Lies Our Mothers Told Us

Following the conviction of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito for their part in the sexual assault and murder of Meredith Kercher, several important and influential psychologists have commented on the case.

All three of the experts come from different backgrounds related to psychology. One is a psychotherapist/analytical psychologist; one is a criminologist and the other a very influential investigative psychologist. All three differ widely in their individual opinion on Knox and the case.

Dr Coline Covington

Dr Coline Covington is a highly experienced psychotherapist who has studied at Princeton University, Cambridge University and the London School of Economics. She was the former Editor of the Journal of Analytical Psychology as well as the former Chair of the British Psychoanalytic Council. She has also worked for the Metropolitan Police.

Dr Covington has written an intelligent and brave piece on Amanda Knox in the First Post. Click the picture above for the link. In the article she describes Amanda’s behaviour in court:

“Knox’s narcissistic pleasure at catching the eye of the media and her apparent nonchalant attitude during most of the proceedings show the signs of a psychopathic personality. Her behaviour is hauntingly reminiscent of Eichmann’s arrogance during his trial for war crimes in Jerusalem in 1961 and most recently of Karadzic’s preening before the International Criminal Court at the Hague.

The psychopath is someone who has no concern or empathy for others, no awareness of right and wrong, and who takes extreme pleasure in having power over others. The psychopath has no moral conscience and therefore does not experience guilt or remorse.

Most psychopaths are highly skilled at fooling those around them that they are normal by imitating the emotions that are expected of them in different circumstances. They are consummate at charming people and convincing them they are in the right. It is only when they reveal a discrepancy in their emotional response that they let slip that something may be wrong with them.

The psychopath is the conman, or in the case of Amanda Knox, the con-woman par excellence. Her nickname ‘Foxy Knoxy’, given to her as a young girl for her skills at football, takes on a new meaning.

Whether or not Knox, who is appealing her verdict, is ultimately found guilty, her chilling performance remains an indictment against her. Her family’s disbelief in the outcome of the trial can only be double-edged”

This is not the first time a suggestion has been made that Amanda has displayed behaviour which is often associated with psychopathy. It is a view that I have also supported in the past.

Professor David Wilson

Professor David Wilson is one of Britain’s leading criminologists and is the author of ‘A History of British Serial Killing, 1888-2008’. He writes for the Guardian and is a regular feature on the BBC. He is also Professor of Criminology at the Centre for Criminal Justice Policy and Research at the University of Central England.

Professor Wilson expressed the following comments in an editorial in the Express on Monday:

“This is a woman clearly involved with an older, more experienced boyfriend who introduced her to a lifestyle that allowed her to bend the rules of morality that had guided her in the US,” he says.

“She was rather like a gap-year Rose West. I believe she was naive and got caught up in a very different world, which she embraced enthusiastically.”

So can he pinpoint the real woman behind the masks? He insists she should be judged on evidence alone.

“In truth she’s neither angel nor she-devil but a complex human being who sits somewhere in between. I do believe, though, that we are going to hear a lot more from Amanda Knox.”

Professor David Canter

Professor David Canter is an internationally renowned applied social researcher and world-leading crime psychologist, but is perhaps most widely known as one of the pioneers of ‘Offender Profiling’ being the first to introduce its use to the UK.

In comments made in The Times, he stated:

“Most bizarre murders, particularly those with a lot of sexual activity and if there are drugs involved, come out of a lifestyle that’s pretty dysfunctional in which there’s some build-up. So it’s unusual for apparently capable and functioning youngsters to get caught up in all this.”

This particular quote is already being used by a number of journalists and bloggers in support of Amanda’s innocence. I think it’s important to understand Professor Canter’s actual comment before making assumptions about what his particular opinions about the conviction of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are.

Professor Canter is diplomatically stating that Amanda’s profile in a young killer is unusual, which nobody can deny, he is not saying that Amanda Knox couldn’t have committed this crime simply because she doesn’t fit the typical profile.

Indeed a comment made by forensic psychiatrist Dr Michael Welner on this blog a few months ago illustrates the point perfectly:

“All of my academic background and experience in this area of tragedy reinforces my impression that anyone is capable of anything, so long as they have the physical wherewithal. So many times have I seen cases that “never happened before.” And then I saw them happen.”

Couldn’t have said it better myself.

