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.

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

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?

In the previous post I discussed the organised versus disorganised offender, characteristics of these offenders, crimes that may fit into this classification as well the implications this dichotomy may have for our understanding of the lone wolf theory.

In accordance with literature on violent sexual offences, I believe the murder of Meredith Kercher can be classified as a sex related homicide. This seems evident from the violent way in which she was sexually assaulted and killed. Further evidence suggestive of a sex related homicide is the fact that the victim’s body was found partially clothed and with injuries typically associated with this type of violent sexual murder.

The evidence indicates the victim was sexually assaulted, manually strangled and taunted with the blade of a knife before being fatally stabbed in the throat. The medical examiner Luca Lalli has indicated that the injuries sustained by the victim during the course of the attack are suggestive of more than one assailant. The injuries also suggest an apparent fascination with the victim’s neck. This may or may not be indicative of deviant sexual fantasy in this instance.

Also linked is the idea that there may have been a sadist in the room that night, this is supported by the apparent control, humiliation and domination of the victim as well as the evidence suggesting that Meredith was forcibly restrained and tortured with the blade of a 30cm kitchen knife. The knife in question was found in a drawer in Raffaele’s apartment, a place Meredith had never been and yet the tip of the blade contained the victims DNA. Tellingly Raffaele attempted to explain this away by telling investigators that he had once pricked Meredith’s hand whilst cooking. DNA on the handle of the knife has implicated the defendant Amanda Knox as either the knife wielder or the knife cleaner. This key piece of evidence has just recently been presented in court by PM Mignini’s co-prosecutor Manuela Comodi, with forensic expert Patrizia Stefanoni testifying as to its significance.

The significance of the knife cannot be stressed enough, not least as the prosecution have succeeded in presenting to the jury both a murder weapon and evidence suggesting there may have been an element of premeditation. Meredith and Amanda’s Italian flatmates Filomena and Laura testified that they had not seen the knife at the cottage, Meredith had never been to Raffaele’s apartment, yet the knife clearly shows the victims DNA on the blade. The knife is also compatible with at least one of the wounds sustained by the victim. Though the medical examiner could not rule out the existence of another knife.

Forensics, DNA and blood are not my area. I am currently focusing on the behaviour of those involved in the case and its implications for our understanding of the crime. Raffaele’s lie to police, despite sounding extremely ridiculous and implausible, was both telling and stupid. Innocent people nearly always go on the offensive:

‘That knife could not possibly have Meredith’s DNA on it, she’s never even been to my apartment, this is ridiculous!’

Guilty people go on the defensive:

‘The knife contains Meredith’s DNA because one time when we were cooking I accidentally pricked her hand, I apologised immediately and she said it wasn’t a problem’

Raffaele’s lie to police in an attempt to explain the presence of the victims DNA on the knife indicates he already knew there was a chance some of Meredith’s DNA could still be on the blade despite it being cleaned. His attempt to explain it further indicates that he was perfectly aware there was not a simple explanation for the presence of this crucial piece of evidence and certainly not one he’d want to share with the police. Raffaele’s little elaboration probably sounded exceedingly odd and only served to further demonstrate his suspicious behaviour and lead the investigators to conclude this was in all likelihood the murder weapon.

Rationale for discussing the psychology underpinning this case
This particular branch of psychology never makes for pleasant reading, yet some of the issues covered in books, journals and articles over the last 30 years have made a huge impact on our understanding of violent sexual homicides and the sorts of people that commit them. Group theory has also expanded our knowledge of the terrible things that people can be driven to do for the sake of not losing face or perhaps due to the strange phenomenon that is diffusion of responsibility.

Though at times these topics may be distressing they are crucial in understanding the nature of this crime and may help bring us slightly closer to understanding why this happened to poor Meredith Kercher. These posts may also seem at times too speculative. Especially for those individuals who are more swayed by facts that can be proven, dismissed, validated, confirmed or falsified. I too believe these are crucial, not only in determining what happened to Meredith and ensuring that justice is served to those responsible for her death, but also in ensuring the defendants have a fair trial as they are entitled to in the eyes of the law.

Psychology by its very nature is speculative, we are trained to write ‘this suggests’ or ‘this could be indicative of’. Many of the studies conducted in this area of psychology are based on interviews with violent offenders, observations and correlative studies which, though useful in highlighting further areas for consideration by researchers, can in no way prove causation or determine fact. The ideas and thoughts expressed in this blog are entirely my own and based on many years of reading and researching into this area. I am not a chemist, a biologist or an engineer, many of the things I write about cannot be tested, manipulated, eliminated or pulled apart in the traditional sense. What then are we left with? Theory, speculation, pattern analysis and data interpretation.

I am no Jodie Foster, I still have a lot to learn and I am grateful for all the support, input and ideas this blog has received over the last few months. My conclusions and ideas are based on current forensic psychology theory and should be taken for exactly what they are: Theory.

Catathymic or Compulsive?

One idea that has been discussed in great detail by a number of forensic psychologists is the idea of the catathymic or compulsive killer. In a similar way to the organised and disorganised offender, this distinction highlights the possible differences in offender cognition and can provide an interesting insight into possible motives for violent sexual homicide (Schlesinger, 2004) and the likelihood of reoffending.

The Catathymic
The catathymic murder occurs in order that the offender might achieve some sort of catharsis in the wake of experiencing underlying (sometimes sexual) conflict, most often when the victim is considered a threat to ego. The victim may encourage feelings of inadequacy or sexual conflict in the offender which provokes feelings of hostility and extreme rage, the offender achieves relief or catharsis through violence and expression of pent up anger. Catathymic killers are typically disorganised offenders.

The Compulsive
The compulsive murder is driven by an internal and uncontrollable urge to kill. Researchers believe this type of killer achieves a rush or a buzz similar to sexual gratification or release by killing. Whereas catathymic killers rarely repeat their acts, compulsive killers are driven to repeat the ‘experience’ again and again. These killers often devise ways to control, humiliate and torture their victims and are often psychopathic or display characteristics associated with sadistic personality disorder. Compulsive killers are usually organised offenders.

The murder of Meredith Kercher
So what sort of killer murdered Meredith Kercher? Well in accordance with many other theories I have outlined in past posts, I should at this stage reiterate the idea that this is another example of a simplistic theory attempting to outline a very complex idea.

One the one had the crime scene was chaotic and disorganised and the body was covered which could suggest a catathymic killer. On the other hand the evidence suggests Meredith was attacked by at least one individual with an apparent desire to cause her pain and suffering and possibly derive some sort of pleasure from it which is more typical of a sadistic personality which in turn has been correlated with compulsivity. As with the previous post concerning organised and disorganised offenders, confusion in the classification of the crime can be explained by the presence of more than one killer and more than one motive.

I believe the murder of Meredith Kercher is predominantly catathymic, but what’s equally troubling is the evidence suggesting there may have been a sadist in the room that night which is characteristic of an offender that could become compulsive in their need to control and dominate others.

Amanda Knox: Killing for catharsis?

I don’t believe Amanda is our sadist but I do believe she murdered Meredith Kercher. The crime reconstruction has placed Rudy Guede in the role of sexual assailant, Raffaele to the side restraining the victim (and possibly strangling her) with Amanda as the knife wielder.

Amanda and Meredith’s relationship could be described as strained. Meredith found Amanda’s cleaning and bathroom habits irritating and complained about strange men Amanda brought home. Meredith may have appeared to have ‘had it all’; she was smart, funny, pretty and very popular. It would be unfair to Amanda to compare her with Meredith but it does seem that Meredith was classier and less prone to making embarrassing gaffes (the words my people killed your people come to mind here).

I have also found it hard to find any reference to specific friends Amanda had in Perugia other than the boys downstairs and her boyfriend Raffaele. I believe Amanda was a bit lonely in Perugia; things hadn’t worked out as planned. People took their studies seriously and were not just up for a year of relaxed language classes and partying. Meredith was complaining and possibly nagging her around the house, Meredith had also snagged the boy Amanda had her eye on, Giacomo Silenzi.

Meredith was invited by Patrick Lumumba to make Mojitos one night in Le Chic, Amanda’s place of work. Then on the night of the murder Amanda receives a text message telling her not to bother coming to work, oddly a short while later both Amanda and Raffaele’s phones were both switched off and did not come back on again until morning. Poor Meredith never got to make her Mojitos.

It has been suggested by several people following the case that the thought of Meredith ‘stealing’ her job at Le Chic and ‘bringing all her friends back to Patrick’s’ bar’ was the final straw for Amanda. It has also been suggested that Amanda was intensely jealous of Meredith; these feelings may have been building over time.

The evidence suggests that Amanda and Meredith had become distant and their relationship strained, there may have been jealously and even rivalry as Amanda has been shown to be sporty, tomboyish and very competitive. These feelings of not only anger and resentment but possibly rejection and sadness could well have contributed to a ‘decision’ to humiliate or even hurt Meredith. Meredith was humiliated beyond what any human being should ever have to face. She suffered a horrendous ordeal and died in a lot of pain. She was tortured and left to die. Whoever killed Meredith expressed through their actions how much they really hated her.

Displaced anger, rage or catharsis?
I have previous discussed how displaced anger or ‘anger without a home’ could have contributed to the feelings of rage and resentment that could have fuelled the decision to attack Meredith. Amanda may have brought with her a lot of displaced anger from back home especially with regard to family issues. It seems she was running away from Seattle and rebelling in Perugia.

