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.
April 22, 2009 at 6:55 pm
Miss Represented,
Thanks for taking the words from AKnox apart bit by bit with Eyes for Lies info too. When one assembles the words used by Knox together with the logic both you and Eyes provide, it presents a clear picture of Knox. She thinks she is a master manipulator. And she may be right! I’m sure this has worked for her in her past. After all, it is much easier to manipulate family and various associates than it is to do so with the police or lawyers who will do some basic fact checking to get to the bottom of a sadistic murder. In my opinion, Knox is guilty of murder. How else can we explain all the “little” lies and “little” personality quirks? Her family rightly states that none of the little lies (confusion in their minds), or personality quirks (endearing in their minds) make her guilty of murder. But once collected and put aside the coming evidence in the trial – the total picture is quite damning. This of course is only my opinion, gathered from months of reading about the evidence, trial and documents from the court requiring Knox to be held for trial. I appreciate your thoughts on the case as well as Eyes.
A question for you: in order to become such a “master” manipulator, must a child be allowed to get away with things while growing up or is it somehow learned in order to get away with things? Does this question make sense? I see quite a few young manipulators and can’t quite tell if the parents are humored by this behavior or if indeed the wool has been pulled over the parent’s eyes.
Thanks.
April 22, 2009 at 8:41 pm
Hi Miss Represented,
Once again, a great post!.
About Amanda “deciding to stay to help the police”, I don’t believe for a second. At the very beginning she was a witness and as such she was requested not to leave town but to join the rest of the crowd at the police station to be interviewed. She would have been free to go afterwards had everything gone well. Meredith’s British friends did not “decide” to stay to help the police either, they were also interviewed for hours and incidentally, I didn’t read a single complaint from them about stress, fatigue etc. After the interviews, they were free to leave and I’ve read they returned to the UK. On the contrary,Amanda’s and Raffaele’s interviews didn’t go that well, so at that point they weren’t allowed to leave the country. It was never up to her to decide if to remain in Perugia.
About the line “a lawyer would make things worse for you”, what you write is absolutely correct. In the beginning, Amanda was a “person informed of facts”, so what police did was explaining her how things work: having a lawyer present means one’s status has turned into that of a suspect so the perspective would definitely be worse, considering that she was being interviewed in the context of a murder investigation.
April 22, 2009 at 10:59 pm
Great article!
Didn’t OJ Simpson write a book, “I Want To Tell You” some years ago?
Hmmmmmmmmm. Tricky.
April 22, 2009 at 11:47 pm
Great write up MR.
Amanda Amanda Amanda. Why are we all so fascinated and infuriated by Amanda? I have asked myself this many times. She drives me nuts. The motherly part of me pities her, wants to believe her, sees every fact from the opposite view, to see how it could be construed as innocent. Does anyone else do this? Does anyone else want to own the emotion that we want Amanda to be innocent. Maybe it is just a maternal thing in overdrive. I don’t know. The problem is that maternal as I may feel, protective as I DO feel….I just don’t believe her. I kind of feel sorry for her at the same time. Like Pat comments, how do kids end up like this. I wonder. I wonder if Amanda is not like part of all of us deep down. I am supposing she is covering up ‘involvement’ here, rather than as the sadistic aggressor. She’s a KID. Stupid. We know how STUPID kids of this age can be. It got WAY out of hand. She never meant it to happen. Something terrible happened.
My wish is that she confesses her role and that it is more minor. Is this a personal wish? Yes. I want to believe in the good daughter in the wrong place at the wrong time. I want to believe that she is the sweet girl she seemed. I want it all to be a horrible, horrible mistake.
But I know….fantasies are NOT reality. I know that however much I want to protect and excuse Amanda, it cannot be done if there is a shred of guilt. She needs to come clean before she can hope for forgiveness. She’s on a long road here. I wonder if she realised how long.
Anyone else? Am I the only one that feels these conflicting emotions about Amanda, whilst feeling acutely aware of the probability of guilt? Any thoughts on what it IS about her that gets to us? What she represents to us as (mainly) women and mothers? Just a discussion point. I need some angles here, to help me work it all out! TB.
April 23, 2009 at 12:57 am
Dear Miss R,
Thank you for another very interesting post on this sad and fascinating case.
From the first moment of hearing Amanda’s “statement” I had no sense that she was trying to explain or express anything–but only that she was trying to manipulate and enlist the sympathy of the listener. It’s as if she wants to make a case for an insanity plea– temporary, due to duress–without in fact admitting to any crime, (except the crime of her false accusation of Patrick).
To gain our sympathy, she acts like a very young and brutalized child. You expect her at any minute to cry it’s “not fair” and that she needs her “blankie.” She lays it on so thick that it brought back to my mind the video of Amanda in Seattle when she’s “drunk” and someone is filming her performance, because you can tell she’s mostly acting drunk, and not very convincingly. Just as here she’s acting the lost and distressed and abused child. (And yet I, too, heard that moment when she truly seems to break down.)
As you said, we can never expect her to make sense. There’s no sense there.
April 23, 2009 at 12:59 am
Some kid! She’s dangerous and should be locked up forever. A cold blooded killer who went on her merry way. Lies. Callous lies. No concern for anyone in the world and that includes their own families. She’ll bandrupt her parents and never apologize. There are enough nice people who make mistakes in this world for me to feel sorry for. I don’t feel sorry for the three scumbags who hijacked Meredith’s life. They held her down and molested her before choking and stabbing her to death. Meredith died alone, locked in a room. The three should be locked up for life, and that is too good for them!
You can’t save people from themselves. Amanda and Raffaele are not the victims here. Meredith Kercher is the victim. Try saying it a few times and maybe it will sink in.
April 23, 2009 at 7:45 am
One hundred per-cent agreed with tou Jumpy. Let’s not forget who the real victim is here.
Many people grow up in far worse circumstances than AK47, and do not go on to kill and lie like she does. I shall not try to find empathy for her or RS- if remorse was an emotion they were capable of feeling- where the hell is it?
April 23, 2009 at 8:25 am
Yes. I know. I am just trying to open the discussion out a little. I never said Meredith was not the victim. I think everyone accepted that a long time ago. Meredith is and always will be the victim. But there are other victims of this crime who have done nothing wrong. The horror radiates out from this one act, like ripples on a pool. I am not saying I think Amanda et al are innocent. I am not saying they don’t deserve everything they get when the IMO inevitable verdict is in. I am just exploring some of the emotions that the case provokes with the very thoughtful and sensitive members of this board.