“Nothing is easier than self-deceit. For what each man wishes, that he also believes to be true” Demosthenes

Amongst the furore surrounding the conviction of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito for their part in the sexual assault and murder of Meredith Kercher, I thought I’d take some time to examine an often lesser noted third character in this dramatis personae.

Rudy’s Story

Rudy Guede’s appeal began on the 18th November 2009, two days before court summations in the ongoing trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. During his appeal he stuck to his original story, claiming he’d had consensual sexual contact with Meredith and had been on the toilet when she’d been attacked.

Yet he also ‘padded’ his tale with new ‘revelations’ about what he’d seen and heard that night, details of which you can find here. One of these new ‘revelations’ was that Guede claims to have seen the silhouette of Amanda Knox and an unidentified man running away from the murder scene.

Amongst the most stupid surprising, however is the claim by Rudy’s lawyers that he is suffering from a psychiatric disorder as a result of what he saw that night. Rudy’s defence team hope to invite testimony from an expert to state that in fleeing to Germany following the ‘discovery’ that Meredith had been injured; Rudy was displaying a classic symptom of PTSD: “Flight and avoidance”

Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)

PTSD is an anxiety disorder that often develops as a result of witnessing or experiencing a severely traumatic event. PTSD is generally considered to be the reaction of a ‘normal’ person to an extremely ‘abnormal’ event.

The symptoms of PTSD are generally divided into three subcategories:

• Re-experience (flashbacks, nightmares etc)
• Avoidance (feeling detached or emotionally numb etc)
• Increased arousal (lack of concentration, sleeping difficult etc)

Other symptoms can include depression, feelings of mistrust/betrayal and anger. Experts on PTSD believe it can occur directly after the event or after a period of time. Some research has indicated PTSD can be triggered by noises, images or smells which remind the individual of the traumatic event.

The PTSD Defence

The nature of PTSD and its symptoms means that those affected are not always in control of their actions and may behave differently to ‘clinically normal’ people who have not experienced the same stressors.

Because of this PTSD is often associated with war veterans and has been used successfully as a criminal defence in (often) cases where former soldiers affected by traumatic experiences during military service have gone on to commit crimes upon leaving the army. In many of the documented cases, the solider affected has overreacted (often violently) to a ‘normal’ event they perceived as ‘abnormal’ or hostile. PTSD has also been used as a defence in non veteran criminal cases, most notably in cases where victims of long term abuse have injured or killed their abuser.

I’m not sure I’ve ever heard of it used in an appeal case as a legitimate defence for a ‘witness’ (later ‘framed’ for rape and murder) fleeing the scene of a crime to go to a disco whilst leaving the victim of the crime they’ve just witnessed bleeding to death. Rudy’s defence seems a little on the weak side, wouldn’t you agree? Is it possible for PTSD to be faked?

PTSD and Malingering

Unfortunately because of the subjective nature of the disorder (and indeed many other psychiatric disorders) the PTSD defence is open to abuse.  As yet there is no definitive way to detect malingered PTSD, despite the DSM V recommendation that all those tested for the condition be considered malingering before any diagnoses is made.

We are living in a digital age where much of the information about symptoms of various conditions including PTSD is easily accessible in the public domain. There have also been documented cases of defendants claiming PTSD as a result of military service, only for the prosecution to discover the defendant had no military history at all!

Malingered PTSD can be seen as a form of avoidance in itself, a kind of guilt mechanism or reflex which prevents the accused from having to discuss the facts of the case or answer questions honestly for fear of legal consequences.

Is Rudy Guede Malingering?

Does Rudy Guede have PTSD? I can’t say for sure though the timing is certainly convenient. Despite appearing less so, when compared to Knox and Sollecito, Guede is a highly manipulative liar and this ‘condition’ could easily be a form of malingering.

No Evidence of Re-Experience Presented

No flashbacks or nightmares were mentioned in the reports from Guede’s appeal which I’d expect to see if this were a genuine case of PTSD. If they were mentioned in some way they could easily be faked. Guede has told so many lies and half truths why should anyone believe him now he says he’s not right in the head?

Similarly, for a supposedly ‘highly traumatic’ event, Guede’s recollection of what happened that night has been hazy to say the least. Most people affected by PTSD have an extremely vivid picture of the traumatic event, so much so that they often experience vivid and terrifying flashbacks afterwards. If Guede really was telling the truth about being in the cottage legitimately and he saw and heard Knox, why not come out and say so from the beginning?

