Lies Our Mothers Told Us

Sometimes I like to go back and read some of the older articles and blog posts concerning the murder of Meredith Kercher, especially in light of new information or ideas concerning the case. I like many others spend a great deal of time thinking and reading about the case, usually for no other reason than wanting to understand what happened and why, justice for Meredith is crucial.

When I started reading in depth about the case I quickly began to realize how complex it actually is. I was saddened by the details of her final hour, yet moved by the presence and human spirit in the many pictures of Meredith that can be found in articles, news reports and blog posts across the world. As TJMK reported not too long ago, Meredith’s following is now worldwide and deservedly so.

Recent Media Coverage

Hellodalai’s excellent post on TJMK highlighted the issue of media coverage surrounding this case and the standard we as readers expect to see. Media coverage of the Meredith Kercher case has ranged in quality from exceptional to appalling.

Most of the worst offenders have been US media outlets. The most recent example being the CNN ‘Issues with Jane Velez-Mitchell’ show, a discussion panel comprised of six ‘experts’ ‘discussing’ the ‘facts’ of the case.

Unsurprisingly and barely a minute or two after starting, the show quickly descended into an incoherent shouting match where each of the experts (bar a faintly amused looking clinical psychologist) competed with each other in a kind of game show format (sans buzzers) to see how many insults they could throw at the Italian people in 15 minutes. The prize was (seemingly) acknowledgement from Velez-Mitchell, whose unparalleled banshee-like shrieking and volume control surpassed that of a howler monkey.

Thankfully some media coverage of the case has been more objective and balanced, most notably from Barbie Nadeau and Andrea Vogt. A few months ago Barbie wrote an article for the Daily Beast called ‘Sex and Murder in Italy’ in it she highlighted the way the case is being discussed and analyzed in the blogosphere and the “aggressive PR machine out of Seattle that runs under the moniker ‘Friends of Amanda.’”

The FOA

The ‘Friends of Amanda’ (FOA) public relations (PR) campaign has been an active part of the case almost from the very beginning.

When news of the murder broke there was a great deal of media attention with reporters clambering for a shot of the alleged killer dubbed ‘angel face’ by the Italian press. Overnight the American student Amanda Knox and her Italian boyfriend and co-accused Raffaele Sollecito became international celebrities.

Most of the media attention has been focused on Knox with details of her life in Seattle, boyfriends and sexual escapades splashed across the front page of newspapers. Top lawyers were drafted in and the family approached David Marriot’s Seattle based PR company Gogerty Stark Marriott, presumably for help with, not only media training, but also litigation PR, the branch of public relations that deals with reputation management.

Click here for Kermit’s entertaining take on the recent changes to the FOA’s website and their most recent attempt at spin.

Litigation Public Relations

There is a great deal of information about litigation PR available online. Many companies offer PR services designed to compliment legal proceedings both at corporate and individual levels. Their rationale being that: “High profile legal proceedings are played out in the court of public opinion – so irrespective of the outcome of the case, it is pivotal that reputations are protected through the media.” But at what cost?

Though a great deal of criticism has been handed to the Knox/Mellas family for contacting Gogerty Stark Marriott they were in a sense (initially) justified in doing so, if only to equip them with the necessary training to deal with the sheer amount of media attention they and their daughter were receiving.

How does it work?

The primary motivation behind a PR campaign is to influence a target audience, most notably the media as this is the best way to inform large numbers of people. The aim of the PR campaign is to get a message or another viewpoint across to the public through various channels, most often the media through articles, newspapers and television appearances.

In very high profile cases many PR experts believe that the media nearly always take the side of the prosecution and deliberately smear the name of defendants in order to create more ‘readable’ and sensational news stories. Tabloids have long been criticized for doing precisely this.

Indeed a research paper by Gibson and Padilla (1999) describes how the word ‘defendant’ has connotations of guilt before a guilty verdict has been reached. The authors also note several other research papers highlighting the issue of unfair press representation and sensationalism directly contribute to a very quick decline in public support for a defendant in high profile cases.

The aim of employing a PR campaign in litigation cases is to counteract what the client believes is unfair and unbalanced reporting. The PR company are charged with getting the clients message across in a variety of formats and ensuring the public do not forget the message.

