.

Firstly I would like to thank the team at True Justice for Meredith Kercher for translating and summarising the 106 page report by Judge Micheli. This excellent summary will hopefully help those interested in the case further understand the reasons why Micheli handed down a 30 year sentence to Rudy Guede and what motivated his decision to bring Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito to trial for the murder of Meredith Kercher.

Most of the evidence put forward so far and the general consensus amongst investigators and objective media reports  is that the crime scene was staged in the hope that investigators would believe that the perpetrator/s had acted alone and broken into the house to steal which resulted in a confrontation and the attack on Meredith.

The fact that the crime scene was staged could provide a useful insight into the nature of the offence and also the person/s involved.

Investigators will often look for behavioural clues left by a perpetrator at a crime scene by trying to establish the sequence of events that lead to the murder of the victim. Each crime scene is totally unique and must be treated as such. Establishing how the victim was attacked and subdued are important indicators of behaviour as well as determining whether the victim was mutilated and/or sexually assaulted and if so whether this sexual assault and/or mutilation occurred before or after death. Investigators may also be interested in establishing whether the perpetrator deliberately or accidently left or removed an item at the crime scene.

Studying the victim (victimology) is also important as the age, gender, physical build and ethnic origin (amongst others) of the victim can often give investigators further important behavioural clues about the perpetrator and what need they serve by killing.

Sometimes when analysing a crime scene investigators may notice certain irregularities that attempt to obscure or alter the underlying motive/s of the crime. Examples of this could include a broken window that seems to indicate a point of entry yet on closer inspection appears to be broken from the inside. Another example of staging could be a crime scene where officers notice cupboards and drawers open, objects knocked on the floor and a big mess which appears to indicate a burglary but on closer inspection and after interviewing friends or relatives, the investigators establish that nothing of value has been taken.

These irregularities in the crime scene are often the result of a behaviour called staging or purposely altering the crime scene after the event and prior to the arrival of the police. Staging usually takes place to steer the investigation and the attention of the police away from the perpetrator involved or to obscure the truth about what happened to the victim and the manner in which they died (faking a suicide is a good example of this).

Perpetrators who stage a crime scene will often make mistakes and leave clues behind; this is because a perpetrator will usually attempt to rearrange the scene to resemble what they believe it should look like. When rearranging a crime scene most offenders experience a great deal of stress and panic and because of this panic, do not have the time to fit all the pieces together logically and set a convincing ‘stage’ to lead the police down the ‘right track’. As a result of this, inconsistencies in forensic findings and in the overall view of the crime scene will begin to emerge. Most investigators can quickly spot whether or not a crime scene has been staged.

Another interesting point that investigators will often consider is whether the level of violence fits the crime and the ‘stage’ that has been set by the perpetrator.

One of the questions I’d like to consider is how the person/s involved in killing Meredith altered the crime scene, why this occurred and the implications it may have for understanding the motivations of the person/s involved.

Inspector Michele Battistelli was one of the first officers at the scene where Meredith’s body was found. He recently testified in court: “Straightaway I thought it was an attempt to make it look like a burglary”. Battistelli also found that a window had been broken but the shattered glass lay on top of some clothes that had been scattered on the floor. Although at first glance it appeared to be a burglary attempt gone bad, suspicions were immediately aroused indicating something far more sinister had happened when Battistelli established that despite the supposed burglary, a laptop, video camera and other valuables had not been taken from the house. Battistelli noted that the defendants Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito seemed “embarrassed and surprised” during the initial search of the house.

Several factors that investigators often consider when confronted with a violent crime where burglary appears to be a motive:

·        Did the offenders take anything of value?

·        If the offenders took or attempted to take objects of value, were they large or small objects? Why take a TV when a box of jewellery is just as valuable, less conspicuous and easier to carry?

·        Did the point of entry make sense? i.e. did the offender climb though a higher storey window when a lower and more easily accessible point of entry was possible?