Rage could easily have built up inside Amanda, giving way to hostility which could have further alienated her from Meredith and exacerbated issues which, given time could have been easily sorted out. Amanda had nobody to talk to in Perugia about how she was feeling except Raffaele who, considering the circumstances probably wasn’t the most balanced shoulder to cry on.

The underlying idea behind the catathymic murder, which is nearly always disorganised, chaotic and angry, is the idea that the offender suffers a threat to ego, feels humiliated or scorned in some way. The victims of these types of attack can be strangers or more often people that the offender knows personally. Upon venting their ‘frustration’ the offender, according to the theory, feels a sense of relief and catharsis which may give way to doubt, fear, guilty and a decrease in self esteem.

The literature indicates that disorganised catathymic killers often kill only once. Though this could indicate a ‘trait’ within in these types of offenders it could equally be suggested that due to the disorganised nature of the crime the idea that the victims are sometimes known to the offender (such as a boyfriend) that they are more likely to be caught before the pattern of behaviour is reinforced.

Behavioural Evidence
Evidence and testimony seems to suggest that Amanda acted equally calm and erratic following the discovery of the body. A few days ago I went back and read a Sunday Times article quoting Meredith’s Italian boyfriend Giacomo Silenzi:

“He said that he first suspected Ms Knox might have taken part in the killing as they were waiting to be questioned by police in Perugia as witnesses. He told The Mail on Sunday: “I was on the train heading back to Perugia from my parents’ house when I got a call from Meredith’s other flatmate, Filomena, who told me what had happened. My stomach dropped – I just could not believe it.” At the police station he “couldn’t help thinking how cool and calm Amanda was. Her eyes didn’t seem to show any sadness and I remember wondering if she could have been involved.”

Similarly Meredith’s English friends indicated that Amanda was cold and distant following the discovery of the body. The body was also covered which is not only indicative that Meredith knew her killer but also that whoever killed her could not look at what they had done, almost as if it was something they’d rather forget.

Indeed research has indicated that Catathymic killers when being interviewed with the ‘tell a story’ technique, a technique devised to help people talk about their offences often in the third person which aims to reveal more information without the offender feeling threatened, often say things like:

“She was just there and all of a sudden there he was hitting her over the head. He just wanted to talk to her and take her out but she didn’t like him, he didn’t mean to hurt her but he liked it anyway.”

Evidence about catathymic killers often suggests deep inner turmoil which is more often than not sexual in nature. These killers feel inadequate in every way and possess, hurt and control their victims to appease their feelings of inadequacy. Most of them feel equal pangs of guilt and excitement. This could explain why Meredith’s body was covered, why Amanda was acting strangely calm in the police station but also at other times excited. Amanda was deeply stressed, excited, scared and conflicted. Note that Amanda could not look at images of Meredith’s body in court, yet Raffaele was able to do so. I don’t believe this was an act, Amanda covered Meredith, she didn’t want to look at her then and she doesn’t want to look at her now.

Despite the evidence suggesting that Meredith’s murder may have been catathymic it also seems that it was equally sadistic. The two do not really go hand in hand. The objective of a catathymic kill is to posses, to hurt and to destroy in order to appease the underlying feelings of shame and the threat the victim poses to ego.

The object of the compulsive, sadistic kill is to savour, lust, hurt, objectify, fantasise and humiliate. Threat to ego and achieving catharsis is not the objective of the sadist; the objective is achieving a sexual rush or thrill from watching the victim suffer. This is perhaps what makes these offenders so dangerous and much more likely to reoffend.

Raffaele Sollecito – The Control Freak

In his prison diary Raffaele laments being incarcerated and not given bail He says “I did not expect so harsh a sentence. Where would I run to? Where would I go? Me, kill again?” He was later denied house arrest status. The reasons put forward to justify keeping both Amanda and Raffaele in prison were to firstly ensure they did not flee and secondly they were deemed at risk of reoffending.

This was one of the things I found strange way back when I was first reading about the case. It is not uncommon for younger adults under suspicion of murder, especially if it is the first time they have been charged with a crime to be released on bail. If the evidence is sufficient to hold them and they are deemed a flight risk then that will be stated as the single reason to keep them locked up. I had no idea at the time how savage the murder of Meredith Kercher had actually been and remember thinking that the Italian authorities were perhaps being a little harsh by stating they were at risk of reoffending.

I later realised that Meredith’s murder was so horrific, so cruel and so sadistic, especially to a city that hadn’t seen a murder like it for many years, that the only conclusion anyone could come to was that whoever committed this atrocious act was extremely disturbed and in all likelihood, due to the nature of the wounds, the torture, the sexual assault and multiple injuries plus the seemingly crafty and manipulative nature of the suspects, extremely capable of committing another violent murder.

In all evaluations of sexual homicide offenders, the clinician searches for examples of classical pairings of sex and violence usually from the time period of 6–14 years of age. Clinicians charged with treating sexual offenders especially sadists, often look for events that are repetitive containing intense emotions such as fear, anger, shame or excitement as these are the most likely to be conditioning at this age. Clinicians do not focus only on family relationships, but also on repetitive exposure to classical pairings of sex and violence in popular culture such movies, video games and magazines. People who engage in violent sexual assault or sexual homicide often have relationships which are primarily fantasy-based, providing both emotional stimulation and narcissistic gratification which is often opposed to their own reality. These relationships can be real or imagined.

After the discovery of the body Raffaele was also calm and collected and not as ‘all over the place’ as Knox. Raffaele was a keen collector of knives, enjoyed reading violent Japanese manga comics and had, for want of a better word, an ‘alternative’ pornography collection. He played online computer games with fantasy themes. Raffaele was a bit of a loner in Perugia and a virgin when he met Knox. The couple became sexually involved and virtually obsessed with each other.

It is important to stress that we cannot blame manga for this crime any more than we can blame Knox’s dildo on display in the bathroom but it is interesting to consider that Raffaele and Rudy were both fans of computer games, Rudy especially. Raffaele liked violent manga comics, collected knives and watched ‘alternative’ pornography. These are examples of violence being paired with sex and power which could have contributed to both deviant sexual fantasising and individual roles within the crime.

The crime reconstruction has placed Raffaele in the role of restraining and possibly strangling the victim. As the evidence suggests both were present in the room Amanda and Raffaele also watched Rudy sexually humiliate Meredith and may have threatened her with a knife to make her comply. There is also evidence suggesting that another knife may have been used in the attack on Meredith and a vague mention by Rudy of Raffaele wearing a swimming cap (thought this has not been substantiated or confirmed).

As Amanda had somewhat of an emotional connection to the victim it is easier to see her own possible motive for taking part in the attack on Meredith, Raffaele and especially Rudy’s role seems more unclear.

Where does Rudy fit in?
I believe Rudy’s primary desire was to posses Meredith by having a sexual encounter with her. His own ‘fantasy’ about ‘petting’ with Meredith and stopping short of sexual intercourse as they did not have a condom, is a glimpse into his own sexual fantasies about the victim. Meredith did not consent to any of the despicable acts that were inflicted on her body that night and giving credence to a theory that suggests she consented to sexual acts with Rudy is insulting to the victim and her family. Rudy is now a sex offender as he took part in a vicious sexual assault. I am still unsure of his actual role in the murder of Meredith and believe he may have been to a certain extent a pawn and, due to the evidence of the clean-up frame-up job, a fall guy. Rudy is not our sadist.

Raffaele – Control

I believe Raffaele was to a certain extent an instigator. I believe most if not all of the planning, organisation and preparation was made by him. I believe he had complex sexual fantasies spurred on by years of being virtually unnoticed by the opposite sex and being repeatedly exposed to classical pairings of anger, violence and sex in movies, manga comics, cartoons and violent sexual pornography.  These fantasies may have been employed during the attack on Meredith.

He was also spoiled and may have had a drug problem. Raffaele seems more arrogant, more cautious and more cunning that either Amanda or Rudy and has shown absolutely no loyalty to either of them. At no point has Amanda sailed Raffaele down the river in terms of an alibi yet the minute he realised she was problematic for him he stopped covering for her. He’s still waiting to play his card now. Raffaele also allegedly threatened to run over the head of a female police officer and not stop driving.

He displays an apparent fascination with collecting knives (objects of power and control) as well as studying a subject which is methodical and organised. He is cold, clever and shrewd. He has on more than one occasion tried to slip in details or change his story to lead investigators off track.

His DNA has been found on Meredith’s bra clasp. His footprint was found in blood on a bathmat in the cottage. The evidence suggests that he and Amanda carefully cleaned the crime scene following the murder, staged a break-in and possibly a rape in order to lead investigators to conclude that Meredith had been attacked by a lone assailant: Rudy Guede.

Some Ideas and Conclusions

Both have a serious case to answer to. Both have the ability to be violent again, if Amanda and Raffaele are found guilty I believe the evidence suggesting they tortured and humiliated Meredith will contribute to their sentence and future parole applications. This level of violence and apparent lack of concern borders on psychopathy and is extremely disturbing. The more I read about this case the more I am convinced the right people are on trial, the right people will be punished and justice for Meredith is slowly but surely on its way.

The recent 48 Hours mystery show once again attempted to lend credibility to the virtually laughable lone wolf theory. Despite its inaccuracies it seems fairly clear that the friends and family of Amanda Knox in all likelihood encouraged the 48 Hours show to air before the presentation of the crucial DNA evidence shortly to be discussed in court. Timing is after all everything and it may have been the last time anyone would actually take the show seriously, especially considering the main theme of the show boiled down to the simply ludicrous suggestion that Amanda Knox is somehow a victim in this case and the lone wolf theory is still a credible and valid scenario for what happened that night. For those of you who are still unaware of precisely what that means, it is the idea that Rudy Guede scaled a virtually un-climbable wall and crawled in through a window of the cottage in order to sexually assault and murder Meredith Kercher.