David Marriot is believed to have media trained Amanda’s parents Edda Mellas and Curt Knox, contacted various associates to arrange television appearances and interviews (mostly in the US) helped organize fund raisers for the family in Seattle and build the backbone for the controversial ‘Friends of Amanda’ campaign.

Seattle based attorney Anne Bremner was enlisted as chief spokeswoman for the FOA and has made numerous appearances on television and in articles defending Amanda Knox.

The role of the internet in litigation PR

This is certainly not the first time a PR campaign has been used alongside legal services to inform the media in a high profile case. Indeed according to a research paper by Reber, Gower and Robinson (2006) in the Journal of Public Relations Research, dynamic client websites and an increased focus on internet resources are now considered highly effective tools for PR companies charged with upholding the reputation of their clients.

When Martha Stewart was arrested and charged with fraud in 2003 a website ‘Martha Talks’ was launched in matter of days. Similarly, when Michael Jackson was accused of molesting a child at his Neverland ranch, a website was set up to get his side of the story across. Stewart was successfully prosecuted. Jackson was cleared of all charges.

The ‘Friends of Amanda’ website has been up and running for quite some time. It would be fair to say the information contained on the site is highly watered down and undeniably biased in favour of the defendant. The website features testimonials from friends and family as well as pictures of Amanda as a happy and carefree child.

Perhaps one of the most important factors in establishing the effectiveness of an litigation PR campaign online is the way is has been received in the blogosphere. There now exist over four blogs and at least two forums devoted entirely to covering the Meredith Kercher case. Some of these believe Amanda is innocent and some believe the case against her is strong. The blogosphere has  arguably had a large influence over the public in this case especially in a digital age where people, not content with reading media reports seek out more information and the opinions of others independent from media outlets.

Where did it all go wrong?

A few months ago Seattle based attorney and chief FOA spokeswoman Anne Bremner announced on her website that they had “achieved our purpose as was stated in our mission statement” and would now “stand back and let the international public see what there is to be seen in the public trial proceedings.” It seemed the PR campaign had lost a limb.

Many following the case have commented that this particular campaign was highly aggressive and determined, therefore it seemed a little strange that it’s chief spokeswoman and her pervasive ‘drumbeating’ would simply walk away leaving behind only the flimsiest of excuses. Where and why have the ‘Friends of Amanda’ been hiding? Where did it all go wrong?

Inconsistent Message

Perhaps one of the biggest nails in the coffin for the FOA has been the inconsistencies and contradictions in it’s message to the public. Many PR experts will agree that consistency in public relations is crucial to maintaining a reputation as a source of reliable information.

In an excellent post ‘Knox PR Campaign: Have The Talking Points Now Become A Trap?‘ The Machine explains that “the main thrust of the PR campaign seems to be that there’s no evidence against Knox, or the evidence is tainted, they are holding the wrong person (or already have the right person), and there’s no need to have a trial.”

PR experts will usually create a ‘script’ for their clients or a set of points used to convey the message of the campaign. Many following the case dubbed this script the ‘talking points’ and lamented that FOA supporters would endlessly repeat these talking points, often in response to questions that had little to do with the subject in hand.

It seems fairly ridiculous that a PR campaign whose main thrust is ‘there’s no evidence, she’s absolutely innocent’ then later spend a great deal of time talking and attempting to explain away the evidence that isn’t even supposed to exist!

Aggressive and threatening behaviour online

The FOA have conducted themselves appallingly online. Incidents include:

• Abusive emails sent to various journalists and bloggers who refuse to tow the official line and stick to the talking points.
• Threats made to individual contributers to blogs and forums who the FOA perceive as anti-Amanda.
• Hijacking of comment threads and blogs with talking points and insults.
• Attempted hacking of websites that the FOA perceive as ‘anti-Amanda’.
• Publication of private information about individuals following the case including names and approximate locations.
• Endless (and unchallenged) trashing of the victim and the Italian judiciary under the guise of anonymity on blogs that are supportive of Amanda.

This type of behaviour has only served to make the PR campaign look ruthless and bullying, it has also encouraged certain individuals to make extremely hurtful comments about the victim and her family which is unacceptable and unforgivable. It is also verybad PR for the FOA and has been duly noted by many reporters covering the case, most recently Andrea Vogt for the Seattle PI which reached a large public audience.

