Setting the Stage Part 1: The Burglary

 

Firstly I would like to thank the team at True Justice for Meredith Kercher for translating and summarising the 106 page report by Judge Micheli. This excellent summary will hopefully help those interested in the case further understand the reasons why Micheli handed down a 30 year sentence to Rudy Guede and what motivated his decision to bring Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito to trial for the murder of Meredith Kercher.

 

Most of the evidence put forward so far and the general consensus amongst investigators and objective media reports  is that the crime scene was staged in the hope that investigators would believe that the perpetrator/s had acted alone and broken into the house to steal which resulted in a confrontation and the attack on Meredith.

 

The fact that the crime scene was staged could provide a useful insight into the nature of the offence and also the person/s involved.

 

Investigators will often look for behavioural clues left by a perpetrator at a crime scene by trying to establish the sequence of events that lead to the murder of the victim. Each crime scene is totally unique and must be treated as such. Establishing how the victim was attacked and subdued are important indicators of behaviour as well as determining whether the victim was mutilated and/or sexually assaulted and if so whether this sexual assault and/or mutilation occurred before or after death. Investigators may also be interested in establishing whether the perpetrator deliberately or accidently left or removed an item at the crime scene.

 

Studying the victim (victimology) is also important as the age, gender, physical build and ethnic origin (amongst others) of the victim can often give investigators further important behavioural clues about the perpetrator and what need they serve by killing.

 

Sometimes when analysing a crime scene investigators may notice certain irregularities that attempt to obscure or alter the underlying motive/s of the crime. Examples of this could include a broken window that seems to indicate a point of entry yet on closer inspection appears to be broken from the inside. Another example of staging could be a crime scene where officers notice cupboards and drawers open, objects knocked on the floor and a big mess which appears to indicate a burglary but on closer inspection and after interviewing friends or relatives, the investigators establish that nothing of value has been taken.

 

These irregularities in the crime scene are often the result of a behaviour called staging or purposely altering the crime scene after the event and prior to the arrival of the police. Staging usually takes place to steer the investigation and the attention of the police away from the perpetrator involved or to obscure the truth about what happened to the victim and the manner in which they died (faking a suicide is a good example of this).

 

Perpetrators who stage a crime scene will often make mistakes and leave clues behind; this is because a perpetrator will usually attempt to rearrange the scene to resemble what they believe it should look like. When rearranging a crime scene most offenders experience a great deal of stress and panic and because of this panic, do not have the time to fit all the pieces together logically and set a convincing ‘stage’ to lead the police down the ‘right track’. As a result of this, inconsistencies in forensic findings and in the overall view of the crime scene will begin to emerge. Most investigators can quickly spot whether or not a crime scene has been staged.

 

Another interesting point that investigators will often consider is whether the level of violence fits the crime and the ‘stage’ that has been set by the perpetrator.

 

One of the questions I’d like to consider is how the person/s involved in killing Meredith altered the crime scene, why this occurred and the implications it may have for understanding the motivations of the person/s involved.

 

Inspector Michele Battistelli was one of the first officers at the scene where Meredith’s body was found. He recently testified in court: “Straightaway I thought it was an attempt to make it look like a burglary”. Battistelli also found that a window had been broken but the shattered glass lay on top of some clothes that had been scattered on the floor. Although at first glance it appeared to be a burglary attempt gone bad, suspicions were immediately aroused indicating something far more sinister had happened when Battistelli established that despite the supposed burglary, a laptop, video camera and other valuables had not been taken from the house. Battistelli noted that the defendants Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito seemed “embarrassed and surprised” during the initial search of the house.

 

Several factors that investigators often consider when confronted with a violent crime where burglary appears to be a motive:

 

·        Did the offenders take anything of value?

·        If the offenders took or attempted to take objects of value, were they large or small objects? Why take a TV when a box of jewellery is just as valuable, less conspicuous and easier to carry?

·        Did the point of entry make sense? i.e. did the offender climb though a higher storey window when a lower and more easily accessible point of entry was possible?