Many following the case long ago dismissed the theory as fantasy, even Guede himself who in his statements to police and diaries admits he was not the only person in the cottage that night. Yet we must also consider that this is virtually the only scenario that the defence can now use to exonerate Amanda and Raffaele as they both strenuously deny any involvement in Meredith’s murder. Despite the physical evidence suggesting their possible role, copious amounts of physical evidence of Guede’s involvement was found at the crime scene and a smaller amount of evidence leading to the defendants. The defence maintain this is the result of contamination and the abundance of his fingerprints and DNA suggests Guede and Guede alone killed Meredith. The prosecution allege that both Amanda and Raffaele were present in the cottage the night Meredith was killed and that once Guede had fled, a well organised and methodical clean up took place to conceal any physical evidence linking them to the crime scene. Unsurprisingly plenty of Guede’s DNA and fingerprints were left for investigators to find.

I discussed the lone wolf theory a few months ago, but as I have often found with this case, new information, ideas and personal reflection often encourages me to revisit important areas in more detail or with a slightly different perspective. I have decided to take a fresh look at this theory and explain why it is completely at odds with current psychology research and how evidence available about the set up and implementation of the crime further discredit this theory as a possibility. I have decided to write this at what is possibly the most crucial part of the trial proceeding so far: The presentation of the physical evidence linking Amanda and Raffaele to the murder of Meredith Kercher.

The Organised vs. Disorganised Offender

Although the definition of homicide is reasonably clear cut, the definition of sexual homicide is much more ambiguous. There are several clear differences seen in sexual murders: Firstly the idea that killing itself is sexually arousing, secondly that the murder is carried out in order to cover up a sexual crime and finally that the offence is a homicide that has some sexual component, but in which the exact motivational dynamics remain unclear (Schlesinger, 2007). The latter seems to be the most likely scenario in this case, despite the definition being slight ambiguous it does seem clear that the murder of Meredith Kercher was a sex related homicide, possibly with a rape/sodomy motivation.

According to ‘The Handbook of Psychological Approaches with Violent Offenders’, the organised vs. disorganised crime scene characterisation of sexual homicide offenders provides a useful insight into these types of crime (Ressler et al, 1986). Clues left at the crime scene can often indicate possible personality characteristics or clues about those involved, as can the nature of the offence, the way it was planned and executed.

The organised offender
Crimes committed by an organised offender are often carefully planned and executed, there is often evidence suggesting the offender brought with them items necessary to commit the crime (such as rope or tape to bind and silence the victim), especially those that might ensure they are able to fulfil certain needs or fantasies through the act of committing the crime. There is often evidence of careful planning and as a result these offenders are usually harder to catch as they are careful about leaving trace evidence behind.

The disorganised offender
A disorganised offender on the other hand often leaves a chaotic scene behind with evidence suggesting a spontaneous or unplanned attack with very little prior planning or pre preparation. The staging of a crime scene often occurs as a direct result of a spontaneous disorganised offence and is usually spotted by investigating officers as the resulting scene is conflicted and full of red flags. By their very nature, organised offenders have no need to stage a scene as theoretically they perceive to have prepared sufficiently to avoid detection in other ways. Disorganised offenders will often stage a crime scene to cover the spontaneity of the act and the inevitable fear of being caught.

The murder of Meredith Kercher
The evidence available so far indicates that this was a disorganised offence. The crime scene photos that have been released show a messy and chaotic scene, clothes all over the floor and blood everywhere. Evidence of staging also indicates a disorganised offence as does the alleged clean up attempt. Despite the evidence suggesting a certain amount of premeditation with the murder weapon having been taken from Raffaele’s apartment to the cottage, there is no way of proving that the intention was to kill Meredith with this knife therefore we cannot necessarily conclude this was an organised offence based solely on this information. Similarly, injuries sustained by the victim also suggest she was forcibly held and that some attempt was made to silence her, yet if we are to conclude this was an organised offence, surely the offender would have brought something with which to bind and/or gag the victim?

This does not seem to be the case but rather a spontaneous group attack that resulted in a violent and chaotic murder with a subsequent panicked attempt at concealing the truth about what had happened. This leads me to conclude that the murder of Meredith Kercher is an example of a disorganised sexual homicide. None of the group had any history of violence which can in part be explained by a group dynamic. Unsurprisingly, research indicates that 64% of first time violent sexual homicides can be classified as disorganised.

Further Confusion
Despite certain pieces of evidence suggesting that this was a disorganised offence, there are elements of the crime that do not fit this conclusion. Meredith was almost certainly sexually assaulted whilst she was still alive, an attempt was made to restrain her and evidence from a break down truck driver suggests that Raffaele’s Audi may have been in the driveway of the cottage that night. Sexual assault on a live victim, evidence of restraint and evidence suggesting an offender may have driven to the scene of the crime are all associated with organised offenders. This coupled with the suggestion that the murder weapon may have been taken to the crime scene rather confuses a possible classification of a disorganised offence

As I have said many times with these types of theory and research based pieces, no theory is ever perfect especially one as reductionist as the organised/disorganised offender. This theory has been criticised for these reasons in the past. Despite this, many profilers and police officers find these sorts of classifications useful and can usually see evidence pointing to one type or another.

I believe this theory is perhaps too simplistic as it does not take into account the involvement of one or more persons in a violent sexual homicide. The slight confusion we have already seen in typology and classification of violence, added to this new confusion about whether this was an organised or disorganised offence only serves to encourage my belief that several motives, ideas and schemas about ‘how to humiliate/wind-up/hurt Meredith’ may have come into play that night. I have already suggested the possibility that there may have been a sadist in the room as well as very different motives for each of the individuals involved. The idea that certain elements of the crime are organised whilst others are disorganised not only encourages the idea that more than one person was involved but also suggests that at least one group member was firmly out of the loop.

The Blitz Attack

If Rudy Guede really had been a lone wolf killer, apart from the evidence suggesting that the break in was staged, he would almost certainly be a disorganised offender. Aside from the abundance of his DNA and fingerprints left at the scene, there are certain things we would expect to see from a lone disorganised offender that do not seem to be evident in this case.

Firstly, disorganised offenders often feel inadequate and their attacks are usually sexual in nature. These types of assailants, especially those with the intention of sexually assaulting or raping the victim, will often approach the victim from behind and due to the spontaneous nature of these offences they will usually initiate what’s known as a blitz attack. The blitz attack is primarily concerned with ensuring the victim is unable to resist or fight usually because the offender doubts their own ability to subdue the victim. The most common method of ensuring compliance is to render the victim unconscious. Unfortunately due to the amount of force employed when administering blows to (often) the head, the victim usually suffers horrendous blunt force injuries which more often than not result in serious injury or death. Meredith had no such injuries and any injuries she did sustain came much later than the initial attack.

If we are to conclude that Rudy Guede was a typical lone, first time, disorganised killer we can surely conclude he would have participated in this style of ambush, after all in one study 82% of young offenders who engaged in sexual attacks of this nature did so by initiating a blitz attack on their victims. Similarly the lone wolf theory suggests that Guede climbed through a window in order to access Meredith when he could quite easily have knocked on the door and pounced or at least chosen a method of entry that was easier and less noisy. If we are to accept the lone wolf theory as credible then we must also accept that by climbing through the window, Rudy Guede was aiming to surprise Meredith by initiating an attack to subdue, sexually assault and kill her yet the evidence suggests no such blitz attack ever took place and that the victim was very much conscious throughout most if not all of her ordeal.

The injuries sustained by Meredith are concrete, unchangeable and unchallengeable. These injuries cannot be manipulated or denied to suit. Meredith sustained defensive knife injuries to her hands in what the medical examiner likely concluded was an attempt to fight off an attack from a person standing in front of her brandishing a knife. Victims of disorganised offenders especially those that adopt the element of surprise (as the lone wolf theory suggests by insinuating Rudy climbed through the window), very rarely have defensive injuries suggesting a struggle, Meredith had several including various bruises.

Similarly research about these types of offenders indicates they often mutilate the victim by cutting or slashing the breasts, face, abdomen and genital area. Meredith sustained no post mortem mutilation. These types of offenders will often sexually assault or rape the victim after death, the medical examiner has stated he believes Meredith was in all likelihood sexually assaulted before she was seriously injured and later killed, this itself indicates some kind of restraint would have been necessary,yet this type of behaviour is not associated with disorganised offenders. The victims of certain sexual homicides often suffer injuries consistent with those found on Meredith’s body, injuries such as evidence of manual strangulation and those consistent with overkill, yet the injuries sustained by the victim do not fit the current theory of what we would expect to find in a lone, first time disorganised offender like Rudy Guede also he had no history of violence.

The crime reconstruction and evidence from injuries sustained by the victim suggests she was ambushed rather than blitzed. This in itself could suggest a planned attack, a sudden burst of ‘group’ anger or an escalation of a previously planned event.

I have previously spoken about how three people with no history of violence could easily be just as, if not more violent than a single individual with a history of violence. I still maintain that Rudy Guede would be extremely unlikely to commit this sort of violent offence alone and without provocation or consultation with anyone else. The same questions remain, why did he choose Meredith? How did he know she would be alone?