April 23, 2009 at 8:39 am
I think this case means many things to many people. Everyone who comes to the boards comes with their own reasons. Maybe they have kids of this age. Maybe they have suffered an attack themselves, or lost someone they loved to a violent crime. Maybe they feel a deep sense of injustice in their own lives that they see represented in this case. Who knows. I think it is important that everyone’s emotions about the case are respected. After all, none of us know the reasons behind them. This has always been a very intelligent, gentle forum where I think these things can be explored without being shouted down. It is mainly concerned with the psychological aspects of the crime, which Miss Represented explores with great insight. I know her position on Amanda. However I also think anyone with a real interest in the psychological aspects of the case will be interested – as all academics are – in the wider ramifications of a single event. The context. What it MEANS as well as what it IS. So I make no apology for posing the question. Reading it in the cold light of day it does sound quite soft on AK I agree, and that was not really my intention. I was more interested in hearing from others about their own possible conflicting emotions, and what AK and the case MEANS to them. What she symbolises to people, and the emotions she and RS provoke. Maybe it is just me that finds this fascinating. But I do think there is interesting discussion to be had around this issue. It’s just the ol’lecturer in me!
April 23, 2009 at 10:21 am
Hey guys, thanks for the interesting comments as always.
The Eyes for Lies analysis really caught my attention, especially as Eyes didn’t offer any of her own knowledge about the details of the case and it really does seem that she is very intuitive.
Pat: I’ve always been worried by Amanda’s behaviour and perplexed by the fact that she has at times made things unequivocally worse for herself. The behaviour at the police station and in the lingerie store really wouldn’t have been so deeply scrutinised had she been able to give the police a coherent and believable account of her actions and whereabouts the night Meredith was killed.
Amanda has lied time and time again and her statement to the judge highlights this. I see no reason why Amanda would need to lie if she had really been at the apartment with Raffaele that night and I see no reason why she would imply that she had been mistreated unless she was trying to divert attention away from her accusation of Patrick by blaming police brutality. Amanda is certainly manipulative but unfortunately for her, not that sophisticated when it comes to attempting to conceal her own possible involvement in the crime. A good liar needs a good memory and it seems Amanda’s recollection isn’t the best.
Amanda’s family have also made things worse for her and I do feel at times a little sorry for them because it appears she is manipulating them too. Your question is interesting, how does a child learn to be manipulative? To be honest I think we are seeing a lot more manipulative young people now than ever. You only have to look at children and adolescent marketing campaigns encouraging kids to nag their parents to get what they want, encouraging them in the belief that they aren’t complete unless they have that remote controlled racing car, the latest mobile phone or mp3 player. Young people are encouraged from a very young age to get what they want, when they want it and not really think about who has to pay for it or whether they even really need it. It does seem to follow that because of the kind of society these kids grow up in they seem to feel they are entitled to have whatever they want without having to work hard or be considerate.
I’m not much older than Amanda myself and you wouldn’t believe the amount of young people around me in their early twenties who simply have no concept of the real world, work, money or the basic principles of respect. It’s all about: How much can I get for doing as little as possible? It’s a real shame and who is picking up the tab? The parents naturally.
The Bard: I think we are fascinated by Amanda because she is young, female, attractive, studious etc and accused of such a brutal and horrific crime. The amount of interest in Amanda only serves to encourage my belief that she was at the centre of this somehow.
I do feel for you Bard because it seems you have a desire to see the good in Amanda where some have either overinflated it or pushed it to one side altogether. I do not feel you should be criticised for seeing the human side in Amanda and reflecting on your feelings about the case and how they help you understand more about yourself. I myself am not hugely maternal but where some women go completely ga-ga when they see a baby I get that way about dogs, all sorts of dogs I absolutely love dogs. We all have a bit of maternal instinct within us and I think some people will reflect on this more when reading about the case. I do feel for Edda but think that after all this time, being strong for her daughter would be a lot more beneficial than crying her eyes out all the time. It doesn’t help anyone.
I too wish Amanda would confess whatever it is she is hiding. Maybe I’m being cynical but I think at this stage there really is only one confession that Amanda would be working so hard to suppress: her own involvement in the murder.
I hope you don’t feel discouraged expressing your emotional views on the case Bard, your opinions are valued and insightful, as you say we each come to the boards for our own reasons and should at all times be respected and appreciated for seeking truth and justice for the victim and her family.
Didi: I agree it does seem that Amanda gets awfully stressed when things aren’t going her way. There have been a few occasions when she has cried in the courtroom, probably due to the fact that things weren’t panning out the way she and her lawyers planned.
The Knox/Mellas family have a lot to answer for as they have been giving Amanda false hope from the very beginning, it’s probably a little unfair to criticise them for this as she is their kid, but it is never okay to lie or manipulate on behalf of your child in order to conceal their involvement in a serious crime. What does this teach them? It’s okay to do whatever you like because we love you. Several people have made the comment that the Knox/Mellas family have been giving Amanda the impression that they’d only love her if she is innocent. I wonder what would happen if she is found guilty.
Jumpy: I think Amanda has nearly succeeded in bankrupting her father, not sure about her mother. Last I heard he’d spent $500,000 on her defence. If she’s found guilty the appeal alone will destroy him, I can’t say for sure but I’d probably guess that Amanda presumed her parents would come to her aid and pay for her defence and no, she’ll probably never apologise. After all she’s their little angel who would never do such a thing.
I’m not sure who you are reminding that Meredith is the victim. Perhaps you could clarify? Everyone that posts here is welcome to their individual beliefs including yourself and the person you believe is somehow ‘disrespecting’ the victim. I don’t think this is the case at all. Understanding the defendants will only serve to increase our understanding of the case and what happened that night and though I can appreciate that this case brings out some strong feelings in people it is also important to consider the defendants as people, despite any crime they may have committed. Though I appreciate this may be hard for some people to do.
I have seen The Bard criticised on other boards for expressing her opinion on this matter, this is unfair and unnecessary. I don’t want to see it here please. We all know that The Bard has been following the case with interest and is knowledgeable about the facts. She has just as much right to express her views on Amanda as you or I. You completely missed the point of what she was trying to say.
A little analogy is needed, slightly OT for a minute:
Last night me and a good friend were discussing global warming, my friend is not really a fan of global warming in fact he loathes it with a passion. There are quite a few people out there who believe that climate change is a great big con and sadly they are often accused of not caring about the environment at all and not wanting to save the planet. Global warmists will often say: “well if you don’t believe in global warming you might as well believe that flushing a ton of mercury waste down a river is okay!” This couldn’t be further from the truth. Not believing in global warming doesn’t make you any less interested in preserving and honouring the planet than the person that does. In the same way as expressing or taking an interest in Amanda, the way she is feeling and opening up the discussion doesn’t mean you are disrespecting the victim.
With this in mind I am happy to open the discussion up to anyone that would like to explore this area further. If you would like to debate the issue please feel free. Please keep it case focused and respect other posters.
Cheers.