·        Did the offender appear to put themselves at risk? Was the offence committed in broad daylight when darkness would have provided better cover for the offence?

·        Does the level of violence fit the crime?

 

In this case we can almost certainly rule out a burglary ever taking place:

 

Missing valuables

The investigating officers noted that only Meredith’s rent money had been taken. Although a thief would have almost certainly taken the money if it had been found, burglars often break into houses to steal objects they can sell rather than optimistically expecting to find cash. If a serious burglary had occurred, objects like Meredith’s laptop would almost certainly have been taken as well as valuables from the other girls’ rooms. Whoever took the money already knew it was there.

 

Entry point, risk taking and victim selection

Similarly, the window was almost certainly broken from the inside as, had the window been broken as an entry point the glass would have been underneath the scattered clothes. Also, the broken window was significantly higher off the ground than other easier entry points. We must also consider the main objective of a burglary: to steal as much valuable stuff as quickly and conveniently as possible. The boy’s apartment (downstairs) would have been a much, safer and easier target for a burglary, nobody home and surely they’d have valuables too. Why scale a wall and break in through a small window to steal from an upstairs apartment when an easier target would be a deserted downstairs apartment? The principle target in the attack was Meredith Kercher. A burglar would have no reason to make things harder by targeting Meredith specifically; hence a burglary doesn’t make sense.

 

Level of violence used

 

I’d make an educated guess that if whoever set the stage for the police managed to convince them a burglary took place, they’d probably still have suspected something was amiss simply because of the level of violence involved in the attack on Meredith. Investigating officers are trained to look for patterns in victim selection, type of crime and weapon employed. Lone burglars who are confronted will often attempt to run away and if they do attack, they don’t often cause serious injury or death simply because they are often good at selecting properties where the owner/s are not home. Aggravated burglary is rare and usually the burglar will only lash out when threatened. The attack on Meredith was violent, sadistic, prolonged and extremely brutal, a burglar would be more likely to kick, punch or throw an object with the objective of getting away than sexually assault and kill. The objective would be to escape as quickly as possible without being seen, with as many valuables as possible, not to hang around, sexually assault and brutally kill a young woman.

 

The evidence available so far indicates that whoever killed Meredith Kercher attempted to make it appear to investigating officers that someone had broken into the apartment to steal and had violently attacked Meredith when confronted.

 

What does this tell us about the perpetrator/s responsible for the attack on Meredith and the subsequent attempt to stage the crime scene?

 

Offenders who attempt to stage a crime scene almost always know the victim in some way, often quite well. The fact that the perpetrator/s attempted to stage the crime scene to look like a burglary indicates a relationship with the victim. The person/s involved obviously panicked and made a very poor effort to stage a burglary, no objects were taken and the window was smashed from the inside, yet whoever set the scene had an unrealistic preconceived idea of what a burglary would look like and haphazardly threw some clothes around to create a scene. Whoever did this obviously had no idea what a convincing burglary would look like as it immediately roused the suspicions of the police, this could indicate that the person/s who staged the crime scene had never been involved in or experienced burglary before.

 

I believe the stage was set by Rudy Guede, Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. This was done quickly, in a total state of panic and following this, all three fled the scene.

 

Some ideas and conclusions

 

I believe Knox and Sollecito had doubts about how convincing their staged burglary would be. By this time Guede had already left the house, gone home, showered and gone out clubbing. I believe it was these doubts, coupled with the idea that they could pin the blame on Guede that made Knox and Sollecito go back to the house to stage the rape and attempt to clean up their own involvement.