Surely if he were there as a legitimate ‘witness’ there would be no need for vague descriptions of ‘shadowy silhouettes’? Surely he either he saw Amanda and Raffaele or he didn’t. I’m not sure about you but I don’t think I could even identify a silhouette running down a dark corridor. And speaking of dark corridors. Why are Knox and the unnamed mystery figure (who we can only assume to be Raffaele) shrouded in mysterious darkness in Guede’s new account? Are we to believe that everyone was staggering about in the cottage with the lights off?

I don’t doubt Knox and Sollecito were there that night and I don’t doubt Rudy saw them running away. It seems Rudy is using the ‘trauma’ he has experienced as an excuse not to talk about what he saw that night in any detail, hoping that the ‘fact’ he is ‘traumatised’ will be enough to convince everyone he is telling the truth.

You might be wondering why nobody challenged this silly tale. As a matter of fact they weren’t allowed to. Rudy made a ‘spontaneous declaration’ to the court allowing him to speak freely without being cross examined.

Indeed this the not the first time we’ve seen this form of malingering in the people who murdered Meredith Kercher. In a previous post I discussed how Knox and Sollecito avoided discussing what happened on the night of the murder and inconsistencies in their alibi (or lack thereof) by claiming they had marijuana induced amnesia.

No Evidence of Avoidance Presented

Rudy’s lawyers claim that he was traumatised by the sight of Meredith’s injuries and fearful that he would be framed for the murder. It was this ‘trauma’ they say, that caused Guede to flee to Germany following the murder. Guede also allegedly claimed not to remember how he got to Germany.

Though this may seem like avoidance and emotional numbness following a traumatic event, Guede was remarkably lucid in Germany, this was evident from a Skype conversation he had with his friend whilst on the run in Dusseldorf.

In it Guede laments that he has no money and has been “living on a barge in the Rhine and sleeping on trains without paying for a ticket” he also makes it clear he had “nothing to do with this business” and “wasn’t there that evening.” Rudy seemed to have been tactically avoiding police and surviving without any money even with Interpol on full alert. He also tried to explain away the presence of his fingerprints found at the crime scene to his friend by saying “I must have left them there before.” Emotionally numb and shell-shocked? I’m not convinced

Similarly if Guede was genuinely suffering post traumatic stress as a result of what he had seen why did he go home clean and up after the murder took place and then head out to a disco where he was seen by a number of witnesses? Surely a shell-shocked and traumatised witness who was afraid he’d be framed for a murder he didn’t commit wouldn’t have the inclination to party?

On a similar vein, if Guede developed an acute anxious reaction to the events at the cottage and fled the country soon after, then we can surely assume his supposed PTSD developed straight away? Despite this, no mention was ever made of Guede having any form of psychiatric condition including PTSD in his initial trial. If PTSD is responsible for him fleeing Italy, why have his lawyers waited until now to present PTSD as an excuse for his ‘avoidant’ behaviour? Funny how they omitted the Domus disco session from their ‘evidence’ of “flight and avoidant” behaviour.

No Evidence of Increased Arousal Presented

Rudy’s lawyers did not present any evidence that Rudy was experiencing sleeping difficulties or concentration problems. With regard to concentration problems, if any do later ‘arise’ it could also be argued that as a young man with virtually no ability to apply himself and stick to a college course or job, Rudy already had concentration problems which should factor into any future psych assessment into PTSD.

It may seem a little unfair to discount Rudy’s claims of PTSD based on the fact that he doesn’t seem to be suffering from many of the symptoms. Many people with psychiatric disorders have only two or three of the symptoms whereas some people may experience more. However it seems the only evidence reported for PTSD is the highly dubious “flight and avoidant” symptom which, even if believed could not in itself demonstrate evidence for PTSD.

Implications for Rudy’s Appeal

It seems pretty clear that Rudy is still being extremely economical with the truth. His version of events is still unfathomable and ridiculous and the suggestion that he has PTSD based on one symptom which his defence will have enough trouble proving, seems a fairly good indication that he will face a long time behind bars. Will Guede ever tell the truth? Who knows?

All I know is that old chestnut ain’t going to do him any favours.

Amanda Knox: Courtesy of the Telegraphy

Justice for Meredith Kercher and her long suffering family continues to be hindered by the incessant wailing of various journalists and bloggers who are now making all sorts of wild comparisons and claims. Indeed, it’s a shame that so many of them only felt the need to comment on the case once a verdict had been reached. Sadly the great majority really need to get their facts straight.