April 23, 2009 at 12:22 pm
Just briefly , if I can, I’d like to acknowledge The Bard’s point about caring for Amanda. I am 95% convinced of her guilt, and I cannot bear to think of the pain and fear Mez would’ve struggled with those last few hours. Whoever did it surely did have a real evil side to them at that point.
However it has been discussed here before how people will act worse in a group than if they were on their own- I believe the Nazi’s have been used as an example to show what kind of sick, perverse behaviour can be brought about by individuals in a group that, if left to their own devices, would never dream of acting out in such a way.
No one has yet said, to my knowledge, that Amanda and co were people attracted to murder in such a way that they would be a danger to others around them, in the way that serial killers are. I think it was a one off event that came about with that particular culmanation of people at that specific time, with that specific victim.
It is that idea that brings fear in my heart. If Amanda is by all other respects fairly normal as a early twenties girl feeling freedom for the first time then we are surrounded by Amandas! Each university town runs the risk of a girl like Amanda, a quiet geeky boy with a love of knives like Raff, and a druggy bad boy like RG getting together and some catalyst setting them off down the same route as that fateful night.
It is that reason that I want so much to believe it was a very bad man, the kind you can make out in the street and know to stay away from. The person you know not to get involved with.
Then we can feel safer.
If its Amanda and co, as evidence points to, then anyone in your class could be the next murderer. My lovely little sister could be the next Amanda. The couple on that bench over there could be the next Amanda and Raff.
In my opinion that is why I wish Amanda to be innocent. She is, on the surface, every next door neighbour, every girl in the next classroom, every person in the shop next to you, and that is far too much fear for the normal person to have to face daily. How would we ever trust anyone? It could be your roommate.
Thanks Miss R for another excellent post- I’ve been checking daily!!
April 23, 2009 at 12:35 pm
Hey Miss R
Excellent analysis and good to see another take on Eye’s explanations.
I just wanted my two penneth in for The Bard. I totally understand where you are coming from with your irrational need to find Amanda innocent based on her looks, age, and your motherly instincts. I think this is sort of what I struggle with when it comes to Raffaele. When I look at his face, i don’t see a killer like I do Knox & Guede. I see an immature geek with really wrong friends, he’s clever but not street enough to be Guede’s proper friend. Knox is though. I’ve got lots of reasons for thinking this and I do think ultimately that he is guilty of something very serious indeed. i just think he has more room to breathe than the other two. if this independent review of the hard drive comes back and shows no activity between 9 and midnight on the night Meredith was killed, i might start to believe he’s 100% guilty of murder. I’ve always thought Knox & Guede did the deed while Raf was the clean up man, but I’m always prepared to change this opinion if evidence start to contradict my ideas. So long as The Bard is coming at this with the same “i’ll change my mind when the evidence does” attitude, she’s alright with me
April 23, 2009 at 1:15 pm
Ginny
Excellent post. This is just the sort of response I hoped for. You have crystallised a thought and feeling I have had for some time now. Interesting to hear that others share it. I think a lot has been written about women as murderers and how difficult it is for people to accept the idea. It has been suggested that we find it harder to accept because it violates the taboo about women as nurturers and carers; it messes with our own psychology with regard to our own mothers – that helplessness we feel as children is a complex and disturbing matter. Freud could explain this much better. That fear – although we may have no conscious recollection of it – is fear of annihilation. Your mother is the life giver, the life sustainer, and yet when she does not respond the fear – the child’s cry – is that she will not return, not care for you and that you will not survive. It is a fascinating idea. Some think it underlies much of the violence towards women. It is infantile rage. The emotions towards the mother/female are mixed. She is desperately wanted, and yet she has such power that she is feared simultaneously. When a woman becomes a murderer this anger and rage seems to bubble over from the unconscious I think, into the the conscious realm. This is why female killers are so deeply vilified by press and public. We all understand the ‘bad man’. We don’t understand the bad woman, and we won’t forgive her for betraying our need to believe that Mother will always be there.
Amanda is not a mother figure in any sense, so I was keen to hear others views on what she symbolised to them. Both you and Miss Represented have hit the nail right on the head. Yes, Ginny, I think that is EXACTLY it. She seems so normal, so representative of her generation that I think the horror she engenders is just what you say: it could be anyone. And MR’s point about the way children are brought up highlight the other part of the anxiety. It is about the world as it is now, the world and culture children are growing up in. So I think, broadening it out, as you both have beautifully, I have an answer. It is the fear of the enemy within and that part that we all have – or fear we may have – murderous rage. If these ‘normal’ kids can do it, could I? Could my little sister/the kids on the corner?
Mmmm…interesting stuff. Thanks for understanding my point. ‘A’ Star students!!!
April 23, 2009 at 1:38 pm
Miss Represented : Thank you for your kind comments. It is a really nice space here. Very thoughtful and accepting. I think I have got into trouble with others before for being overprotective. It is just in my nature I’m afraid. I do like to see the good in all. My background may have some bearing. I worked with messed up and deviant teenagers for quite a long time, in a college setting and a hospital setting, and through this have some insight into deviant behaviour. In that job you learn to hate the crime, not the criminal. Hating the criminal is not your job, and doesn’t really get anyone anywhere. It is more important to understand the criminal, find out why they do the crime and help them towards staying on the straight and narrow. Then you have a good outcome for everyone. Through this work I have heard more stories of pain and suffering than I care to recall. I came to see the ‘criminal’ as the victim also in some cases. Many people have no truck with this at all, which is why they don’t do that job. They prefer a black and white/right and wrong view of the world, which is fine. The need for certainty is quite understandable and human.
Many many behaviours are because of trauma suffered by victims of abuse. This is just a fact. Their acts are a metaphor for what they are feeling. Quick example of this today in the gutter press here: some guy took a video of a little girl beating and abusing a dog. He stood there for 15 full minutes filming it and then sold it to a newspaper. I saw that and my immediate thought was – ‘What does that dog represent to that little girl?’ I would put money on it that she has been bullied quite badly; she looked a little overweight, and many of the comments in the paper referred to it. Quite disgusting language about a child. Yes, it’s a HORRIBLE thing to do, no-one would dispute that. But my instinctive response to that story was ‘What is this behaviour telling us?’. It’s just how I think. I would want to look at her home and school life as a matter of urgency. Incidently, the moral outrage of the guy filming rang hollow for me. FIFTEEN MINUTES? How much did he care for the dog? Or the girl? He should have stopped it at once and talked to the girl and her parents about what he’d seen. It was just more bullying, and bullying of the paper to print it. The comments were further abuse for the girl to endure and no doubt her identity will be found out with more bullying to follow. I saw that story as one of child abuse almost. Others saw just the dog abuse, and were happy to join in with the child abuse. You see my point? You take your pick. Because I try to understand the child’s behaviour it doesn’t mean I condone beating dogs! I think you get the point very well, as with your global warming friend!