Indeed one of the biggest problems for the FOA is the sheer magnitude of information which is available about the case online. A lot of it is completely at odds with the talking points. The 48 hours mystery show probably remains the most shocking example of FOA propaganda to date. In the days following it’s airing on US TV it seemed many Americans found themselves online hoping to help the poor innocent girl from Seattle who’d been ‘railroaded’, only to discover that the program was full of inaccuracies and the case against the very same woman from Seattle was actually very strong.

The very nature of the case encourages people to seek out further information online. Why then have the FOA encouraged their own supporters to act in such a childish and immature way in the very place that potentially new pro-Amanda ‘recruits’ are arriving in large numbers?

It simply remains that rather than attempting to be civil and engage in normal debate with the influential and intelligent online community in favour of justice for Meredith, the FOA attempted to crush them like ants and they failed. Spectacularly. Journalists however were around to watch the fallout and the FOA looked stupid as a result.

Accusation of ethnocentrism and anti-Italianism

Many bloggers have noticed that the FOA have been remarkably ethnocentric in their comments about the Italian judiciary. Possibly in an attempt to explain away the presence of evidence they said didn’t exist in the first place.

If we believe what the FOA have to say; it would appear that nearly all Italian authorities are a bunch of lazy, incompetent, stupid, violent, unqualified, crooked vagabonds whose sole existence and purpose in life is to ‘railroad’ two innocent ‘love birds’ simply because the chief prosecutor has a vendetta against an American journalist.

This, unsurprisingly, has not gone down well in Italy where the case is more closely followed possibly than anywhere else in the world, a place the FOA badly needed to spread their message.

PR campaign at odds with legal representation

Amanda’s legal team is comprised of two very capable and highly experienced lawyers: Luciano Ghirga and Carlo Della Vedova.

TJMK highlighted back in March how the FOA’s constant trashing of chief prosecutor Mignini was undermining their attempt to provide her with the best legal advice and representation possible. Rather than the supporting Amanda the FOA had actually succeeded in making things more difficult for her and thoroughly embarrassed her lawyers in the process.

In the research paper by Gibson & Padilla (1999) the authors also highlight the problem of conflicts between lawyers and PR spokespersons, they explain that lawyers often place an emphasis on getting the defendant to say as little as possible whereas the PR campaign encourages them to speak out, this can often be frustrating for a legal team, evident in Amanda’s case.

Overly focused on American media outlets

By far the FOA’s biggest problem has been their failure to win over the support of the Italian public and media. Partly due to the above point but also in part because they have focused too much time, energy and money on winning over the American public and media. Possibly under the illusion that Amanda would soon be freed and that this was merely a reputation or damage control exercise.

The FOA have arguably been behind various smear campaigns directed at the Italian judiciary and the country itself. Several examples include:

• Making derogatory and offensive remarks about the PM Giuliano Mignini.
• Claiming that the police officers mistreated Amanda in custody
• Insinuating that the Italian police and SOCO’s were derelict in their duty and contaminated the crime scene.
• Encouraging, praising and endorsing high profile articles written about  the case that are inaccurate and offensive to the Italian people.
• Insinuating that the Italian system is somehow backward by not following the same structure as the American system.

A quick search through Google trends highlights the massive amount of readership in Italy compared to that in the US, surely poking fun at a country and it’s legal system whilst expecting support and gratitude for it is not entirely the right way to go?

Recent Revelations

I was very surprised to hear Amanda testifying in court and still regurgitating the ‘hitting’ claims made by the FOA. Mainly in light of a possible slander charge for accusing the police of mistreatment the last time she made this accusation. Amanda’s lawyers themselves said “there were pressures from police but we never said she was hit”

So Amanda herself by taking the stand and repeating these claims has taken full advantage of possibly her only remaining opportunity to give the worlds press a sensational (albeit untrue) account of why she accused her boss Patrick Lumumba of killing Meredith. Therby ensuring that the media focused only on the claims she was hit (or according to some ‘beaten’) and not on the fact that she repeatedly contradicted her previous statements, cannot explain the DNA evidence linking her to the crime, came across as arrogant and cocky, couldn’t tell her arse from her elbow on the stand and still doesn’t have an alibi for the night of the murder. Convenient indeed.