One US Senator has urged US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to investigate claims that the trial and subsequent conviction of Amanda Knox for her part in the murder of British exchange student Meredith Kercher, be investigated amid accusations of Anti-Americanism. I believe these claims are completely unsubstantiated and extremely hypocritical. Here’s why:

Friends of Amanda: Accusations of Ethnocentrism and Anti-Italianism

The ‘Friends of Amanda’ (FOA) PR campaign has been accused of anti-Italianism and ethnocentrism itself. On many occasions representatives of or writers sympathetic to the FOA cause, including Seattle defence attorney Anne Bremner, Timothy Egan and Douglas Preston have made defamatory remarks about the mental state of the chief prosecutor Giuliano Mignini and about the Italian Justice system. Mignini has responded by taking legal action against the West Seattle Herald for comments which labelled him ‘mentally unstable’ and accused him of trying to further his own career by prosecuting Amanda for the murder.

I don’t need to tell you that these comments are ridiculous and extremely offensive. Indeed the Italian judiciary have been remarkably silent about the treatment handed to them by the American and British press. At no point have any of the Italian lawyers involved in the case made defamatory remarks about the American legal system, the mental state of those acting for the FOA on Amanda’s behalf or individuals involved in analysing the case who are supportive to Amanda. On the contrary American representatives for Amanda and the FOA have done all of this and more to the Italian Judiciary, the Italian people and those who believed the evidence against Amanda and Raffaele was strong.

Some of the comments made in articles and interviews on (predominantly) US TV networks have been profoundly embarrassing and upsetting for the Italian people and have (understandably) caused a backlash in support for Amanda in Italy.  Comments and snide remarks aside, this smear campaign ‘technique’ is merely smoke and mirrors designed to draw attention away from the DNA evidence used to convict them and the fact that neither Amanda Knox nor Raffaele Sollecito had a consistent alibi for their whereabouts on the night of the murder.

Relentlessly pursuing an ethnocentric and anti-Italian criticism of the trial by constant unfair comment and comparison between two very different legal systems and then claiming ‘anti-Americanism’ when the outcome is not as expected is extremely hypocritical. Different does not mean inadequate. The Italian legal system is steeped in history and far more complex and structured than the FOA will have you believe.  Amanda and Raffaele were afforded many advantages and excellent legal representation. Amanda’s defence lawyer himself is of the opinion that the trial was conducted fairly.

Differences in legal systems aside. Meredith Kercher was murdered in Italy. It is therefore not in the jurisdiction of any US investigator or lawyer to investigate or attempt to influence. Can you imagine what would happen if the Italian government attempted to influence the progress of an American trial then claimed anti-Italianism when the verdict didn’t go their way?

The idea of the US Secretary of State intervening in this case is ridiculous. Hillary Clinton has far more important things to do than bail out every American who gets into trouble abroad (even if they are considered political prisoners the US cannot always successfully intervene). This case is not a matter of national security and it doesn’t represent general foreign policy interests. Ms Clinton and the Senator demanding the investigation should be very careful. Remember what happened last time an American official tried to intervene on Amanda’s behalf? Judge Michael Heavey wrote a letter to Italy’s justice minister on his official headed paper which was so full of inaccuracies he later had to apologise.

It also appears that the suggestion of interference by the US Secretary of State has unnerved not only Amanda’s legal team and those in charge of successfully prosecuting her, but also Meredith’s mother Arline Kercher who, in comments made to the Sun newspaper quite rightly expresses her distaste, saying: “We were not exactly given special treatment. I can’t see there was this anti-American thing.” And poor Arline is spot on, in fact there have been several instances where (predominantly) US commenters on the case have been distinctly anti-victim and made comments which are extremely offensive to Meredith and her family. Meredith’s corpse has even been shown on Italian television. The only person who has suffered any discrimination is the only person that no longer has a voice of her own: Meredith.

More Spin

Fortunately for Meredith’s long suffering family it seems the US media is once again misleading its audience. Headlines screaming ‘Hillary Clinton Meeting with US Senator to Discuss Knox Case” are exaggerated to say the least. Just because Clinton says she will meet with the Senator doesn’t mean she can or will intervene in Amanda’s case. This has been very carefully contrived to keep the story of Amanda’s plight in the news and at the centre of a very well manipulated public audience.