I should also add, in case anyone is in any doubt: I personally think Amanda is 100% guilty. I really do. I don’t think she stands a chance of getting away with this. I don’t know what she did, but she did something very very bad and is trying to cover it up. I condemn crime and violence in all forms. It is an anathema to me. I also believe in justice and I think whoever did this to Meredith should be locked up for life. Make no mistake here. I am not unable to make moral judgements about wrong-doing. I just find it interesting to explore meaning in other ways.
Ok, I’ll shut up now! Keep up the good work MR, you’re doing great.
April 23, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Would everyone feel the same if Amanda and Raffaele were ugly? Would they?
Please think about it.
April 23, 2009 at 4:10 pm
I would.
April 23, 2009 at 4:14 pm
P.s I actually think that the case is so extraordinary that people would be just as intrigued, and probably come to the same conclusions whether they were attractive or not. Their looks are unimportant on so many levels, but do mean that the press are more interested I imagine, hence there is more public awareness of the case.
April 23, 2009 at 4:14 pm
Definitely- I personally think Raff is ugly and Amanda is very plain. Its more about the reactions of their friends and family to say they are normal young people. Well I think a lot of people are primarily ‘normal’, and that scares me as I believe both defendants very capable of this crime, ergo, most people I know could logically be capable of such a crime.
As I said in a previous post I house shared for a while with a girl who is remarkably alike to Amanda- looking back at her behaviour now in comparison to Amanda I have no doubt that she too could of committed some similar activity if the situation and other ‘cast’ members had come into her life at the right time.
I am not so naive to believe that no one is ever swayed by attractiveness but I really don’t believe looks are a big feature in this case and the points made here today- apart from if they were remarkably grotesque maybe people would attribute that as a factor as to motive to kill the beautiful Meredith.
The fact that they aren’t hideous or stunning IMO, makes it a far more scary case as they are just normal kids on the face of it, and I am surrounded by normal kids.
April 23, 2009 at 5:06 pm
Jumpy Says:
“Would everyone feel the same if Amanda and Raffaele were ugly? Would they? Please think about it.”
I think we would not feel the same if they were ugly. They are both attractive enough to make us want to look at them, to identify with them. (Maybe not so much with Rudy–he’s a bit off-putting to me. No, this is not racist. I find Patrick Lumumba very appealing–and did even before I knew he was innocent.)
But the question of beauty affecting our expectations is a separate issue (the one everyone’s nattering on about in regard to Susan Boyle, the frumpy singing sensation). The most important thing is JUSTICE IS BLIND, or it is supposed to be (the symbolism of this is seen in the famous statue of Lady Justice, with the scales in her hand and the blindfold over her eyes): not meant to look at race, beauty, wealth or fame, but only at truth and justice–guilty or innocent?
So it may affect US, whether they’re attractive or not, but it should not affect the jury. (Sadly, the jury is only human, so it probably does.)
Also, it’s significant of course that once we think someone is guilty, they look different to us, right? Amanda’s smiles are beautiful to some of her Seattle friends, but they look like evil smirks to those of us who consider her guilty.
April 23, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Also….
Miss R, Can you expand on this a little:
“The amount of interest in Amanda only serves to encourage my belief that she was at the centre of this somehow.”
Do you mean that there is some innate “power” she projects that suggests the “ringleader”?
April 23, 2009 at 6:00 pm
Afternon Guys, I’ve been away from the computer learning how to use an amazing bit of kit called Endnote X2, if any of you hate referencing for reports/theses etc as much as I do it will probably save your brain from falling to mush, I know it will mine.
My general consensus has always been that these two seem like such unlikely culprits, not least because many of us have an idea of the sort of person that commits these types of violent offences, Amanda and Raffaele didn’t really fit with what I expected at all! I do believe to a certain extent that the amount of fuss made about Amanda could be in some way attributed to her looks and if I’m honest I really don’t think the media would have gone so completely ga-ga over her had she been a fat, ugly, spotty girl so I think Jumpy certainly has a point.
Then again I suppose my opinion could be swayed on the fat ugly frumpy front as a direct result of the sublime Susan Boyle, what a voice!!!
I think this case is extraordinary for a number of reasons and wouldn’t worry about the girl next door suddenly transforming into your worst nightmare any time soon. I do think to a certain extent that the set of circumstances that lead to the death of Meredith Kercher were entirely unique which of course makes the crime itself unique. Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy however are not unique and I have for a long while seen a group of young spoiled kids with no real set of values and no understanding of their position in the world or the thoughts feelings and actions of others, I cannot say for certain whether either of them would have found themselves in this kind of position in future had they never met, I cannot say they are predisposed to this kind of behaviour, what I can say is that each of them have been convicted or accused of a deeply heinous and horrific murder it just so happens that they aren’t ugly kids.
Didi, I believe that Amanda has a natural desire/ability to be in the middle, she is an attention seeker, she is confident, competitive and brash. The press have picked her out at the ‘femme fatale’ when in most instances they’d be calling battered wife syndrome or sexual abuse, they’ve seen something underneath and are probably reluctant to leave the sensationalism of a pretty American temptress behind, it does after all sell papers.
April 24, 2009 at 3:10 am
Hi, Miss R: This was an excellent post: I had enjoyed Eyes for Lies’ analysis, and it was made more thorough and profound by your own detailed critique and synopsis. There is a Chinese phrase, of Emperor Wang Bi, that to me would seem to sum up Amanda’s statement: “The words of a man who has lost his standpoint are twisted. ”
By the way, a comment to The Bard: I know precisely what you mean. I am VERY conflicted about Amanda, and feel an odd wave of sympathy for her. Of course, I find I cannot think of Meredith, as it makes me too sad, and I almost feel her position as victim is precious: I do not feel I have the right to probe or dwell with regard to her. All I can do is feel sorrow for her, and for her poor family. But I think there is something of the Archetypal American girl in Amanda, with a horrific twist. And one does indeed find oneself thinking, “Perhaps she had no idea things would go that way. . . ” I think the Bard is merely showing that she is human, and looking at another human being, and wanting terribly to be compassionate, or to believe that somehow things are not quite so bad. So it is much appreciated by me.
April 24, 2009 at 9:08 am
Miss R,
Thank you for the brilliant analysis.
I have been fascinated by Amanda’s use of language, her “helping the police”, “trying to …”,”sticking to the same story” etc. She is comfortable talking about herself, even more comfortable writing about herself, but there is one particular thing she can not and will not talk about and that is what she did between being seen by witness Jovana Popovic in the evening of 1st Nov and the time her mobile was switched on in the early morning of 2nd Nov.
