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!