Remember: Amanda Knox Was Not the Only Defendant Convicted of Murder

The Italian legal system also successfully prosecuted Rudy Guede in a fast track trial, he was convicted and sentenced to 30 years in prison. Let’s also not forget Amanda’s co-defendant, Italian national Raffaele Sollecito who got 25 years.

The accusations of anti-Americanism might not be so laughable had Amanda been the only person convicted for the murder. Raffaele Sollecito is from a very wealthy and influential Italian family. His father is a doctor and his sister was a Carabinieri officer. Needless to say, the family are very well connected. If the PM were as ‘corrupt’ and incompetent as the FOA would have us believe why then did he ‘allow’ Raffaele to be charged and prosecuted with the same culpability as Amanda Knox?

The idea that a convicted murderer should be released on the back of anti-American trial claims is ridiculous. Amanda and Raffaele had the same trial. Was the trial anti-Italian too? How about we release everyone convicted of murder based on the fact that their trial ‘might’ have been anti-[insert get out clause here]?

Claims that the Trial was Unfair

The fact that neither Amanda nor Raffaele were convicted of stealing Meredith’s rent money, phones and credit cards lends credibility to the fact that the jury didn’t believe beyond reasonable doubt that they were guilty of this particular offence. Neither the money not the cards were ever found.

This seems to lend credibility to the idea that the jury took their responsibility seriously and only returned guilty verdicts on those charges to which they felt the defendants were guilty beyond reasonable doubt and to those charges which the prosecution were able to present clear evidence of their guilt. Amanda’s lawyers believe she had a fair trial as do Meredith’s family and their legal representative Francesco Maresca.

The idea that Amanda was railroaded is so far from the truth as to be ridiculous. I sincerely hope that advisers to Ms Clinton and Senator Cantwell make sure they are aware of the full facts of this case before condoning or conducting any kind of intervention on Amanda Knox’s behalf.

Meredith Kercher: Courtesy of the Telegraph

The Verdict

After nearly two years of reading and one year of blogging (minus a head clearing break) about the psychological aspects surrounding the murder of Meredith Kercher, I was pleased to read that those responsible for her brutal murder, alongside the previously convicted Rudy Guede, would be spending the next quarter of a century behind bars.

I say I am ‘pleased’ with a twinge of sadness and above all regret. I would be delighted never to have written or read about the case in any capacity, certainly not because the case is unimportant but because what happened to Meredith should never have happened at all and never should to anybody, ever again. I’m sure Meredith’s family would be glad of that too and I hope they will be able to find some remnant of peace from the verdict. Sadly I fear that may not be the case for some time.

Many bloggers and readers following the case have been divided on the issue of guilt and in what capacity Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are responsible for the murder. I’m sure in light of the (at times) ferocious debate surrounding the case online, discussion of the finer points and DNA evidence will continue in lieu of new revelations from the courtroom.

Those who have at all times represented the interests of the victim and her family (TJMK and PMF) will I’m sure continue to be a light in the mist of sensationalised MSM reporting , due in part to the omnipresent bias that is the ‘Friends of Amanda’ Public Relations campaign.

Welcome New Readers!

As this site has been getting an unusual amount of traffic over the last few days it would be rude of me not to welcome new readers. I’m aware that most of you visiting this site for the first time might be here looking for a little information about Amanda and the sort of person she is. I have written fairly extensively on the possible motive, psychological aspects and issues relating to the case which you can find archived.

Please be aware that some of the posts are at times difficult to read, but in order to appreciate how vicious and sadistic this crime was, one has to understand what poor Meredith suffered. Unfortunately despite my best efforts and the efforts of many others, we may never fully understand what happened that night or why.

I sincerely hope this blog has been of assistance and it has been a real honour to receive so many positive comments and emails. It has also been surprisingly humorous reading some of the funny things said about me some of which include:

• The suggestion that I consult with the dead.
• The suggestion that I am in cahoots with (or paid by) the prosecution.
• The idea that I am writing about the case because I haven’t had sex in a while.
• The nickname ‘dented head.’
• The idea that I am in some way ‘repressed’ (what?!)
• The suggestion that I am actually a man.

New posts up over the next few days on Post Traumatic Stress, SOTP etc etc.

Best,

Miss R

The jury have retired

The truth will out…