With her use of that particular language, Amanda would obviously like to project that she had stayed in Perugia to be questioned by police almost out of goodness of her heart, that “correctly” remembering the events she was asked about and giving her account almost required some superhuman effort and that it was o.k. not to remember: she had done her best and should be commended.
Things which are obvious from this to me are the superficiality of her communication with her parents and the level of deceit that went on between them. The parents were probably too busy or too self-absorbed to look again or to ask a question again and demand a truthful answer. They are by no means unique: sadly there are millions of families where nobody has any real interest in the other and things are taken at face value.
In that sense I too see Amanda as a victim because she was not given the right kind of attention by her family who seemed not to look at HER but at an image of her and she was not given professional help which she had probably required.
Yet, Amanda is an adult and responsible for her actions. She most certainly played a key role in the torture and murder of another human being and she accused an innocent person of this. And when think of that and look at her pictures, she doesn’t seem pretty to me at all.
April 24, 2009 at 2:45 pm
I would agree with Principessa about AK feeling that she had done a great service to the investigation. I don’t think it is a delusion at all. This brings me back to a comment I made on “Feigning Amnesia” about how she grew up and here I mean the world of privilege and delusion she and her family seem steeped in, whether they fit into that world legitimately or whether they were part of it because of a generous scholarship. She seems to believe that she should not be questioned or doubted (as does her family) which, outside of her lying might account for the obfuscation of the truth.
I sense a general element of disbelief that this would be happening to her, even if she did it. And, frankly I think this comes from the top down…trickle down parenting, if you will. I said before that it is never okay to protect your children, shielding them from consequences when they have behaved egregiously. I know if my parents thought for a second I’d been involved with this, well, they’d be resigned to making Italy their lifelong vacation spot. They wouldn’t abandon me, but they would extoll my virtues either. I won’t even comment on RS and RG…goodness what a bunch of losers.
What angers me most is people spreading their inadequacies around to share with all…these three were not dumb, not even RG. Since I am a strong believer that none of them can claim insanity, they all consciously hurt MK to feed some insecurity or other issue within and once you put that kind of thing out into the universe you must be prepared to accept whatever comes back to you. I used to work as a teacher at a juvenile detention center with kids whose crimes had run the gamut of stealing pop from the store to rape and murder. One thing (among many) that I learned is the concept of street justice. The kids 12-18 who admitted and accepted their guilt would always say something like ‘look, I know I’m a kid, but I did it, I got involved in this life (usually gangs) so I know it comes with consequences and I want to be part of it (gang life), so…’ now I’m not saying they fully understood the ramification of what they were doing, they were still kids. I am not saying that they could analyze consequences and behaviors in as sophisticated a manner as an adult with a fully-developed adult brain, but it stuck with me. So, I say AK, RS, and RG better get ready for the consequences, if AK and RS get off, it’s still coming…They know it’s coming and they’re still trying to sidestep the inevitability of consequence.
I am so eager to see the outcome of this trial.
April 24, 2009 at 4:40 pm
Lilypad,
I’m sure you made a typo when you wrote,
“I know if my parents thought for a second I’d been involved with this, well, they’d be resigned to making Italy their lifelong vacation spot. They wouldn’t abandon me, but they WOULD extoll my virtues either.”
(All caps are mine)
But wow, what a freudian slip!
I’m a mother so I wonder about the role of a parent when your child IS guilty of such a horrible crime.
What is the best way to support your child and help them heal when they are guilty?
I believe Amanda is guilty. I believe that she didn’t plan to kill Meredith. I believe that a crazy plan went very, very wrong. I believe that Amanda should spend the rest of her life in jail.
What is Amanda going to be like when she is 40 and still in Italian jail?
If I was her mother, I think that it would be beneficial to help Amanda to confess, to feel remorse for her own benefit as well as Meredith Kercher’s family.
Nothing will bring back Meredith and Amanda should be in jail, not because I think she will kill again but because that is the punishment for murder. She must accept it and try to live her life atoning for her crime in jail.
Maybe she could start an organization that addresses prevention and treatment of narcissistic personality disorders?
I’m not trying to be flip. I’m just trying to see what is the most positive thing that could come out of this horrible, horrible tragedy. Meredith was murdered. Her family has been devastated, the Knox/Mellas family has been bankrupted and they have lost their daughter to a foreign prison for the rest of her life. That has to be truly devastating to them. Amanda’s life as a free person is over and she’s only 21, what a horrible, horrible waste.
I don’t mean to apologize for her. But the whole story is just so very very sad.
April 24, 2009 at 6:07 pm
Amelia-
Didn’t take it as being flip… It was not really a Freudian slip but a sticky delete key, because my parents would NOT be shouting my sweet, kindly nature in the context of this situation. Either way, I guess I meant that they (Amanda’s parents), if they really want to do good for her, should support her, but not deny her involvement at whatever level (because it is clear that she’s in pretty deeply and they know it, I think it’s plain to see with her father and I think it’s part of the reason her mother can only weep uncontrollably whenever she’s put on the spot) by extolling her virtues on the world stage. I don’t know if that makes sense.
Your statement:
“If I was her mother, I think that it would be beneficial to help Amanda to confess, to feel remorse for her own benefit as well as Meredith Kercher’s family.”
Is exactly what I was getting at. That’s what they should be doing not repeatedly telling the whole world how it’s not possible that she could be involved because of how much she loves, puppies, kitties, and smiley faces.
I don’t have children yet but was a teacher for a number of years and one, I’d like to think, who was perceptive, sensitive, and had her students’ best interests in mind. And I saw the Knoxes, the Sollecitos, and Guede’s “people” over and over again. I am drawing on that experience. And I agree that this whole thing is very sad. I thought of MK lying on the floor bleeding to death in a locked room just waiting to die. Too much.
That alone should have the parents of all three rising to the occasion of justice for all parties involved. But I do imagine it must be hard for a parent to accept that his/her child would brutally attack someone and leave them to die…locking them away and taking their only mode of communication. Because what else can that say about the perpetrator other than at a certain point they intended to kill the victim, if not from the start. Who wants to accept that? We don’t even want to and we have no connection to these people.
Ugh. I’ll stop here.
April 24, 2009 at 8:43 pm
First, an enormous Thank You to Miss Represented and to all the articulate, smart and sensitive members of this community. This is my first time posting, but I’ve watched this story since Nov 2007. Of all the sites that I’ve visited (I also admire and follow TJMK and PMF, although I started out at Candace D’s and Frank S’s blogs, having no idea how off-course they would eventually veer), this one comes closest to answering the questions that haunt me.
Second, I am sure that I’m not alone in feeling mildly embarrassed and deeply saddened to be grappling in the abstract with a tragedy that for Meredith’s family is so much more than a debate about theories of guilt or innocence. So why am I here?