These are all questions that are never likely to be answered. This theory quite simply does not fit. It will never fit because it didn’t actually happen and insinuating that it did not only makes the 48 hours show and everyone associated with it look incredibly stupid, it also attempts to challenge an awful lot of literature and an awful lot of people, much smarter and more knowledgeable than I that will tell you exactly the same thing. Rudy Guede has not, will not and will never be proven a lone wolf killer.

A Toilet Break?

If we are to believe that Rudy Guede was a lone wolf, so overcome by lust for Meredith he broke into her house in order to rape and or kill her then we’d have almost certainly seen further evidence of sexual activity. So far the sexual assault Meredith suffered seemed to have been abandoned at some point, a point I believe Rudy ‘bottled it’ and, possibly due to excitement, fear or drugs, headed for the toilet. These sorts of actions in a lone offender do not make sense. Something spooked him that’s for sure and if he had been a lone offender there is absolutely no way he’d have left his victim in a position to escape or alert the police by going to the toilet in the middle of the attack.

Rudy admits to being at the cottage the night Meredith was killed and maintains he was on the toilet after eating a spicy Kebab when someone came into the house and stabbed Meredith. He claims to have tried to help her and then became scared and ran away. I don’t need to tell you that most of this story is what one judge accurately described as a ‘highly improbable fantasy’ yet his faeces was found in the toilet the next day indicating that he had at some point gone to the toilet. Some people believe that Rudy Guede’s version of events, despite being absurd do actually have some basis in truth as he has the awful habit of attempting to explain away things he knows the investigating officers can incriminate him with.

Like the faeces he left in the toilet for example. Rudy’s own version of events actually explains that he rushed off the toilet, had a confrontation with the killer and tried to help Meredith by stemming the flow of blood with towels, allegedly two blood soaked towels were found at the crime scene. With this in mind we could consider that Rudy became overly excited or scared during the attack, resulting in the need to visit the toilet, we could also suggest he was in the toilet before Meredith was killed. It seems highly likely that as the faeces was found in the toilet and Rudy attempted to explain it that he actually used the bathroom before Meredith was killed and certainly before he fled the cottage, after all I doubt he would hang around to use the loo after the piercing scream and the resulting knife wound, as Brian S explains in his theory, probably caused them all to flee. If the lone wolf theory is to be believed, doesn’t it seem a bit odd that Guede would be sat on the loo whilst the victim was left to her own devices? I think a far more likely scenario is that Guede was not alone in the cottage that night, Amanda and Raffaele were ‘taking care of Meredith’ while he dashed to the loo.

The Neck

I am still struggling to understand exactly how all three came to be present in the cottage that night and the exact sequence of events that led to the attack on Meredith. Arnold Layne recently put forward an excellent possible scenario as did Brian S, both can be found on TJMK.

Some evidence such as the knife and possibly Raffaele’s car in the driveway suggests an element of planning, yet other factors suggest it was anything but, as the crime itself seems rather disorganised. There certainly seem to be a number of fantasies coming through, specifically hinting at one or more of those involved gaining some kind of enjoyment in watching the victim suffer and, due to the nature of the injuries some possible fantasies linked to the victims neck.

Meredith sustained several neck injuries consistent with being manually strangled, cut with a knife before being fatally stabbed. The crime reconstruction has one of the defendants holding Meredith from behind, the other to the side holding her head up and exposing the neck with the third member of the group attacking with the knife.

So what is this apparent fascination with the neck? If they’d wanted to ensure the victim did not scream why not attempt to use a rudimentary gag such as a cloth or a sock? Though many have suggested that the neck injuries were specifically inflicted to ensure the victim didn’t scream it could (and this is where it gets pretty distressing) also be suggested that the attackers wanted to hear poor Meredith plead and beg for her life, they probably hadn’t counted on her screaming.

Any sex related homicide will usually reveal something that has a special kind of significance for the killer. I believe this may have been Meredith’s neck. They could have silenced her in any number of ways yet I believe they chose not to and underestimated her capacity to scream, it was in all likelihood her final scream, heard by a witness, that may have encouraged the fatal ‘panic blow’. It could be suggested that as this was possibly a panic blow, that the offenders had not yet finished ‘playing’ with Meredith, her final scream may have sadly sealed her fate but also ensured her suffering was not prolonged further.

Before she was fatally injured the medical examiner also determined that Meredith had been strangled. This attempt was clearly unsuccessful. According to this report:

“Only eleven pounds of pressure placed on both carotid arteries for ten seconds is necessary to cause unconsciousness.4 How-ever, if pressure is released immediately, consciousness will be regained within ten seconds. To completely close off the trachea, three times as much pressure (33 lbs.) is required. Brain death will occur in 4 to 5 minutes, if strangulation persists”

As Meredith was still very much alive when she was stabbed it could be suggested that whoever tried to strangle her, could not complete the act or believed they already had. Strangulation is more closely associated with sexual homicide than other injuries present. Most offenders who engage in strangulation apply the wrong type of pressure, use an incorrect and not yet perfected ‘technique’ especially if they are using their hands, I can imagine it’s very difficult to strangle someone if you don’t know what you are doing and especially if they are kicking and resisting. Meredith may have temporarily lost conscious, regained it and attempted to break free. This may have been the critical moment when the assailants decided to fatally injure her with the knife but not before she was taunted viciously.

Evidence available about the manner in which Meredith died suggests not only a vicious group attack but an apparent fascination with a specific area of her body upon which she sustained injuries above and beyond what was necessary to subdue or kill. This apparent fascination with Meredith’s neck could indicate the role of certain fantasies or schemas about ‘how to kill someone’. It seems odd that the assailants specifically chose to focus on her neck, after all stab wounds to the heart or abdomen are just as fatal. What was it about Meredith’s neck that provoked the injuries she sustained? I’m afraid we will never know but it is an important point to consider especially if we are to conclude that sexual fantasy may have played a role in her death.

The Two Stages of the Motive

If we consider that the murder itself was not premeditated we could also consider the motive in two different stages, this is not to suggest they are not inextricably linked as they inevitably are, however it’s a lot harder to consider the motive for the murder when attempting to understand not only the complex group dynamic but the crime as a whole. The initial motive for the attack on Meredith is still unclear. It may seem difficult to separate these two but when we do it becomes a little easier to understand.

At some stage and for whatever reason Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito and Rudy Guede ended up at 7 Via Della Pergola. They may have been high, they may have been sober or they may have intended to scare Meredith, initiate a group sex activity, even commit an act of violence. Though it may seem ridiculous to suggest this is unimportant, it really is the case. The crime scene evidence suggests the involvement of all three and though clarity and closure for the family would be ideal I fear we will never really know how or why this attack started. So it follows that we must study the trail of evidence left both at the crime scene and on the victim’s body itself. The evidence put forward so far suggests that if the plan was not to kill Meredith that night that the motive of the group may have suddenly changed at a critical point.

At one point the motive of the group changed and although the motive for the initial attack seems unclear, the motive for the later stage of the attack is not. At one point it changed from the sexual assault, argument or game, to killing Meredith.

This became the primary motive of one or all members of the group, why else would Meredith have been so viciously strangled? Why did this not kill her? Why was the attempt at strangulation abandoned in favour of the more intrusive method which caused the injury she sustained to the neck that later caused her death? Why were the group so determined to kill Meredith Kercher?

That part at least is probably easily explainable. She knew them, she could identify them and the attack had already gone so far they knew that letting her get out alive would almost certainly mean serving a long jail sentence. They decided to silence her forever. They cut her throat, took her mobile phones, locked her in her bedroom and left her to die. Later having realised the chaos and incriminating evidence left behind, two of them returned to begin the clean-up and staging of the crime scene, the other went to dance the night away.

This is why, with the evidence available so far that I believe the right people are on trial for their role in the senseless and brutal murder of Meredith Kercher. If any of you are coming here for the first time having watched the 48 hours show I implore you to seek out more information. The show barely touched the surface of how brutal and cruel the murder of poor Meredith actually was and hopefully with the aid of a little psychology theory I have successfully achieved my objective of showing how, aside from merely the physical evidence suggesting it is in fact an impossible scenario, the lone wolf theory has no credibility and doesn’t make any sense in the real world.

I have been profoundly shocked at the recent and ongoing exploitation from certain individuals, seemingly with the aim of securing personal or financial reward for their own tenuous links to the brutal murder of British exchange student Meredith Kercher. This exploitation sadly seems to be increasing in both instance and severity.

Meredith’s body was discovered concealed by a duvet on the floor of her bedroom on the 2nd November 2007. She had been sexually assaulted, strangled and fatally stabbed in the neck. Meredith’s 21 year old American housemate Amanda Knox and Italian national Raffaele Sollecito are currently on trial for their suspected involvement in Meredith’s tragic death.

As the case unfolded many people became entranced by the spirit of Meredith and angered by the brutal way she met her tragic end, not least as it appeared certain subjective parties were playing a rather sick and twisted game with what appeared to be the emerging facts: The evidence suggesting both Amanda and Raffaele are firmly at the centre of this crime.

Many people will agree that exploiting this sort of tragedy to achieve a desired objective is morally questionable, yet exploitation in its many forms has been the underling motive of certain individuals following or involved in the case from the very beginning.

Personal and/or Financial Gain?

Most of these guilty parties are made up of the friends, family and supporters of the defendant Amanda Knox, otherwise known as the FOA, who quickly initiated a PR campaign with the apparent aim of ensuring a ‘balanced and fair’ representation of Amanda in order to combat a perceived ‘negative and overblown’ representation of her as a seductress or man-eater in the press. Funny then that instead of focusing on their primary objective, many of Amanda’s friends and supporters began a vicious and extensive internet hate campaign aimed at ensuring those following the case saw only the picture of Amanda they so carefully constructed, those that rejected or questioned this doctrine were deemed ‘anti-Amanda’ and their forums and blogs relentlessly trolled with talking points that were either factually incorrect or hostile in nature.