·        Did the offender appear to put themselves at risk? Was the offence committed in broad daylight when darkness would have provided better cover for the offence?

·        Does the level of violence fit the crime?

In this case we can almost certainly rule out a burglary ever taking place:

Missing valuables

The investigating officers noted that only Meredith’s rent money had been taken. Although a thief would have almost certainly taken the money if it had been found, burglars often break into houses to steal objects they can sell rather than optimistically expecting to find cash. If a serious burglary had occurred, objects like Meredith’s laptop would almost certainly have been taken as well as valuables from the other girls’ rooms. Whoever took the money already knew it was there.

Entry point, risk taking and victim selection

Similarly, the window was almost certainly broken from the inside as, had the window been broken as an entry point the glass would have been underneath the scattered clothes. Also, the broken window was significantly higher off the ground than other easier entry points. We must also consider the main objective of a burglary: to steal as much valuable stuff as quickly and conveniently as possible. The boy’s apartment (downstairs) would have been a much, safer and easier target for a burglary, nobody home and surely they’d have valuables too. Why scale a wall and break in through a small window to steal from an upstairs apartment when an easier target would be a deserted downstairs apartment? The principle target in the attack was Meredith Kercher. A burglar would have no reason to make things harder by targeting Meredith specifically; hence a burglary doesn’t make sense.

Level of violence used

I’d make an educated guess that if whoever set the stage for the police managed to convince them a burglary took place, they’d probably still have suspected something was amiss simply because of the level of violence involved in the attack on Meredith. Investigating officers are trained to look for patterns in victim selection, type of crime and weapon employed. Lone burglars who are confronted will often attempt to run away and if they do attack, they don’t often cause serious injury or death simply because they are often good at selecting properties where the owner/s are not home. Aggravated burglary is rare and usually the burglar will only lash out when threatened. The attack on Meredith was violent, sadistic, prolonged and extremely brutal, a burglar would be more likely to kick, punch or throw an object with the objective of getting away than sexually assault and kill. The objective would be to escape as quickly as possible without being seen, with as many valuables as possible, not to hang around, sexually assault and brutally kill a young woman.

The evidence available so far indicates that whoever killed Meredith Kercher attempted to make it appear to investigating officers that someone had broken into the apartment to steal and had violently attacked Meredith when confronted.

What does this tell us about the perpetrator/s responsible for the attack on Meredith and the subsequent attempt to stage the crime scene?

Offenders who attempt to stage a crime scene almost always know the victim in some way, often quite well. The fact that the perpetrator/s attempted to stage the crime scene to look like a burglary indicates a relationship with the victim. The person/s involved obviously panicked and made a very poor effort to stage a burglary, no objects were taken and the window was smashed from the inside, yet whoever set the scene had an unrealistic preconceived idea of what a burglary would look like and haphazardly threw some clothes around to create a scene. Whoever did this obviously had no idea what a convincing burglary would look like as it immediately roused the suspicions of the police, this could indicate that the person/s who staged the crime scene had never been involved in or experienced burglary before.

I believe the stage was set by Rudy Guede, Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. This was done quickly, in a total state of panic and following this, all three fled the scene.

Some ideas and conclusions

I believe Knox and Sollecito had doubts about how convincing their staged burglary would be. By this time Guede had already left the house, gone home, showered and gone out clubbing. I believe it was these doubts, coupled with the idea that they could pin the blame on Guede that made Knox and Sollecito go back to the house to stage the rape and attempt to clean up their own involvement.

Upon reading this article which I came across earlier today, I can honestly say my first reaction was absolute outrage. If you have read the article and are now at a loss as to why I feel this way I hope you’ll allow me to explain:

In this short article Julie Bindel is seemingly angry at the Italian judicial system for daring to prosecute Amanda Knox for a “sex crime” as, during her 30 years of “monitoring, researching and campaigning against sex crime” she has “never encountered anything remotely like the case against Amanda Knox.” Despite the fact that Bindel correctly asserts that the majority of sex crimes (and in particular sex related homicides) are predominantly committed by men, she goes on to make the outlandish claim that we “tend not to look too closely for motives of male sex killers, unconsciously accepting them as being badly wired, but with women, we demand one.” This  profoundly outrageous feminist statement angers me beyond belief. In the space of a few words Bindel has attempted to nullify and completely obliterate the work of several eminent forensic experts and years of research.