I guess because I appreciate your hugely helpful psychological approach to this mystery. My primary question about the suspects – and it’s not a wholly original one – is driven by my personal experience (whose isn’t?) and is: why so much focus on Knox and so much less on Sollecito?
But quickly (I wish!) an overview of the background that drives my speculation.
It was brainlessly easy for me to relate to Amanda Knox when I first read of this crime. The knees jerked effortlessly to “innocent”. Over 35 years ago I was a 20-something American coed studying at the Universita per Stranieri in Perugia. I loved that town, studied hard, made many friends, and partied as if the world would end before I’d experienced it ALL.
Within two weeks of arriving in Perugia, however, I concluded something that shaped my social life for the following three years that I spent there: the young Italian men – whether students, or young professionals – who gravitated to me (as they did to all the foreign girls) too frequently related to me on a level of FANTASY that absolutely terrified me.
Nevertheless I became close friends with a number of them and the stories of their family relationships helped me to understand my own fear. With almost no exception, all complained of the suffocation of their family obligations, of the pressure to achieve, of upholding the reputation of the family within their very traditional communities. Many were shockingly spoiled, with toys that ranged from Maseratis to private apartments, to regular vacations on the Costa Smeralda. But even the boys from less wealthy families had clearly been coddled and carried the weight of their parents’ dreams like some intolerable carbuncle on their souls.
They were quick to talk about this pressure (or maybe I forced the discussions in order to distract them from what was really on their otherwise typically male collegiate minds) and the conversations often went to comparing their existence to mine. “You have no rules, you do whatever you want, you are free – away from your family – you don’t know what it’s like here.” It got to the point where I almost wished I could just be a simple sex object – being seen as the symbol of some unfettered all-encompassing hedonistic existence was way too weird.
The horror I encountered in Perugia was the oppressive discomfort of being someone else’s fantasy. Of course, the power that goes with that can be enormous, and heady. I can easily imagine what a rather average young American girl like Knox – and honestly, she’s pretty, but she’s no beauty queen – who has already shown a predilection for tough sports and general risk-taking, must feel like on encountering THAT. It’s the kind of power that she’d probably never enjoyed before. Was it like finding herself at the wheel of a Testarossa? Did it just get away from her?
I was struck early on reading Raffaele’s description of Amanda to his father as someone who “lived her life like a dream, detached from reality.” He may have phrased it to Dad as something odd and inappropriate (what was he trying to say, really?), but I believe pretty strongly that what Knox represented to Sollecito was far more seductive than he’d have ever admitted to the good Doctor: the freedom of living the dream that was denied to him by his own grinding social and family obligations.
And Sollecito’s dreams as we, who’ve witnessed the excavations of his My Space page and Manga comic and knife collections, all know – contained some VERY dark elements.
So – before this book gets any longer – and I apologize for its length, all to make a rather simple point – for what little it’s worth, my own theory as to what happened in this Perfect Storm of personalities is that Knox (or rather the Fantasy that she represented) was the catalyst, but that Sollecito was the explosion. Knox’s stories of listening to the screams with her hands over her ears in another room have an odd ring of truth to them. Did she recklessly fuel the game, take the dare, gather the team, then at some point – maybe after she’d make the first knife prick – did she suddenly wake up and realize what she’d ignited? Run into another room and try to pretend it wasn’t real while Sollecito and Guede took the game to its ultimate horrific conclusion?
Am I arguing for a reduced level of guilt for Knox? Absolutely not. I am just trying to understand how three previously rather harmless kids became such a brutal killing machine. To understand it, I wonder whether we don’t need to look more closely at Raffaele’s fantasies and family and a little less at the silly American tragedy of Knox who just got in way way over her rather stupid little head.
Although, I am still left stupefied by Knox’s behavior in the days after the trial and can’t begin to understand how – IF she pulled back from the final killing stroke – she then climbed right back into the driver’s seat and continued down the road with Raff. Maybe I just argued myself out of my own position?
- Rimbambita
PS. In my last months in Perugia I and a few of my friends made a little pocket money working as extras on a Sergio Martino “giallo” being shot there by a Roman film crew. I came across it recently for sale in DVD on the Internet and had the eerie experience of watching myself as a young coed sauntering across Piazza IV Novembre in 1972, oblivious to the ugly underside and “premonitionary” title of the film: “I corpi presentano tracce di violenza carnale”. It’s the story of the tastelessly gory butchering of foreign coeds in Perugia (it was released in the US as “Torso”). Do the fantasies of the film industry (are these our communal dreams?) reflect or fuel those of individuals like Raffaele?
But ENOUGH. Again, thanks to MR and to everyone who populates this discussion. I needed to think about this and I appreciate the opportunity to do so out loud in a place as sane as this one.
April 24, 2009 at 9:09 pm
amelia bedelia and lilypad,
I agree with both of you regarding the role of parents in the unfortunate situation of their children being perpetrators of a very serious crime.
A parent (and a good friend) should encourage the perpetrator to confess the crime and go through the process of remorse. Clearly, for believers, that is the only way of redemption, but also, for non-believers, that is hugely important because otherwise there can be no healing.
Amanda’s mother obviously thinks differently. In spite of all her delusional drivel in front of the cameras, she must know the truth in her heart of hearts, yet she clearly believes that everything would be all right if only Amanda was let off this one time.
She effectively stopped Amanda from confessing when she turned up in Perugia in the days after the murder and that is why we now witness Amanda’s statements which nobody can (and indeed is not expected) to believe.
April 26, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Hello Rimbambita,
Thank you for posting about your empirical experiences in Perugia. You have enhanced my understanding of the motivations of RS to become involved in this murder. If we combine in the cauldron, smitten RS’s fantasy-girl-with-a-fancy-life perceptions with hyper-exhilarated Ak47 using herself as the canvas, as actors and artists often do, one can see better how these two created an intense, emotionally entangled, sensual world in the weeks leading up to the murder. Perhaps with MK’s defection from their circle, the joy of their intense association began to decay a bit, much as the malachite green pigment in some of Van Gogh’s paintings has decayed to brown, robbing them somewhat of their original vibrancy.
April 26, 2009 at 2:58 pm
Greetings, RIMBAMBITA! I thoroughly enjoyed and was intensely intruiged by your fine posting, and the points you make are most enlightening and clarifying. Very welcome illumination, and further sheds light on some of the mysterious aspects as to how such a scenario, conceived as fantasy, could erupt into actualization.
Greggy: With your usual panache, your lat sentence wraps all up poetically.
April 26, 2009 at 3:45 pm
Greggy, thanks for reminding me – with your note about “MK’s defection from their world” – that I’d left Meredith out of the formula almost entirely. It’s maybe one of the saddest elements of this tragedy, that a life as rich and full of potential as hers became at its end – to steal your analogy – just the canvas on which some twisted souls realized their pathetic fantasies.