A number of the questions I have had since I started blogging about the case: Why are Amanda Knox’s supporters so aggressive? Who are these people, what do they have to gain and more importantly, is it helping Amanda?

The FOA Doctrine

The FOA I believe, have officially disbanded, yet many of it’s ‘members’ appear to be very much active.

Amanda the victim
One of the most outrageous insinuations to date has been the suggestion that Amanda Knox is somehow a victim in this case. Unsurprisingly, most of the people proclaiming there is not a ‘shred of evidence’ linking her to the crime are those with a specific interest in ensuring Amanda is released immediately, without even considering the evidence suggesting she was involved. Those pieces of evidence they cannot dismiss are usually distorted by the outright lying or manipulation of its significance.

The recent 48 hours show on the case actually made me feel physically sick and I hope the victim’s family never see it. As a result of this show I have seen more and more instances of individuals turning up on blogs and forums proclaiming Amanda’s innocence on the basis of this hugely biased and offensive excuse for journalism. Just another example of the exploitation of the victim in order to achieve the objective of negating or distorting the case against Amanda Knox. Unfortunately, many accomplish only the aim of smearing the name and reputation of victim, but what do they care? She always has and will continue to be an irrelevant and unimportant detail to these people. What does this say about Amanda Knox and her ever deluded supporters?

Dirty Tricks
Some of Amanda Knox’s supporters have even gone as far as smearing the name of the victim in order to somehow dissolve the perceived ‘good girls do and bad girls don’t’ comparison between Amanda and Meredith. Amanda’s mother Edda actually stated she’d feel sorry for Meredith’s parents when the court heard how Meredith was not as good girl as she had been portrayed. This was her apparent message of support to Meredith’s grieving family. Certain media outlets even went as far as suggesting the victim was drunk when she was killed. This was later shown to be an outright fabrication. Who I wonder did that benefit? Then we have certain Knox supporters like Kelly13 suggesting that the Kercher family put aside their grief (her actual words) and jump on the ‘free Amanda’ bandwagon.

Then we have the associate of Amanda’s stepfather Chris Mellas, Goofy, a repulsive individual who appears to be going through a mid-life crisis and who seems to enjoy relentlessly smearing the name of the victim in the comments section of Perugia Shock. Not to mention revealing personal details about certain posters that hold an opposing view on the case to him. One individual, a administrator on a popular forum has been forced to file a harassment complaint to the police on account of Goofy’s ever escalating, obscene and grotesque behaviour. He’s even gone so far as to smear the name of her husband, revealed their approximate location and personal details about her family. If it were physically possible I’m sure this sad and deluded creature would blame the victim for her own death. All in the name of securing justice for his own ego Amanda Knox. Pretty sick huh? There’s more…

Lies
Amanda and her supporters have told so many lies during the course of the investigation and trial. These are well documented and there is no need to list them all here. One of the most vicious has been that the prosecutor Mignini is mentally unstable. As the case against Amanda mounted, the FOA began to up their smear campaign against the PM, by attempting to ensure the public believed he is some sort of psychotic maniac, obsessed with sexual orgies, who consults a lunatic conspiracy theorist blogger for advice on the case. Who do you believe? Those with a vested interest in ensuring the case against Amanda is dismissed? Or those without ties to Amanda who believe Mignini is the right man for the job?

Strange how the FOA never seem to mention Mignini’s co-prosecutor  who would, should Mignini step down, be more than happy to continue in his absence. The main tactic of the FOA has always been to take cheap shots at each and every perceived obstacle in its way, if it takes a lie to achieve this objective so be it. If it means smearing the name or reputation of an innocent individual, whatever. They don’t care, after all everyone but Amanda is part of a giant conspiracy to stitch her up for murder. Gimmie a break.

Then we have the allegations that Amanda was hit during her ‘interrogation’ which have not only been demonstrated to be false, they’ve actually succeeded in slapping a further investigation and possible slander charge against her as well as giving her lawyers a red face. Amanda’s lies are of course deemed irrelevant by her supporters, unfortunately they will be considered by the jury and will probably go against her.

The lies of her friends, family and supporters however will not be considered by the jury, who will not necessarily know how her supporters have undeniably and no doubt irreparably damaged both her credibility, reputation and the ability of the media and public to sympathise with her on any level. Some ‘supporters’ huh?

Money for Nothing

There are some who may believe that Amanda’s friends and family, having an emotional link to the case have some sort of excuse for their behaviour. I personally think they are old enough to know better, but people are of course entitled to their opinion. Once we remove the potential obstacle of those who have a personal or emotional link to the case we are left with the real dregs, individuals who seek to make money from the tragic death of Meredith Kercher and the hysteria surrounding the ongoing trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.

I’m sure most of you read Frank’s little revelation about being paid for his tabloid smut blog, I’m sure all of you have noticed his apparent contempt for decency and u-turn from objective, honest reporting to his current fascination with the defendant Amanda Knox. One can only imagine him drooling over his keyboard as he writes the latest tripe, counts his hits, banks  the pay check and salivates further at his future prospects all whilst seemingly unable to moderate the comments on his blog which have become increasingly crude and disgusting. Reading his blog has become a fascinating example of unprecedented arrogance. This pales in significance when compared to the writings of Candace Dempsey who after discussing the case for about five minutes decided to write a book and promote herself as an award-winning journalist.

Then we have the recent revelation that the owner of the house where Meredith was killed has decided to sell tickets to those who wish to view the ‘house of horrors’. I for one had no problem whatsoever with her decision to clean up and re-let her house, it is after all her prerogative, as is selling tickets to gawp at the site of Meredith Kercher’s sad and tragic end. Despite this I fail to see how someone can be so motivated by the desire to recoup financial losses that they could abandon all rationality and decency by profiting from the tragedy that caused the loss of earnings in the first place, a tragedy that resulted in the brutal and sadistic death of an innocent young woman. I do not think the owner of the house should be allowed to capitalise on the murder in this way and fully expect the Kercher’s lawyers to express his views on this at some point during the next week.

I ask who will benefit from all of this, certainly not the victim, nor her family and not the woman accused of taking part in her brutal murder. There have been times when this case has made me consider the morality of certain people involved to a much deeper level that I ever thought possible. I am at this present moment in time frustrated and angered by it all.

This case is not about making a quick buck, earning a living or spring-boarding into a film/journalism career, this case is about ensuring dignity, honour and respect for the victim and her family, something which costs nothing to uphold and everything to forfeit.

It seems there are many that have forgotten what happened to Meredith that night and who seem determined to ignore those pangs of guilt that are surely emanating from within and if they aren’t I’d be seriously inclined to suggest they are either deluded or lacking in morals altogether.

I expect many of you will have seen the interesting analysis of Amanda Knox’s statement to an Italian judge explaining what had happened to her the night she was questioned and made the false accusation of Patrick Lumumba, on the blog ‘Eyes for Lies’. You can find the audio clip of the statement here. Eyes is one of very few people with the gift of being innately intuitive when it comes to detecting deception.

My first thought when I heard the audio clip and read the Eyes for Lies post was how bumbly Amanda’s statement to the judge actually is and I completely agree with the author, Amanda really isn’t making much of an effort to convince the judge or get her side of the story across. Her statement lacks substance and in my opinion any kind of purpose.

Eyes makes the comment “Yet when I realize she had one year to compose herself, and get her facts straight, I’m surprised even more by this statement. She really doesn’t say much to her defense. You would think after a year in jail, she would have worked out a feasible account of that night, wouldn’t you?”

This in itself seems to pinpoint what a lot of people following the case are beginning to realise, Amanda Knox doesn’t have a feasible account of what happened that night, at least not one that she wants to share with a judge, jury or any law enforcement officer. Amanda claims to have been at home with Raffaele on the night of the murder but he claims she went out. Since the evidence has virtually annihilated his computer alibi, neither agrees with the other and hence we can come to the conclusion that both have something to hide.

It’s interesting that Eyes has made this comment so early on in her analysis and it does underpin the essence of what she has to say about the statement and its content. Amanda Knox, after a year in prison and about to make one of the most important statements she could ever make, a statement that could clear her name or at least provide some sort of clarity, basically chooses to witter on for several minutes about absolutely nothing and sound like a chugging tractor in the process.

Eyes further comments: “The question I and everyone else should have at this point is, if Amanda is telling us the truth, why did she have to “try to give” information? Why didn’t it come naturally? When we are honest, we don’t struggle and try. Speaking and fact recollection are second nature to us.”

I’d love to see Eyes take on the email Amanda sent to 23 of her family and friends a few days after the discovery of the body, there would be an abundance of information that would confirm the interesting point she makes here: “why did she have to “try to give” information? Surely it should come naturally?” and this is so true. In her email Amanda also says “Its like im trying to remember what i was doing before all this happened” yet just a few paragraphs earlier Amanda had seemingly perfect recall of what she had been doing ‘before all this happened’ and it seems, what Meredith had been doing too.