I highly suspect that Amanda’s legal team didn’t want her to testify, simply because when she opens her mouth it usually makes things unequivocally worse for her. Her family were determined to get Amanda on the stand and it seems they are arguably more interested in preserving her reputation than allowing her defense team to provide her with the best legal representation possible. Just another example of the trouble this PR campaign has and still is causing.

The recent re-surfacing of Anne Bremner and the various, agressive anti-Italian pieces that have appeared in respected news articles like the NY Times and on the TV should not be ignored, nor indeed should the timing. There came a point where the PR campaign itself was receiving bad PR so they cautiously made a show of retreating before whipping up enough public outrage and attention that previous bad behaviour was all but forgotten.

It would appear that nearly all the ‘prominent’ Knox supporters are from Seattle or the surrounding areas, supporters including Anne Bremner, Timothy Egan, Judge Michael Heavey and even David Marriott himself who, according to the mini biography on his firm’s website is a former Emmy-winning television news reporter unsuprising then that many of the most shocking examples of shoddy, baseless and FOA influenced journalism have been from the US where I’m sure Mr Marriott has many contacts. Coincidence? I’m not convinced.

Public FOA supporters are very quick to bandy around their credentials, Judge Michael Heavy had to make a public apology after using his official headed paper to make false claims about the case in an letter which he later apologised for. Douglas Preston, Timothy Egan and Candace Dempsey have all been criticised for arguably exaggerating their qualifications and achievements. I feel this says rather a lot and must be frustrating for Knox’s lawyers to have so many ego’s getting in the way of their attempt to defend her.

I’m sure there are a number of people who believe the Knox/Mellas family have been justified in doing whatever it takes to defend and uphold the reputation of their daughter, but it cannot logically be denied that this has come at the expense of ridiculing Italy and thereby sacrificing any chace Amanda has of being taken seriously in court, even by her legal team.

As such, the bad publicity surrounding this campaign in Italy (I’m sure) has done nothing to discourage some Italian people in the idea that Amanda and her family, rather than facing the truth, rather than showing respect and remorse for accusing her boss of murder, have chosen to hide behind a crude and vicious PR campaign designed to ensure Amanda is protected at all costs and sadly at the expense of the one thing the Kercher family want more than anything: The truth about what really happened to Meredith.

Newspaper editors will give anyone a blog these days. Provided of course you can string a sentence together, are openly supportive of global warming and have and/or are about to spew out a book. Journalists these days can encompass anything from the ‘I got a degree in journalism from the University of Blah so can I please, please have a job in journalism now?’ Types like Candace Dempsey. All the way through to the ‘established 18 year career with the New York Times and Pulitzer prize winning journalist’ type a la Timothy Egan.

Over time I have learnt to eat at and leave Candace’s table, not with anger or disappointment but a sense of passive nonchalance as if her outpourings of awkward grief and skewed logic are somehow to be expected. Despite her claims, Candace Dempsey is not an award winning journalist so the only real difference between her aggressive gushings at the Seattle PI and respected New York Times journalist come blogger Timothy Egan’s latest piece, is that the latter should know better. Especially when writing, with gusto, about the ‘obvious innocence and injustice’ done to fellow Seattleite and all round American golden-girl Amanda Knox.

Aside from the insipid title, what becomes immediately apparent when reading Egan’s article ‘An Innocent Abroad’ is not only the lack of objectivity (an essential tool for any self respecting journalist) but also the lack of any in depth discussion about the actual basis of the prosecution’s case, a case that has been presented in detail twice a week for nearly half a year.

Instead of discussing the factors leading to the arrest and trial of the defendants, Egan presents the old, clichéd and unsubstantiated ‘mad fanatical prosecutor’ theory as a reason for the trial. He muses:

“The case against Knox has so many holes in it, and is so tied to the career of a powerful Italian prosecutor who is under indictment for professional misconduct, that any fair-minded jury would have thrown it out months ago.”

My, my, feeling ethnocentric today aren’t we? Egan continues to bandy the ‘this would never happen in America’ claim and appoints himself, judge, jury and excuser in order to make the divine assertion that he and he alone knows what the outcome of this trial would be in the good old US of A! Egan is clearly suggesting to his readers that the conviction of Amanda Knox would be tantamount to a miscarriage of justice. Can anyone say objective reporting? Nope. Didn’t think so.