SMK, thanks for your generosity as regards my ramblings. Someone over on PMF rather dismissed my experience as being 35 years out-of-date. Understandable certainly, except that what has truly shocked me in reading about the lives of these kids in Perugia is just how little it’s changed in almost four decades. For the 2+ years I spent immersed in that scene in the 70s I felt often on the edge of something perverse and potentially very violent.
That it took 35 years for the powder keg to explode surprises me as much as the rest of this tragedy. (I know “20/20 hindsight” is such a cliché. Sorry)
And finally, I’m still left with the question that brought me here originally: why is Sollecito of so much less interest to those following this case than Knox?
April 26, 2009 at 3:50 pm
Rimbamabita: I do not think arcetypal human experience EVER becomes “out of date”. There are things I experienced 2 decades ago as a young woman in New York, that I now see my niece reliving, in exact detail. Human experience is a saeculum, a cyclical recurring dynamic. Thus, your experience 35 years ago is still timely and up to date. I think Raffaele is less focused on than Amanda, precisely because WE and the press are doing exactly as he did: projecting onto Amanda, and she receives these projections. I do not mean in the sense that we hoist things that are not true onto her; I mean it in the Jungian sense, that we see a potential there, the same one as RS did.
April 26, 2009 at 3:52 pm
addendum: More on Jungian “transference”: I find myself trying not to think about Meredith, almost as though I feel guilty thinking of her. It is such a senseless tragedy that she is gone, and as you say, was brutalized for some pathetic fantasy of adolescent mania.
April 26, 2009 at 5:25 pm
SMK, – thank you! Your explanation makes so much sense. If I could find a Light Bulb Smiley somewhere around here, I’d switch it on.
April 26, 2009 at 8:52 pm
There is one element that is often discussed in regard to any recent cultural (youth) phenomena, which hasn’t been discussed in regard to this murder, and that’s the “need for speed.” There have been a few mentions in the news lately that young people are going to “outmode” personal voice mail because it takes too long to listen to messages (especially if your friends are long winded), whereas email or texting you can scan the text for what’s important to you (plus sheer visual gratification).
Young people (and older ones too) seem to become increasing impatient and attention challenged. With computers we are used to more and more interactivity–immediate response to whatever we plug in. Add to this the other phenomenon, of parental indulgence or over-involvement, which has been discussed here lately, and I think you do have a powder keg waiting to go off. (I once had a co-worker whose daughter would consistently call her mother at work in San Francisco from her car phone in Washington, DC to look up Google maps to help her find some place if she was lost–like 2-3 times a week–as she was doing home visits for her job.)
How does this relate to the Kercher murder you might well ask? I can’t quite say, truly, except that I think we all have difficulty–if we are inclined to think that Knox and Sollecito are involved–in understanding how it could have happened so fast: after their only knowing each other 2 weeks (what about the all-absorbing joys of new love?), then committing such mayhem in hours, or only minutes (no one is sure of the time span). It doesn’t make sense. The only way it makes “sense” is to look at that growing need for stimulation–making something happen, expressing your aggrandized sense of self in the world–and doing it faster and sooner.
I wish we could all slow down, but that’s even less likely than changing the economy.
April 27, 2009 at 1:38 am
Thanks for the kind words, Rimbambita.
Didi: I think there is something to the “speeded up” high tech era, which may both dehumanize the self, and aggrandize it. And the frenzied pace of life might indeed make it all take on an “unreal” quality. And the appetite for stimulation and exotic experience gives rise to a spontaneity which can become downright dangerous, as in this case.
April 27, 2009 at 6:58 am
Are you people nuts? This case was boggled from the start by the half wit prosecuter who believes the work on a Blogger that talks to a dead priest. The guy is under indicment, what sort of screwed up system allows a man like this to retain an office at this level? There is absolutly ZERO physical evidence linking her to the murder. The killer has already been tried and convicted. This entire trial is a mockery of justice. You people set here and take her words apart one by one and convict in your minds on ridiculous arguments.
April 27, 2009 at 10:05 am
Hey guys, just catching up with all the interesting comments, I’ve been pretty busy over the weekend.
I can see why some of you are conflicted over Amanda (I myself am not), especially those who have worked with offenders and more vulnerable people. The only thing I really have to add is that Amanda and her family have done so much to make herself appear a victim in this case, that I really find it hard to feel any kind of empathy for her, or indeed be inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt. Amanda has had a fairly normal life, one could say on lower end of privileged and many feel that she has been landed in the middle of the worst situation possible, yet it is entirely her own doing. Amanda and Raffaele have woven a complicated web of deceit and lies; they really are going to have a difficult time convincing anyone that their ‘version’ of events is anything other than a flagrant attempt at getting away with murder. It is for this reason I find it hard to sympathise on any level. The biggest factor in my own personal inability to empathise with the defendants is almost certainly the level of violence in the attack on Meredith which, though exacerbated by group dynamics, seems to indicate a rather more sinister and disturbed pathology in one or more of those involved that night. I’ve heard that the crime scene and autopsy photos are quite literally horrifying. If Amanda and Raffaele are convicted they are not just guilty of stabbing a young woman to death, they will be guilty of consciously and intentionally prolonging and ensuring she was degraded, humiliated and suffering.
We all have our own unique ideas about what constitutes depravity, this is in part why Dr Michael Welner’s work on the depravity scale is so important, there seems to be a consensus amongst many people following the case that Meredith’s death was extremely depraved yet how can we classify and characterise this? Why are so many people so overwhelmingly horrified by what happened to Meredith? Young women are murdered in similar circumstances all over the world, what is it about Meredith, her life and her tragic death that draws people in?
I myself have been following cases like this for many years and I believe this is one of the most tragic and sickening examples of the horrors that people can inflict on one another. Many of us (including myself) have attempted to ascertain some sort of motive for this kind of senseless act yet somewhere, deep down I feel not only is a motive unclear it seems to be virtually non-existent, I think it is this factor that disturbs me most of all. This coupled with the distinct lack of remorse from Rudy Guede and seemingly in the defendants (though they have not yet been found guilty) has only served to increase my sincere belief that we may be dealing with some pretty serious psychological issues here. I am not entirely convinced but have been ultimately swayed in my readings on the case that there is a high probability that one or more individuals involved in the murder are displaying personality characteristics associated with borderline psychopathy. Should we pity them for these reasons? Is this an excuse? As ultimately, research into psychopathy has indicated it is not controlled by the individual, are we ready to empathise with a human being that seems so out of touch with everything we celebrate by being human? At what point do we stop passing the buck and just admit that there are some actions which are simply unforgivable. Most of the research on psychopaths has been conducted on offenders as most psychopaths are only identified when they have done something wrong, Dr Hare estimated around 1 in 10 could display some tendencies, yet most never harm and certainly don’t kill. The question we must ask is, what makes these people different? If they all have the same condition why aren’t they all murderers or rapists? At what point does psychopathy become an excuse for violent offences? Should we empathise and more importantly, can we empathise?