Another statement I found strange in the email was this: “im going to tell this really slowly to get everything right so just have patience with me.” I’ve always been curious as to why Amanda needed them to have patience when reading her written account of what had happened, surely if she felt the passage needed further clarification she could have put the email aside for a few minutes whilst she thought about what she wanted to write? This part of the email encourages my belief that Amanda was almost ‘practising her lines’ by writing an email that was essentially a statement. Her choice of words “I’m going to tell this” reminds me of several instances in her statement to the judge that Eyes picks out. Including:  “I did my best, to give the same information over and over and over again” and “I tried to– re-express, re-explain what I had done”. As Eyes justifiably points out you don’t need to ‘re-express or ‘re-explain’ anything, just tell the judge your side of the story or preferably the truth.

There is a marked amount of difference in the style of storytelling Amanda adopts in the email and the method she adopts for her statement to the judge. In a few minutes of talking virtual gibberish Amanda does manage to express the following bits of information:

• After the discovery of the body she spent a few days trying to help the police.
• She wasn’t called to the police station with Raffaele but went because she didn’t want to be alone.
• She was tired, stressed out and confused.
• She was questioned but the questions became more aggressive, they wanted specific times and dates and information about the SMS she sent to Patrick.
• She was called a liar, told she’d go to prison for 30 years and hit by a police officer
• She was told a lawyer would have made things worse for her.
• She was asked to sign a declaration with content she didn’t remember saying.

I was very interested in Eyes comments about the way Amanda was speaking and the contradictions in content, structure and meaning. I’m not sure how much Eyes knows about the details of the case but I thought it’d be interesting to take the points Amanda was trying to get across and see how they compare with what we already know. So with that in mind…

Let’s take this one apart

After the discovery of the body she spent a few days trying to help the police
This statement is slightly misleading: “After– the discovery of Meredith, I had spent days in– cooperating with the police, to try to just give as much information as I could.” Though it is true that Amanda was conversing with police and giving her side of the story after the discovery of the body, it wasn’t a matter of co-operating voluntarily she really had no choice. Amanda and Raffaele made themselves appear suspicious in the hours following the discovery of the body and if witness statements are anything to go by, Amanda may not have been as delighted to help the police as she and her family have continuously maintained.

Amanda complained about a lot of things in the police station in the hours following the discovery of the body all whilst Meredith’s friends and acquaintances grieved. One of Meredith’s English friends had this to say: “At the police station Raffaele was very quiet, nothing strong, but Amanda was always talking at the phone she was very affectionate to Raffaele but she would keep complaining: ‘I’m tired’, ‘I’m hungry’, ‘I’m thirsty’.” Not exactly the model of the little miss helpful witness wouldn’t you agree?

I also recall reading that Amanda complained that the police couldn’t keep her at their ‘beck and call’ all the time, not to mention her allegedly complaining to Patrick, who she later falsely accused, that he had no idea what it was like to be questioned by the police. He had this to say: “I told her I was so sorry about Meredith. She seemed completely normal. But she had a nasty look in her eye and simply said I had no idea what it was like to be probed by police for hours on end” This statement must seem eerily ominous to Patrick in hindsight, as Amanda later accused him of rape and murder.

Indeed if this part of her statement is to be true, the only way Amanda actually helped the police was by weaving such a loose tapestry of lies that they immediately began to unravel around her. The statement ‘trying to help’ also implies that she may have known she wasn’t helping possibly because the police had seen some obvious holes in her and Raffaele’s alibi. The realisation that the police were cottoning on to their possible involvement could have resulted in Amanda desperately trying to ‘re-remember’ or ‘re-explain’ certain facts to get the situation back under her control, but as Eyes quite rightly points out; you don’t ‘try’ to help the police by ‘re-examining’ or ‘re-remembering’ things, you either help or you don’t. On a similar note, you either remember accurate times and dates that correspond with the facts of the case and exonerate you or you don’t. The police generally find vague witness statements coupled with erratic behaviour suspicious.

On a similar note the FOA like to claim that Amanda’s ‘decision’ to stay in Perugia and ‘help’ the police is clearly evidence of her innocence, however there’s no chance she would have considered running away for fear of incriminating herself. If the allegations that a clean-up took place can be proven it seems unlikely that Amanda and Raffaele expected they’d be probed too deeply especially if they can be linked to attempting to shift the focus of blame entirely to Rudy Guede. It’s also useful to bear in mind that Amanda had not been cleared to leave Italy by the police so her ‘brave decision’ to stay and ‘help’ the police is merely smoke and mirrors.

She wasn’t called to the police station with Raffaele but went because she didn’t want to be alone
I find this statement ridiculous in the extreme: “The day of the fifth, I wasn’t called to the Questore. Raffaele was called, but I decided to go with him, to keep him company, but also because I was scared to be alone.” In her email Amanda describes how she walked calmly around her house; a house she suspected had been burgled. She describes the signs of a break in including a broken window, spots of blood and un-flushed faeces in a toilet bowl. So what did she do at this point? Call the police? Get the hell out of there? Nope, she took a shower. At no point in the email does Amanda mention being frightened, on the contrary her words describe the thoughts and actions of a person who knew very well what had happened, where Meredith was and that a lone predator wasn’t hiding in the laundry room waiting to pounce.

Why then does Amanda claim to have suddenly developed ‘the fear’ in a matter of days, where did this mysterious fear come from and why had nobody seen it before? Surely there was no further threat of danger? In any case was Raffaele the only person in Perugia who could have alleviated this mysterious fear, didn’t Amanda have any friends in Perugia she could have visited whilst Raffaele was talking with the police or had she perhaps alienated herself from them by behaving like a total maniac in the police station? What I find strange about this statement is that Amanda suddenly claims to be scared and therefore doesn’t want to be alone, yet she knew when she arrived at the police station that she’d be alone whilst Raffaele was being interviewed. It seems likely that Amanda was reluctant to let Raffaele out of her sight and it could be suggested that she was present at the police station to keep an eye on him. I don’t doubt Amanda was scared of something; most probably what Raffaele was saying in the interview room.

She was tired, stressed out and confused
Eyes makes the comment: “Does this make any sense? She couldn’t remember because she was tired? It was the middle of the night? Does anyone believe this is a good reason for a lack of all memory? When Amanda is telling us this, a year has passed from the crime, so why doesn’t she elaborate more in this statement? Why isn’t she setting the record straight for the judge here and now?”

Once again it seems that Eyes agrees with some peoples general consensus on Amanda’s various methods of avoiding answering the question or talking about what really happened that night. We’ve already heard: I was confused, I was tired, I don’t remember, I was stoned etc, etc and most will agree, including Lies it seems, that being tired or confused or as many medical papers will confirm, stoned, is not a valid reason for not cooperating with the police and telling the truth. Or at least a convincing enough ‘story’ that makes any kind of sense in the real world.

The contradictions in this statement tie in closely with her claims to have accompanied Raffaele to the police station because she was scared to be alone. Amanda was called into a room and questioned, she does not mention in her statement to the judge that it was at this point that she was informed that Raffaele was no longer providing her with an alibi, the police began questioning her about specific times and dates which she had trouble recalling, she says: “And was– it was difficult for me because it was in the middle of the night that I– we had been called. I was very tired. And I was also quite stressed out.” I find it even harder to understand why Amanda actually went to the police station with Raffaele when she also offers as an explanation for her confusion that night that she was tired and stressed out. I don’t know about you but if I was scared to be alone because my housemate had been murdered I’d go to a friend’s house, I certainly wouldn’t want to be sat in the lobby of a police station, similarly if I was tired and stressed out wouldn’t that be the worst place for me? All those uncomfortable chairs and bright lights, not to mention I’ve already implied to my former boss that all the questioning is extremely stressful. Perhaps instead I could take a long bath, watch a film to de-stress or go to bed and rest? Amanda also states “it was in the middle of the night that I – we had been called” when in reality Amanda had not been called in at all, Raffaele had. Why the contradiction? It’s blatantly false and implies that she had been called in for questioning when she hadn’t. I expect the police were wondering what the hell she was even doing there and why this weird couple were stuck together like glue.

From testimony given by one of the officers present in the police station it appears that Amanda may not have been as tired as she later claimed: “A few minutes later I walked past a room at the police station where she was waiting and I saw Amanda doing the splits and a cartwheel. It was around 11am on November 5th.” Telling indeed, stress perhaps or a little excess energy? It seems from the statements made by Amanda to the judge that she had been awake enough to accompany Raffaele to the police station and turn cartwheels, but had suddenly been cognitively incapacitated with fatigue the minute the police began asking her questions she didn’t want to answer.

She was questioned but the questions became more aggressive, they wanted specific times and dates and information about the SMS she sent to Patrick.
Amanda says: “ I didn’t understand. I became really confused. I tried to– re-express, re-explain what I had done– the fact that I didn’t have to go to work. At that point, they– I gave them my phone so they could see that I didn’t have to– I received– okay– okay– See – because I received an SMS, and for that reason, they kept repeating to me that I was lying about – SMS. I was confused.” Here is where we really start to see evidence of Amanda’s mini ‘breakdown’. Police officers have testified that she appeared distressed and kept hitting herself on the side of the head and it seems that talking about it causes some kind of stress reaction, you can hear it in her voice.

Amanda fails to mention that she accused Patrick when asked about an SMS she had sent to him on the night of the murder in response to his instruction telling her not to come to work that night. According to testimony from the head of the Perugia Flying Squad Rita Ficarra Amanda volunteered Patricks name when she was questioned about the SMS “she started crying and wrapping her hands around her head, she started shaking it, and then she said: it was him…Patrick killed her.” Anyone hearing the audio clip of her statement to the judge with no prior knowledge of the case would be forgiven for wondering why the questioning ‘suddenly’ became aggressive, but Amanda was being interviewed by an experienced officer with a case to solve. Officers who suspect you may have been involved in a murder they are investigating aren’t generally obligated to speak to you as if you were a member of the Royal family. Amanda’s interrogation may have been aggressive or she may have interpreted it that way having never seen or experienced that kind of questioning before. Plus Amanda is insinuating that there is somehow something wrong with the police attempting to clarify certain times and dates with Amanda especially seeing as she had all but admitted involvement at this point. It does not seem they were expecting or ready to receive the kind of information she gave them.