 

 

 

Justice shouldn’t notice the sex of the defendant

Upon reading this article which I came across earlier today, I can honestly say my first reaction was absolute outrage. If you have read the article and are now at a loss as to why I feel this way I hope you’ll allow me to explain:

In this short article Julie Bindel is seemingly angry at the Italian judicial system for daring to prosecute Amanda Knox for a “sex crime” as, during her 30 years of “monitoring, researching and campaigning against sex crime” she has “never encountered anything remotely like the case against Amanda Knox.” Despite the fact that Bindel correctly asserts that the majority of sex crimes (and in particular sex related homicides) are predominantly committed by men, she goes on to make the outlandish claim that we “tend not to look too closely for motives of male sex killers, unconsciously accepting them as being badly wired, but with women, we demand one.” This  profoundly outrageous feminist statement angers me beyond belief. In the space of a few words Bindel has attempted to nullify and completely obliterate the work of several eminent forensic experts and years of research.

Understanding why people kill has been the main focus of forensic psychology and psychiatry for many years. The excellent work of Dr Robert Hare has provided us with an insight as has Dr Michael Welner’s ongoing work on the Depravity Scale. These are fantastic examples of researchers with a real passion for understanding the motives behind crime irrespective of gender.

I’m tired of reading jumped up feminist articles spouting badly researched drivel with bum statistics and massive inaccuracies. It’s only possible to see how the mainstream media can saturate the public domain with inaccurate information when you spot the so called ‘expert’ journalists talking complete and utter nonsense. In her all encompassing knowledge and wisdom Bindel goes on to make further outlandish statements; stating that the evidence against a defendant on trial for murder in a country where the judicial system is strongly in favour of defendants  is “circumstantial” and that if  “Knox is convicted, it will be a first”.

In a previous post I outlined how stereotyping prevents us from seeing the woman as a potentially violent individual but would also like to add that feminism prevents us from seeing the female as a potentially violent individual by vehemently denying all evidence and research about female perpetrators and nearly always asserting, despite extensive evidence to the contrary that women couldn’t possibly be violent and that it simply had to be the work of nasty, nasty men.

Feminists like Bindel who are analysing the ongoing trial are attempting to pick and choose which woman they would like to defend by placing the female rights and privileges of Amanda Knox above the main objective: justice for Meredith Kercher and her long suffering family. I would also like to point out that nowhere in the entire article does it mention the victim’s first name, merely referring to “Kercher” as if the victim of a violent attack leading to an agonisingly slow death is merely an afterthought.

I would like to ask Julie Bindel to assert her supreme confidence that women are incapable of this level of violence to 21 year old Brooke Cameron who was scarred for life when an older woman named Sonja Oliver deliberately ran her over in a BMW, dragging her underneath the car for several yards and leaving her arm hanging on by a tendon. The reason? Ms Oliver was jealous of the younger woman and her good looks. Ms Oliver was acquitted of unlawful wounding with intent and sentenced to a mere 15 months in prison. Ms Cameron will be permanently scared and no longer has the full use of her arm. I wonder what sort of article Julie Bindel would have written had it been a man who ran over Brooke Cameron.

One of the major blockades to the truth in this case is that the media and the public who trust it without question, simply refuse to accept that Amanda Knox could have killed her housemate Meredith Kercher, simply because Amanda is a woman. I’ve read quite a few articles from the feminist angle and was beginning to wonder how long it would be before they really started to sink their teeth in.

For a while I’ve wanted to ask Candace Dempsey why comments which are ‘disrespectful to women’ are prohibited on her blog when she continues to show virtually zero sympathy for the woman at the centre of this case who really matters: Meredith. I’d ask but it would probably be deleted almost instantly.

This mass cognitive dissonance is the only thing holding Knox’s defence together and writers like Bindel and Dempsey merely sound like bossy little 8 year olds in the playground demanding to have their opinions heard whilst simultaneously ignoring virtually every scrap of evidence the prosecution has used to build a (strong) case. Typical feminists.

What would have happened if Amanda went to the cottage alone that night? What would have happened if Amanda didn’t have a man to blame?

If you’d like to be a real feminist make sure women (and this includes Amanda Knox) are treated fairly and equally in court. There can be no equality without responsibility. Amanda and her team of supporters have pulled virtually every female trick in the book during the investigation and trial.

As my friend quite rightly noted: Justice shouldn’t recognise the sex of the defendant.