Egan fails to mention that Knox and Sollecito had many court hearings prior to the trial and were afforded many legal advantages and excellent legal representation. If even one of the judges who presided over the initial hearings had decided there was insufficient evidence to hold or charge them, they would have been released. Every single judge that heard the evidence suggesting their involvement in the murder denied their release.

It’s hardly as if they were at a disadvantage or even in the position to be railroaded. If I recall correctly Knox and Sollecito incriminated themselves long before the police even got a sniff of Rudy Guede, by repeatedly lying to police. Egan also fails to mention neither Knox nor Sollecito have an alibi for the night of the murder.

It seems Egan has opted to ‘pass’ on the option of providing his readers with an interesting and objective piece in favour of spending the last six months with his head buried in the sand or possibly with it firmly shoved up Douglas Preston backside, feeding off the gravy train controversy surrounding the ongoing trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito for their part in the murder of British exchange student Meredith Kercher.

The victim is of course an afterthought. Egan gushes about Meredith being ‘high-spirited’ for about half a second before comparing how ‘high-spirited’ (what?) both girls were and explaining to the reader that we should essentially just forget all about Meredith and focus on poor, poor Amanda whom this case obviously revolves around:

“But it is also about Amanda Knox, an equally high-spirited student whose life has been nearly ruined by this collision of predatory journalism and slipshod prosecution – “the railroad job from hell,” as one outside expert hired by CBS News concluded.”

Does Egan mention the ‘outside expert’ is Paul Ciolino, whose thoughts and ideas about the case are on a par with a barely literate behemoth? Did I forget to mention the CBS expert was paid by, surprise, surprise CBS! To say *shock horror* whatever they told him to say! Oh Egan, you’ll need to do better than that to convince your readers.

The following statement is pretty misleading:

“Knox may not feel the same way. She spent nearly a year in jail without being charged. This, despite the fact that the only physical evidence found on the murder victim’s body was from someone else – a drifter with a drug problem named Rudy Guede.”

Knox and Sollecito spent a year in jail whilst the police built a case as they are legally entitled to do. The second statement is technically true but Egan fails to mention the fact that Knox’s DNA was found on the handle of a kitchen knife discovered at Raffaele’s flat ,the victims DNA was later found on the tip. This is significant as Meredith had never been to Raffaele’s flat. Similarly, Raffaele’s DNA was found on the victim’s bra clasp, in a room he supposedly had never entered. Patrizia Stefanoni the DNA expert for the prosecution and a highly respected professional in her field has stated that these findings are not the result of contamination.

Equally telling:

“Knox and Sollecito were arrested in large part because of what they said under duress by interrogation of the prosecutor, Giuliano Mignini. Remember that name. After being questioned all night without an attorney or a professional translator, Knox said some things in response to a series of hypothetical questions. This was initially trumpeted as a contradiction, or worst – a confession. A higher court later threw out the most damning statements.”

The lack of any mention of Knox being hit indicates that little myth at least has been put to bed (indicating that the FOA are no longer using the ‘she was hit’ excuse). Let’s put away a few of the others. Firstly Amanda was not questioned all night by Mignini and freely offered the police Patrick Lumumba’s name, she even made up details about how they had met and when they went to the cottage together. With regard to the ‘false confession’, Egan attempts to gloss over its significance to the case with what is perhaps my favourite euphemism (what’s yours?) in the whole post:

“Knox raised the possibility that a bar owner with an airtight alibi could have been involved.”

Only in the New York Times could a journalist get away with a whopper like that! You don’t ‘raise the possibility’ that someone was involved in a murder, you either accuse them or you don’t. If the subject weren’t so serious and the potential for misinforming the public so great I’d be howling with laughter.

Neither was this ‘confession’ made under duress. Amanda had gone to the police station and willingly offered the information to the police upon being told Raffaele was no longer providing her with an alibi. Mignini was only hauled out of bed at stupid o’clock in the morning once Amanda had made her ‘confession’ as her status had changed from that of a ‘person aware of the facts’ to a ‘suspect’. A translator was available throughout the questioning, she even testified in court.