She was called a liar, told she’d go to prison for 30 years and hit by a police officer
As with the above it would be difficult to prove one way or another exactly what was said by the investigating officers or to what extent Amanda was ‘threatened’ by her interviewers without seeing a video or hearing a transcript of her interview. But remember, Amanda Knox does not have a very good track record for telling the truth, neither it seems does Raffaele. The Machine’s excellent post on TJMK outlines his whoppers in detail.

Amanda says: “They told me that I was– of all the things that I had kept saying, over and over again, they said that I was lying.” Amanda was probably called a liar because at that point, with the fact that her previous ‘version’ of events about spending the night at Raffaele’s house coupled with his retraction of her alibi blatantly contradicting her new ‘revelation’ about Patrick, I see no reason why I wouldn’t come to the same conclusion: She was or had been lying. Therefore it seems that the police were quite right and to be honest quite fair to call Amanda out for lying to them.

Amanda says: “They threatened that I was going to go in prison for 30 years because I was hiding something.” With regard to telling Amanda that she’d go to prison for 30 years, again we have no confirmation that this was said and if it was in what context. If the police genuinely believed that Amanda had been at the cottage that night then they’d also come to the logical conclusion that she may have been involved, if they believed they had a strong enough case to charge her then it also follows that if convicted she could face 30 years (or more) in prison.

Eyes says: “Why does she change “make me” which is a strong statement to “help me”, which is much softer? I find this odd. If someone is hitting me on the back of the head, they aren’t “helping me” do anything. They are making me forcefully and brutally react. Why aren’t her emotional memories matching her story? These words are red flags for me. This is an indication she is trying to manipulate things.”

And I have to agree, with regard to Amanda being hit by a police officer I’m extremely sceptical for a number of reasons, firstly officers present during her questioning have stated under oath that Amanda was never hit nor mistreated. Amanda’s lawyer said she was not hit. When Amanda informed the court she had been hit Mignini ordered an investigation with a possible further charge of slander brought if the allegations are confirmed to be false. Would Mignini risk being publicly embarrassed? Surely he knows she wasn’t hit and many suspect there is video evidence to support this conclusion. Amanda nor her lawyers never made a formal complaint with regard to these allegations so for now they remain, at best, mere allegations. I for one believe that these allegations if proven are precisely as Eyes suggests, an attempt at manipulation.

She was told a lawyer would have made things worse for her
Amanda says: “After that – at a certain point, I asked if I should have had a lawyer. And they said that it would have been worse for me.” At this point Amanda may still have been considered ‘a person aware of the facts’ and not a suspect. Under Italian law Amanda would only have been entitled to a lawyer if her status changed to that of a suspect, therefore the police were probably correct in their assertion, if Amanda required or was entitled to a lawyer she would have been considered a suspect and yes, things would have been a lot worse for her.

She was asked to sign a declaration with content she didn’t remember saying
Amanda says: “So they asked me to make declarations about what I remembered, but I told that I didn’t remember anything like this. Because I was confused. What I remembered was different from what they were asking me to say.” Amanda’s formal statement accusing Lumumba of murdering Meredith has not been admitted as evidence in the trial, however a handwritten note which Amanda gave to a police officer the next day has been accepted as evidence. In the note she says “I stand by my statements that I made last night about events that could have taken place in my home with Patrik, but I want to make very clear that these events seem more unreal to me that what I said before, that I stayed at Raffaele’s house.” The day the note was written Amanda had rested and eaten. Amanda was not tired or confused or stoned. If she perceived that the events of the previous night had spun out of control she could have taken the opportunity to immediately retract the accusations against Patrick but she didn’t, instead she kept him as the equivalent of her emergency credit card by writing a long warbled note about still being confused. Amanda attempts to distance herself from the false allegation in the statement to the judge by claiming to have been confused when she made her first declaration, yet she failed to retract the declaration the next day and instead wrote a note to police officers in which she agrees to stand by the original declaration. Unsurprisingly the handwritten note has been admitted as evidence for the slander charge against her.

Some ideas and conclusions

The Eyes for Lies analysis of the audio clip was interesting and insightful and supports a great deal of evidence we have so far suggesting that Amanda has on many occasions failed to tell the truth. This is further confirmed when we consider the context in which Amanda is speaking, the events she is referring to and the many contradictions in her version of events.

“And late at night whilst on all fours, she used to watch me kiss the floor. What’s wrong with this picture? What’s wrong with this picture?” – Placebo, ‘This Picture’

Imagine you knew nothing about Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito or the brutal murder they are accused of. Take a look at this picture and imagine you were the store owner who saw them in the ‘Bubble’ lingerie shop that day, what do you see?

I see a young couple, kissing and caressing each other and generally acting as if they haven’t a care in the world. I see two people who are deeply sexually attracted to each other and who can’t wait to get home for that ‘hot sex’ the store owner claims he overheard them discussing whilst browsing for and eventually purchasing a camisole and a g-string in his shop. If you imagine they were just another ordinary couple, excited, giggling and petting in your shop you’d be forgiven for muttering about ‘kids these days’ and carrying on with your work, but as Brian Molko would say, what’s wrong with this picture?

24 hours prior to the scenes captured on this CCTV footage, the young couple in the video, had been present when the body of Amanda’s 21 year old housemate Meredith Kercher was discovered in the house they shared with two Italian girls. A few days later the couple were arrested on suspicion of murder and sexual violence.

This picture marks the moment I ‘fell off the fence’ with regard to my own personal views about the the defendants Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito who are currently on trial for their part in the sexual assault and murder of British exchange student Meredith Kercher.

Meredith’s partially clothed body was found concealed by a duvet on the floor of her bedroom on the 2nd November 2007. The medical examiner determined that before death she had most likely been sexually assaulted (by the now convicted Rudy Guede) and tortured with the blade of a 13.4 inch kitchen knife. Her throat had been savagely cut resulting in a slow and painful death.

Furthermore, the evidence suggests that Meredith had been locked in her room to die; her phones were stolen and thrown in a nearby garden to prevent what could have been her only remaining chance to be saved. The medical examiner Luca Lalli stated in a recent closed hearing that Meredith had in all likelihood been attacked by more than one assailant.

The evidence available so far indicates that one or all of the assailants ensured and took pleasure in Meredith Kercher’s suffering during the humiliating attack that resulted in her tragic death. The victim sustained numerous injuries as she was taunted with the knife, forcibly held and fought for her life. There is no doubt in my mind that the victim suffered a horrifying and sustained attack designed to invoke fear and to humiliate.

Motive and group dynamic

As yet the motive remains unclear. In a previous post I suggested that the murder of Meredith Kercher could be categorised as a sex related homicide and possibly one with a rape and/or sodomy motivation with humiliation and domination as a possible motive. This could fit with any number of scenarios including a premeditated plan to rape and/or kill or a ‘game’ designed to frighten or intimidate Meredith which got out of hand.

Both scenarios can be explained by a possible group dynamic or ‘pack mentality’ leading to the deindividuation of group members that could have resulted in the level of violence that night. This is an important point to consider as neither the convicted Rudy Guede nor the defendants Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito have a history of violence.

In this post I also discussed possible roles within the group and a hierarchical structure with one or more of the assailants ‘falling into’ their individual role, one restraining the victim, one sexually assaulting her and the other facing the victim and taunting her with the tip of the knife. It seems likely that each individual had their own reasons for taking part in the attack and that certain fantasies or ideas came into play as a result

Despite the theory that a pack mentality resulted in the level of violence that night I also discussed the idea that this ‘group’ in all likelihood had a leader or a ‘puppet master’ pulling the strings and conducting the show, I suggested that this person was in all likelihood the knife wielder. DNA evidence has implicated Amanda Knox in this role.

The idea that there was a more dominant person in the room that night has troubled me, as has the evidence suggesting the apparent excitement of the defendants Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito in the days following the murder, this coupled with the repeated use of the word in many blogs, news reports and forums and has done nothing to dissuade me that there may have been a sadist in the room that night.

The Sadist

Sadism is the act of deriving pleasure (often sexual) from inflicting or watching the suffering, humiliation or pain of others. The spectrum of sadism is wide and ranges from a person who enjoys dominating a willing partner as part of a healthy sexual relationship, to the more severe end of the spectrum which can include the torture, strangulation, rape or murder of an unwilling ‘participant’. Usually the signs of sexual sadism begin in adolescence or early adulthood. Clinicians charged with treating those at the more dangerous and severe end of the spectrum believe that this type of behaviour is usually chronic and increases in severity over time.

Some have theorised that certain individuals may go on to demonstrate sadistic tendencies as the result of a fragile childhood fraught with tension, abuse or violence, it could be argued that the uncertainty or powerlessness felt by these individual during times that are crucial to their individual development, could result in an attempt to compensate by being strong and tough to avoid feeling vulnerable, out of control or abandoned, the construction of these compensating drives could mingle with sexual ideas or fantasies during adolescence and early adulthood. This in turn could lead to a desire to dominate, control or humiliate others and derive sexual pleasure from it.