So to answer your question “Can Amanda Knox really be a crazed sex killer?” Yes Ms Bindel, yes she can!

 

The Cocaine Theory

I’m currently barricaded inside wearing three layers of clothing and contemplating (with absolute dread) venturing outside and trudging the (albeit three second) walk to the shop. It’s probably the first time I have seen this much snow and what a bizarre sight it is outside. I can assure you there is no shortage of mischief and mayhem. What with all this snow it seemed rather appropriate to talk about another white, powdery substance prone to causing mischief and mayhem on a much larger scale.

For a long time I’ve been pondering the drug connection and how it fits in with the information that is already available at this stage, it seems to me that drugs could certainly be involved in explaining what happened to Meredith Kercher that night and more importantly, why?

Let’s talk about weed/hash whatever you like to call it. Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito claim to have been smoking hashish all day and as a direct result of this could not remember precisely what happened the night Meredith was killed. Did they have sex? Didn’t they? I think he washed my ears. Something about fish (you get the picture). You’d be forgiven for wondering precisely what kind of magic bud they’d been smoking. If we believe (and I stress if) what Amanda and Raffaele have to say, it was magic bud so powerful it rendered them so unbelievably stoned they forgot their whereabouts and actions for most of the day and a whole evening. This is especially convenient when the whereabouts and actions of said users happened to include a suspicion of murder. If like me you made above assertion you’d also be forgiven for wondering where on earth you could by some of this magic cop-out bud as surely, having retained it’s awesome power you could rule the world safe in the knowledge that the magic cop-out bud would save you from accepting responsibility for your actions.

We all know the magic cop-out bud does not exist.

Some people (like me) might have wondered what the difference between marijuana and hashish is and what implications this could have for current theories of what happened that night. I did a little bit of reading and discovered to my surprise that hashish is just cannabis resin (not some weird bush weed like I’d previously thought) and as with marijuana, the active ingredient is delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). The effect sought when smoking hashish is euphoria and a feeling of wellbeing or elation, this is usually accompanied by a state of altered perception, particularly of distance and time. The euphoric feeling associated with smoking hashish usually peaks within ten to thirty minutes of smoking, but residual effects may last up to three hours.

In other words it is no different to marijuana and has absolutely no effect or implication whatsoever on current theories of what happened that night. It’s a total cop out, akin to ‘the voices made me do it’ or ‘it was self defense’.

I’m not a big fan of marijuana, though I have plenty of friends who use it regularly and can categorically state that I have never seen or even heard of any violent encounter or total memory blackout associated with users of marijuana or hash. I am well aware of the limitations of making outrageous ‘well I’ve never seen it so it can’t be happening’ statements so I’d also like to point out that this is not supported by any evidence we have about the way THC works and the effect it produces. It is certainly true that there is a suggested link between prolonged and extensive use of marijuana and mental health problems in later life but we must remember that the person who may be experiencing these mental health difficulties could already be predisposed to them genetically and that they are quite rare.

In short the chances of Amanda and Raffaele actually locating some magic cop-out bud, smoking enough of it to induce a memory blackout whilst simultaneously going on a murderous rampage are about as credible as the lone wolf theory

I don’t think anyone ever seriously considered that hashish could be an explanation for what happened that night or even that it was involved to the extent that the defendants claim. There is in short no real evidence to suggest that this particular drug could explain the unique set of circumstances that led to the escalation of violence in the house that night.

There is however another drug that could quite easily slip in and fill the shoes of it’s likely contemporary. Cocaine.

Cocaine is a very powerful, dangerous and highly addictive drug. It is most commonly snorted but through various methods of cooking or altering it’s basic structure can be injected or smoked. It produces a feeling of euphoria, increased confidence, a rapid heart beat, raises the temperature of the body and makes users feel wide awake. The effects usually last no longer than 20-30 minutes often leaving the user with intense cravings for more. An article I recently read indicated several associations between cocaine and violence the authors noted that the level of violence was not directly related to the method of ingestion. The authors also indicated that cocaine users as a group were more violent than non-users, this was true for both men and women.