Knox was certainly not questioned for 14 hours. She was offered refreshments and willingly signed a statement. A lawyer was not present and therefore this statement cannot be used against her. Egan conveniently forgets to mention a handwritten note Knox gave to police detailing her ‘confession’ explaining how she would ‘stand by’ her accusation of Patrick (that she knew was false) which, unlike her first statement, has not been thrown out of court and will be used as evidence in the slander case against her.

Egan further mentions (on details of Amanda’s sex life being leaked):

“The Brits, in particular, had a field day. Locked from her house in the first days after it became a crime scene, Knox went to a store one day with Sollecito to buy emergency underwear. The British tabs bannered this as a g-string celebration of remorseless killers.”

Emergency underwear that consists of a g-string and a camisole top? I don’t know about you but if my friend had just been murdered in the house we both shared and I’d been locked out whilst guys in white suits poked about in my room for days, I’d head on over to the nearest department store and get me a six pack of basic knickers until I figured out what I was going to do. While I was at it I’d probably pick up a t-shirt and a pair of shorts too. In fact what I definitely wouldn’t do is stroll on over to a lingerie store (and it was a lingerie store) and proceed to start snogging and dry humping my boyfriend in the middle of the shop (on CCTV of course) and talking about all the wild sex we were going to have later, in between eating and talking to the cops about the brutal sexual assault and murder of my friend.

Perhaps because I am British I find this a little rude. The Brits were certainly not the only papers to have published details about Amanda’s ‘Baby Brother’ rape story, the random sex with a stranger on a train and Amanda’s assertion that Daniel (from downstairs) would be a good shag because he had herpes. I agree that Amanda’s sex life really isn’t that important but the press were always going to try and find out this sort of information about her. It’s what the press do! Egan, as a journalist himself should know this and attempting to portray Amanda as a sweet and innocent ray of sunshine by criticising those who have uncovered evidence that she is in fact the opposite is a blatant attempt at shooting the messenger.

Some of you may be asking what the point of Egan’s article is, after all it sheds no new light on the ongoing trial or the evidence that has come out over the last few months, well , hidden under this plethora of regurgitated spaff is a badly disguised advert for Douglas Preston and Mario Spezi’s book ‘The Monster of Florence’, and as these little ‘promos’ often are, the result is a transparent book review written in extremely poor taste.

Has anyone noticed that whenever any criticism of the case against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito surfaces, the same name usually pops up? Often introduced by the synoptic tagline “the prominent best-selling American author Douglas Preston”. I don’t need to tell you that Douglas Preston couldn’t give a fig about Amanda Knox, indeed, the only linking factor between Preston and Amanda Knox’s  ‘plight’ is the presence of Giuliano Mignini. Preston harbours a particularly nasty grudge and uses his ‘experience’ of being questioned by Mignini to peddle his book. Can anyone say objective source material? Nope. Didn’t think so.

The truth is, if Mignini had nothing to do with this case then neither would Preston and the FOA would have nobody to scapegoat and blame for the supposed ‘railroad job from hell’. Any self respecting and competent Public Minister in any other Italian city would have constructed exactly the same case against Amanda and Raffaele. Mignini’s presence means nothing, yet without him the ‘mad raving prosecutor’ excuse falls apart and so does the FOA’s main line of defence. I expect it’s no coincidence that the PR campaign and Amanda’s defence are so at odds and I hardly think this constant trashing of the Italian legal system has done Amanda any favours.

Whilst people like Douglas Preston and  Anne Bremner keep bleating about the ‘backward’ Italian justice system , the Italians have presented a solid case. If people like Timothy Egan choose to cover it irresponsibly it’s up to them. Egan explains how ‘haunted’ he is by an observation made by his Times colleague in Rome:

“In Italy, the general assumption is that someone is guilty until proven innocent. Trials – in the press and in the courts – are more often about defending personal honor than establishing facts, which are easily manipulated.”

I too am haunted by this statement. Haunted by the apparent fact that Egan has based his entire article and understanding of the complex Italian legal system on the opinion and hearsay of another journalist.

The American media have made a monster out of this case, they have denied, ignored, manipulated and distorted almost every detail to suit their own agenda so why now do they complain when it comes back to bite them?