Many of the comments on this blog have centred around Amanda and Raffaele’s upbringing and lifestyle yet I feel , despite the evidence suggesting they were spoiled and consequently felt they could do exactly as they pleased, that AK and RS really didn’t connect that well to humanity and still don’t. Simply put I really don’t feel that they care about anything other than walking out of Capanne to start a new life. I am finding it harder and harder to see them as human. Maybe they intended to kill Meredith, maybe they wanted to scare her or maybe it was an argument that got out of control, either scenario will not change my belief that no ‘normal’ kids could have done that.
Should we blame the parents or should we at some point start treating Amanda and Raffaele as adults. Is it easier to see them as ‘kids’ than it is to see that their probable actions that night were conscious? It is easier to let the parents take responsibility for not teaching their children responsibility? At what point does passing the buck stop?
So many questions I feel will never be answered. Thanks to all for your continued input and support of this blog. Hopefully we can answer some of these questions together, they are so important.
PS: Rimbambita, welcome and I enjoyed your comment. Thank you for sharing it with us and I look forward to hearing more about your thoughts on this case.
PPS: Myoung321, sorry your comment didn’t appear sooner, it got caught in my SPAM box (seriously) I think this rather says it all. Please do some more reading, it never did pay to rely on the television as your primary source of information. I myself don’t actually own one and feel my brain works better as a result. Perhaps your brain would work better if you opened your mind a little may I suggest the website True Justice for Meredith Kercher and the forum Perugia Murder File, they are both very good sources and independent from Amanda’s family. They are mainly concerned with seeking truth and justice for the victim in this case Meredith Kercher. Amanda is not a victim. I will go easy on you this time because I feel you may have been swayed by the massively biased 48 hours show, but please, do some reading, have a think, come back and we’ll talk about it. But for the time being may I suggest you take that great big chip off your shoulder and go do some extensive reading, you may well find that things aren’t entirely as they seem. Google is your friend
April 27, 2009 at 10:42 pm
didi, I feel it’s totally fair to criticize the Knox/Mellas families particularly given their present intentional actions towards the members of this board community and their circus antics with the media. These packs of 3 ring circus dogs have shown us their true colors. I wholeheartedly agree with you, “It is never okay to lie or manipulate” to anyone!
Principessa, Amanda Knox has had at her cute little sms fingertips a full range of services available to her if she needed help of any kind at a-n-y-t-i-m-e. If her parents ever crossed “her line” she has numerous options open to her. No boohoo here.
You are correct about the “level of deceit” they shared; I call it the “standard code of communication” used in all dysfunctional families. Shape up or ship out. ..that plane leaves when?
Rimbambita, I believe I have seen, “my own theory as to what happened in this Perfect Storm of personalities” stated correctly since the birth of the PMF board by Fly By Night as “…a perfect storm of dysfunctional complicity.” 35? Man, that’s before even email and my time!! Ha!
Myoung321, Smarten up and play nice before someone shoves a pinecone up your ass.
Miss Represented, very nice. I had read the Lies article and found it excellent but always great to hear your comments and questions.
I feel we should blame, but not hold responsible the parents by their own abundant merit; AK & RS should be treated as the adults I believe they are.
Responsibility goes to AK & RS; they know full well what they are doing, what they have done, and how they are being manipulative.
Millions of other people have had it a thousand times worse but fought hard to become acceptable and contributing citizens; to have the Knox/Mellas clan putting on this “poor, innocent Amanda” circus with Amanda at the whip is totally disrespectful, rude and cruel to the Kercher family as well as the rest of the world.
Just who do they think they are fooling anyway? How do these people live with themselves knowing they are not making things right when it is within their reach?
Oh, yeah, I remember, they are from one of those “dysfunctional families” who only communicate through lies and creating chaos to spin their world so hopefully no one catches on to them.
Chris, “Edda, I TOLD YOU me and goofy we gonna work on our Excel skills on the c’puter.”
Edda, “Chris, I’m a goin’ down to do da laundry at da laundry mat now.”
April 28, 2009 at 1:29 am
Empathy
April 28, 2009 at 4:46 pm
Eumenides!
April 28, 2009 at 5:41 pm
Hi Prof. Snape,
Actually, I’ve tried hard to ignore the Knox clan goings-on, as well as the news presented that is biased in that direction…or any direction for that matter. Why read, or watch, news that isn’t attempting to tell you the whole truth? (And anyway, if I were going to choose, I think I’d find the Sollecitos more interesting…maybe some Borgia-like intrigues hidden there?)
Aside from hoping to see justice done, my reasons for following this case are the same as most people’s…it is undeniably fascinating. My reason for studying Amanda Knox’s behaviours is the hope for identifying a motive. We don’t seem to have one… and, because the murder itself appears psychopathic, it makes sense to notice those behaviours of Amanda’s (Rafaelle seems more “normal”) that appear pathological…and we’re certainly not denied examples.
I’ve always tried to avoid situations that remind me of high school ever since I managed to get out of there and escape into the more invigorating air of college and the wide, wide world. All that convoluted infighting in some blogs (and even in the commercial news) between the FOA’s and the FOM’s (confused anyone?) makes me feel I’ve fallen back down the rabbit hole into the old world of high school cliques and bullying gossip.
The truth is, having been a parent, I’m not inclined to criticize the more or less normal parents who have made some mistakes. There but for the grace of fortune went I. So until the Knox/Mellas clan exposes some dark and dreadful secret in their past, I’ll just leave them alone. My slightly off topic discussion above about the “need for speed” and brevity of our attention spans is in an effort to understand how the murder developed in such a brief space of time. Of all the questionable evidence, it’s the time frame that most bewilders me.
However, I always enjoy the input we receive from you Professor Snape… you have an individual style!
Didi
Didi
April 28, 2009 at 5:45 pm
Didi: I had actually meant to comment on your post about “speed”, but believe I got distracted the other day. ( My apologies for being redundant if I actually DID respond to it and have forgotten). I would think that this played no small part in the tragedy, and the escalating speed at which all moves clearly has effects on the human psyche, some of them detrimental.
April 28, 2009 at 10:56 pm
Didi, hexes on me!
I replied to the post reply by Miss Represented to you! Opps! Sorry for the confusion.
My point is in my book it is never okay to lie or manipulate anyone – our children are not excluded. The rest is simply my Knox/Mellas family “feel the love” curse.
Excluding the Trolls I suspect everyone agrees with my point regarding lies and manipulation.