I’m well aware that speculating ahead of the evidence is both dangerous and potentially unfair to the defendants. However in the next few paragraphs I hope to put forward a fairly credible argument as to why I think cocaine was involved in what happened the night Meredith was killed.

1.)It is highly likely that the defendants had been exposed to or could easily access cocaine.

I have read that Rudy Guede had been seen ‘out of his head’ on cocaine in and around Perugia and that Knox has claimed Sollecito had admitted to using LSD and cocaine in the past. Despite it’s class A status and the dangers of taking it widely reported, cocaine is a fairly socially acceptable drug especially amongst younger and more affluent people who may associate it with a glamorous party lifestyle. It has been reported that up to one in four young people have tried cocaine and the seemingly massive rise of the drug has been reported in the UK, the US and across Europe. Perugia would be no exception, indeed the larger student spending power and it’s reputation as a party town would make it ideal for cocaine to flourish. It would certainly be no stretch to imagine that Amanda had been exposed to cocaine at some point. Firstly we have the allegations of wild parties back in the US with drink and drugs seemingly everywhere, then the association with two people who have in the past been seen or could reasonably have access to cocaine and finally the location of the town with it’s reputation for good parties. Looks like a good recipe for potential cocaine use.

2.)The defendants have admitted drug use and have associations with a known drug dealer.

From a psychology point of view it is fairly significant that both defendants have openly admitted their own drug use as drug use implies a dealer. They could have blamed alcohol which would have been much more credible for the blackout theory, but I believe they knew the link with Guede would eventually be made and hence the link with drugs. Guede has been arrested for possession of drugs and was known as a small time drug dealer, it does seem that he fell afoul of the golden rule ‘never get high off your own supply’ from time to time which could explain his financial woes. It would be fairly safe to say that Guede would have had no difficulty finding cocaine and no moral problem selling it.

3.)Research suggests a link between cocaine and violence

There is a great deal of evidence that suggests a link between cocaine and violence. People have been shot, stabbed, glassed, beaten up, raped and sexually assaulted, you name it cocaine has been associated with it at some point. I dislike the prosecutions premeditated ‘they were inspired by manga, blood lust and Satan and decided to break up the monotony of the evening by raping and killing Meredith’ theory. I do not believe that three people with no history of violence would premeditate a murder as gruesome and completely bungled as this. The defendants would more likely to break up the monotony of a boring evening by having a few lines of cocaine than to plan and execute a murder based on ‘Blood: The Last Vampire’. Remember not all users of cocaine are addicted. I’ve known many people who can quite happily have a line or two at the weekend and not touch it again for months. It’s perfectly credible that Amanda and Raffaele could have found their dealer (Guede) and invited him round to the cottage where Amanda knew there would be money in Meredith’s drawer.

4.)Meredith’s missing money.

I expect people have made the link between the €250 rent money that went missing from Meredith’s drawer and drugs. It would be fair to assume that as Amanda and Raffaele had both admitted to smoking hash and Guede was a drug dealer that the money was spent on hash. €250 would buy you a hell of a lot of hash! Nobody knows who took the money but it could certainly buy you enough cocaine to have a fairly good party. Cocaine is predominantly taken in groups as it is used to enhance users social experiences and is also very expensive. The going rate for a gram of cocaine in the UK is roughly £40 ($57 or €51) and I can’t imagine with the current demand and popularity of the drug that it would dramatically differ in Perugia the missing money could well have paid for several grams of cocaine. Meredith may have arrived back at the cottage and having found the money missing and realized what was going on (quite rightly) been very angry and may have called Amanda a ‘drugged up tart’. The actions of a group of young people high on cocaine would be very different to the actions of a group sober, this pack mentality may have caused a diffusion of responsibility amongst the attackers and a kind of gang attack ensued with Meredith unable to fight them off.