Research by Grey et al (2003) has indicated that all sorts of people from all walks of life engage in what is sometimes referred to as’ deviant sexual fantasising’, studies have also reported no significant gender differences in the frequency of sadistic sexual fantasies.

Some researchers believe certain childhood indicators could be linked to the development of deviant sexual fantasies in adolescence or early adulthood, some of these indicators include daydreaming, headaches, nightmares, poor body image, phobias and isolation. Behaviour indicators in adolescence and early adulthood include chronic masturbation, chronic lying and rebelliousness.

Some people who experience deviant sexual fantasies can later go on to act upon them, some may do so with a willing partner and some may go on to sexually assault, abuse or even kill. Possible behavioural indicators for sexual murder later in life, outlined by Burgess et al (1986) have also been seen in a non-offending group who also experienced deviant sexual fantasies.

In other words, attempting to pin-point whether deviant sexual fantasising is linked to behavioural clues in childhood or adolescence is too reductionist, people are so different and may go on to act on these sexual fantasies for different reasons and in different ways. It’s not always possible to tell who will act on these fantasies and if they do, who will take them too far and who will enjoy them as part of a healthy sex life.

Indeed, in certain cases it seems that the severity of these types of deviant sexual fantasies only becomes apparent when someone gets hurt or killed. It may also be the case that these fantasies and the desire to act upon them are only awakened upon an encounter or interaction with another human being who is or who the individual believes is a willing ‘partner’ in the fantasy.

Several female killers have reportedly been ‘drawn in’ to the world of BDSM and played along with or shared intimate sexual fantasies with a partner they later assisted in rape and murder. Myra Hindley is one example, Karla Homolka another.

A sadist in the room?

The evidence available so far indicates that the objective of the attack may have been to humiliate, dominate or control Meredith, possibly with the objective of ‘softening her up’ for a sexual assault or rape. Another possibility is the idea that they wanted to frighten Meredith and things got out of hand very quickly, these are just two of a number of scenarios put forward by various individuals following the case as to how the attack came about, but one factor remains constant and unchallengeable; the attack on Meredith was extremely brutal and sadistic.

Evidence of prolonged humiliation/suffering of the victim:

The evidence suggests that during the attack, the victim ceased to be a human being to the assailants and merely became a toy with which to do as they pleased. Evidence suggesting that the victim was subjected to an attack designed to control/dominate/humiliate and/or prolong her fear and suffering includes:

• Injuries consistent with being forcibly and very roughly restrained
• Some of the victim’s clothes were removed
• Evidence of sexual assault (possible rape motive)
• Knife wounds indicating she was taunted and tortured prior to death
• Manual strangulation
• Extremely violent slow and painful death (overkill)
• The victim was locked away to die alone and in pain
• The victim was denied any chance to call for help by having her lifeline (the phones) removed

Bruising to the victim’s lips as well as injuries to her neck and throat suggests any pleas and cries for help or mercy went unnoticed or were disregarded. The victim was completely under the control of the assailants. It could be argued that the injuries sustained by the victim increased as a result of her attempting to free herself from their grasp, as the evidence suggests this could be the case it could also be argued that the aim of the attack was to make Meredith submissive to the individual ‘needs’ or ‘desires’ of the group. For Rudy this could have been the desire to have sex with Meredith, for Amanda and Raffaele this could have been the desire to see her humiliated and frightened.

Evidence to suggest the assailants may have derived sexual pleasure from the humiliation and suffering of the victim

The evidence of a group dynamic leading to this level of violence sadly does not surprise me. In many cases of group initiated violence the victim suffers injuries above and beyond what is necessary to kill, this is referred to by law enforcement agencies as overkill. However, one of the most tragic and horrific aspects of this case is the brutal and degrading final hour of Meredith’s life as the result of an act I am convinced was designed and executed to ensure total suffering, control and humiliation, this fact is crucial in terms of understanding the etiology of this crime.

Rudy Guede
Despite having taken part in a brutal and senseless crime against another human being I do not believe Rudy Guede was sexually aroused by what he saw that night, in fact I believe he was sat on the toilet having ‘bottled it’, probably unable to ‘perform’. He did not call for an ambulance; he did not attempt to save the victim instead he ran like a coward, but I suspect that his motivation for running was cowardice rather than the enjoyment of ensuring the victim suffered. Rudy Guede deserves his 30 year sentence and so far he has done nothing to bring closure to the victims long suffering family yet I do not believe he was the instigator or ‘puppet master’ that night. He is to put it plainly, too much of a coward.

Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito

During the attack
The suspected murder weapon contains Amanda’s DNA on the handle of the knife and the victims DNA on this tip; this suggests that Amanda wielded the knife, tortured and eventually killed Meredith Kercher. The crime reconstruction has suggested that Raffaele restrained Meredith and if this is the case it was he that caused the bruises on her arms and lips as well as the broken hyoid bone in her neck. It could also have been Raffaele that attempted to strangle the victim. The crime reconstruction, supported by forensic evidence, has placed AK and RS firmly at the centre of this crime in an attack designed to ensure Meredith was humiliated, afraid and suffering.

If the motive for the attack was just to frighten Meredith how and why did things go this far? If the motive was to sexually assault the victim why did she sustain injuries consistent with torture? Torturing the victim would have no logical role in either the ‘game’ or the ‘rape’ scenario and therefore we could conclude that the person wielding the knife gained some sort of enjoyment from the reaction of the victim to the injuries being inflicted.

Similarly it seems that the victim was overly and very forcibly restrained. It could be argued that the presence of the knife would have been sufficient to ensure ‘compliance’, Meredith bravely fought for her life and I believe the victim was informed of her imminent ‘fate’ resulting in a struggle and an increase in the level of violence to ensure she was at all times under the assailants control.

The evidence suggests that AK and RS were present when Meredith was sexually assaulted and it could be argued that it was the knowledge of this assault that resulted in the crime scene being staged to look like a rape in order to lead investigators to focus on the evidence they knew would implicate Guede. No DNA evidence has been found which suggests that AK and RS sexually assaulted Meredith but the evidence does suggest they watched. It is certainly possible that they gained some sort of twisted pleasure from watching Meredith suffer this terrible indignity.

After the murder
Following the discovery of the body AK and RS aroused the suspicion of the investigating officers and those close to Meredith by acting inappropriately. Testimony from several of Meredith’s English friends and others has indicated that Amanda and Raffaele displayed overtly sexualised behaviour in the police station following the discovery of the body. They allegedly kissed, cuddled, hugged, whispered and pulled faces at each other, at one point Amanda put her feet on Raffaele and sat on his lap. In the hours following the discovery of the body this behaviour indicates they were in some way aroused.

When one of Meredith’s English friends expressed the wish that Meredith didn’t suffer, Amanda allegedly informed her that Meredith had “f*****g bled to death” before being so kind as to inform the horrified girl that Meredith “would have died slowly and in a lot of pain.” I find it hard to believe that anyone could interpret this statement as anything other than callous and disgusting, given the information we have now and the evidence that suggests her own involvement it seems Amanda may have derived some sort of pleasure from the reaction to it. Amanda seemed excited at the police station and informed another of Meredith’s English friends that she could fill her in on any details she needed to know. Amanda seemed ‘proud of finding the body’ even though the officers later testified she hadn’t been able to see into the room.

The following day the couple were seen in the ‘Bubble’ lingerie store kissing, hugging, petting, laughing and seemingly having a whale of a time. Amanda bought a camisole top and a g-string, they discussed the ‘hot sex’ they were going to have once they got back to Raffaele’s apartment. The store owner clearly thought their conduct in the store that day was suspicious enough to alert the police who catalogued it alongside the mounting circumstantial evidence of inappropriate behaviour.

Two days after the murder Amanda sent an email to 23 of her family and friends making crude references to the blood in the bathroom possibly being from ‘menstrual issues’ Meredith was having, she also discussed how the police had asked her if Meredith liked anal sex and if she ever used Vaseline. I find it hard to believe that these are reasonable things to write under any circumstance and certainly not considering the subject of the email, they are deeply personal and it could be argued that Amanda enjoyed the further indignity to Meredith by sharing it with her friends and family as if it was meaningless gossip.

This callous and sexualised post crime behaviour must have seen particularly chilling when more evidence came to light and the two were arrested.

Sexually Deviant Fantasies?

Amanda’s short story ‘Baby Brother’ contains references to a rapist. She also wrote to a former boyfriend discussing how she wanted to watch and put some porn ‘into practice’ with him. Though the sex with a stranger on a train and the presence of the vibrator in the bathroom seems like ‘nothing’ it does help to paint the picture of a sexually vivacious young woman who quickly began a very intense relationship with a quiet and possibly disturbed young man.

Similarly Raffaele does not appear to be out of the ordinary with regard to his sexual tastes, he was a virgin when he met Amanda who enjoyed violent manga, watched some extreme pornography (what young man hasn’t?) and collected knives, this could have led to some deviant sexual fantasies but as the literature indicates these are perfectly normal for both men and women.

It does seem that AK and RS became sexually obsessed with each other very quickly and upon meeting Amanda allegedly spent virtually every night with him. Though it is not clear what the motive for the attack on Meredith was, it could be suggested that humiliation or a desire to control and inflict suffering was conscious or unconscious factor. They could have shared sexual fantasies or brought out something in each other that they had not acted on previously, had not anticipated or thought they could control.

If this is the case and one or both of the defendants were acting upon dormant sexually deviant fantasies that night it could help to explain the humiliation and suffering Meredith endured and the strange sexualised post crime behaviour that disturbed so many.