Understanding why people kill has been the main focus of forensic psychology and psychiatry for many years. The excellent work of Dr Robert Hare has provided us with an insight as has Dr Michael Welner’s ongoing work on the Depravity Scale. These are fantastic examples of researchers with a real passion for understanding the motives behind crime irrespective of gender.

I’m tired of reading jumped up feminist articles spouting badly researched drivel with bum statistics and massive inaccuracies. It’s only possible to see how the mainstream media can saturate the public domain with inaccurate information when you spot the so called ‘expert’ journalists talking complete and utter nonsense. In her all encompassing knowledge and wisdom Bindel goes on to make further outlandish statements; stating that the evidence against a defendant on trial for murder in a country where the judicial system is strongly in favour of defendants  is “circumstantial” and that if  “Knox is convicted, it will be a first”.

In a previous post I outlined how stereotyping prevents us from seeing the woman as a potentially violent individual but would also like to add that feminism prevents us from seeing the female as a potentially violent individual by vehemently denying all evidence and research about female perpetrators and nearly always asserting, despite extensive evidence to the contrary that women couldn’t possibly be violent and that it simply had to be the work of nasty, nasty men.

Feminists like Bindel who are analysing the ongoing trial are attempting to pick and choose which woman they would like to defend by placing the female rights and privileges of Amanda Knox above the main objective: justice for Meredith Kercher and her long suffering family. I would also like to point out that nowhere in the entire article does it mention the victim’s first name, merely referring to “Kercher” as if the victim of a violent attack leading to an agonisingly slow death is merely an afterthought.

I would like to ask Julie Bindel to assert her supreme confidence that women are incapable of this level of violence to 21 year old Brooke Cameron who was scarred for life when an older woman named Sonja Oliver deliberately ran her over in a BMW, dragging her underneath the car for several yards and leaving her arm hanging on by a tendon. The reason? Ms Oliver was jealous of the younger woman and her good looks. Ms Oliver was acquitted of unlawful wounding with intent and sentenced to a mere 15 months in prison. Ms Cameron will be permanently scared and no longer has the full use of her arm. I wonder what sort of article Julie Bindel would have written had it been a man who ran over Brooke Cameron.

One of the major blockades to the truth in this case is that the media and the public who trust it without question, simply refuse to accept that Amanda Knox could have killed her housemate Meredith Kercher, simply because Amanda is a woman. I’ve read quite a few articles from the feminist angle and was beginning to wonder how long it would be before they really started to sink their teeth in.

For a while I’ve wanted to ask Candace Dempsey why comments which are ‘disrespectful to women’ are prohibited on her blog when she continues to show virtually zero sympathy for the woman at the centre of this case who really matters: Meredith. I’d ask but it would probably be deleted almost instantly.

This mass cognitive dissonance is the only thing holding Knox’s defence together and writers like Bindel and Dempsey merely sound like bossy little 8 year olds in the playground demanding to have their opinions heard whilst simultaneously ignoring virtually every scrap of evidence the prosecution has used to build a (strong) case. Typical feminists.

What would have happened if Amanda went to the cottage alone that night? What would have happened if Amanda didn’t have a man to blame?

If you’d like to be a real feminist make sure women (and this includes Amanda Knox) are treated fairly and equally in court. There can be no equality without responsibility. Amanda and her team of supporters have pulled virtually every female trick in the book during the investigation and trial.

As my friend quite rightly noted: Justice shouldn’t recognise the sex of the defendant.

So to answer your question “Can Amanda Knox really be a crazed sex killer?” Yes Ms Bindel, yes she can!