5.)It disappears from the body quickly

I would be very interested to know whether or not Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy were drug tested or whether the general apartment and in particular, credit cards, keys (any kind of sharp flat surface which could be used to cut or snort a line) was swabbed for traces of cocaine (maybe even the knife itself). Depending on the method of ingestion and amount ingested traces of cocaine in the body usually disappear in a couple of days, sometimes even the following day.

6.)Sexual dysfunction and physiological effects I won’t go into the details of Meredith’s brutal sexual assault but it seems clear that whoever started to assault Meredith did not finish the act (or couldn’t). Cocaine and sexual dysfunction (including inorgasmia) are linked as is the stimulation of the nervous system and the resulting effect on the digestive system which makes a lot of people who use cocaine need the toilet.

The cocaine theory could in a way help to explain the sudden onset of a ‘pack’ mentality that I believe killed Meredith and it could certainly explain the escalation of violence in three people with no history of violence at all. I have seen very little discussion on this idea so far yet it seems fairly credible, far more so than the ‘magic cop out bud’ anyway 😉

 

The Lone Wolf Theory

After reading extracts from the judge’s report on the sentencing of Rudy Guede for his role in the murder of Meredith Kercher, I was deeply saddened and profoundly shocked by the brutal and sadistic way in which Meredith was attacked, tortured, killed and left to die. These kinds of reports never make for particularly pleasant reading and this was no exception. I was pleased to see that the judge made a point of stating that he was not particularly interested in the why’s and how’s of the threesomes deadly meeting but instead started from the fairly cast iron assumption that all three were present in the room at the time of the murder.

When Guede opted for a fast-track trial I doubt it surprised many and it certainly didn’t surprise me. Despite his almost pathological inability to tell the truth and his “colossal accumulation of contradictions and attempts to throw investigators off the track”, Guede played a very smart card indeed; he refused to be a scapegoat. I must admit I was surprised he got 30 years then came to the conclusion that such a harsh sentence (and attempting to reduce it) would only serve to increase his chances of talking about what happened that night.

Reading the judges report one can only come to the conclusion that Rudy Guede took part in a shocking and abhorrent crime then despite the fact there was ample opportunity for Meredith to be saved he walked (or rather ran) away without so much as a second thought. Guede has shown no remorse for his despicable actions that night and the sentence handed down by the judge firmly reflects this.

Guede strikes me as a particularly selfish individual prone to acting on impulse and the sort of person that had rather gotten used to doing whatever he wanted to do, whenever he felt like doing it. If Guede was capable of telling the truth, which is about as likely as me becoming the next pope, he may well get some sort of deal or even a better chance of parole. It really would be in his best interest to override the “I don’t wanna!” protective mechanism currently governing his psyche and start talking from the unique vantage point of being the only person in the house that night that has nothing left to lose. 30 years is a long time to sit and ponder Rudy and believe me the prosecution can and will convict Knox and Sollecito with or without your help.

Amanda Knox and her camp have twice made the mistake of pointing the finger of blame at what could generally be argued as a stereotypical black, male perpetrator. It’s backfired. Amanda accused Patrick Lumumba of attacking and killing Meredith in a false statement, Lumumba was in his bar at the time of the murder and is currently suing her for slander. Both defendants’ lawyers have repeatedly blamed Rudy Guede for the murder. The so called lone wolf theory suggests Guede had the motivation or capability to scale a very high wall, smash a window and climb through without cutting himself in order to rape and kill Meredith Kercher. I’m sure this theory has been refuted by virtually all the evidence available so far yet the defence for both Knox and Sollecito still seem to think it’s a valid argument.

Starting with the assumption that everything Guede has said about the reasons he went to the cottage that night is a great big whopping lie, a few questions about the lone wolf theory remain:

1.    Why would Guede go to the house on his own? He had no reason to go there alone. Despite what many people think a person with no real history of sexual assault or violence doesn’t just wake up one day and ‘decide to rape and kill someone’. This kind of attack is usually an escalation of previous offences, planned in advance and much more carefully executed than Meredith’s murder was. The perpetrator usually has some kind of juvenile record for indecent exposure, violence or sexual assault and as far as we know Guede had none of these. This profile of Guede is totally wrong he’s not a killer he’s a coward, yet I believe the presence of the other two made him do something he’d probably be unlikely to do on his own.

2.    If he had never met Meredith in person or had seen her in a bar how would he know where to find her and that she would be alone? If the lone wolf theory can possibly hold water the jury would have to be convinced that Guede intended to rape and kill Meredith before he got to the cottage. Guede would not have gone to the house to rape and kill Meredith unless he was sure she would be alone. Even if Meredith had met Guede in a bar in Perugia she probably wouldn’t have told him where she lived (it’s been stated that Guede often put women off with his overly pushy attitude). Guede doesn’t strike me as a stalker type, again the profile is wrong. I’m sure there were plenty of other young ladies in Perugia whom he would have liked to have sex with. If we assume that Guede never knew Amanda we would also have to make the assumption that Guede had been stalking Meredith, knowing her place of residence and knowing whether or not she would be home alone would indicate that he had been following her. This seems very unlikely. A more likely scenario seems to be that Guede knew Amanda, knew where Amanda lived and knew that Meredith lived with her. Guede had also been told by Amanda that she was at home with Meredith. Guede arrived to collect some money for drugs that Amanda owed him. The rest they say is history.

3.    If Amanda wasn’t there and he was so intent on raping and killing Meredith why not just ring the doorbell and pounce as soon as she opened the door? Why break in through a window so high off the ground when several other points of entry would have been much easier and less messy? Rudy might be a few bricks short of a wall but he’s not a blithering idiot.

4.    If Guede really did commit the crime alone why were defensive knife wounds found on the victims hands? Did Guede have enough hands/physical strength to hold the victim down, hold a knife to and slash her throat and assault her sexually? Almost certainly not and remember Guede would have been struggling with a strong and brave young woman, fighting for her life the other two simply had to have been there.

The lone wolf theory really has a lot of gaping holes in it, making cast iron assumptions about Rudy Guede that are not supported by any theory or research that we have about the nature of these crimes and the sorts of people that commit them. The lone wolf theory might possibly hold water if Knox and Sollecito had been arrested after Guede, however the police had cottoned on the strange behaviour of Knox and Sollecito long before they caught Guede implying that they thought there was more than one person involved from the start. This really is a stupid theory.

I suppose it is what we have come to expect from Amanda and the marching band of narcissistic defiance that follows her, playing their own dreadful tune and continuing to insult and degrade the memory of Meredith Kercher.

 

The Mask of Sanity

“Some of these people are fairly persuasive, they can manipulate, they’re very charming, some of them even charismatic. And a lot of people, they like them, they think they’re kind of fun to be around, but it takes a long time before you can figure out that something is really amiss here.” Dr Robert Hare.

I clearly remember watching the televised broadcast of Karen Matthews pleading for the safe return of her daughter Shannon. Even then, something about her behaviour immediately struck me as profoundly odd. For those who aren’t familiar with the case let me fill you in on a few details. Nine year old Shannon Matthews disappeared on 19th February 2008 after leaving her school in Dewsbury, Yorkshire.

The last reported sighting of Shannon was at 3.10pm outside Westmoor Junior School. Karen Matthews, Shannon’s mother appeared on television and made several emotional pleas for her daughters’ safe return. Throughout the 24 day ordeal Karen Matthews friends and family stood by her and left no stone unturned in their search for little Shannon. The reward for any information leading to her safe return quickly reached £20,000 later rising to £50,000. The UK media was impressed with the solidarity of this small community taking care of a young mother in deep distress. The public had begun to fear the worst when a miracle happened.

Shannon was found alive by the police on the 14 March 2008 concealed in a divan bed not too far from her home. A 39 year old man, Michael Donovan was arrested at the scene. The news spread throughout the community and the country like wildfire. Karen Matthews was stunned and emotional.

On Friday 24th January 2009 Karen Matthews (along with Donovan) was sentenced to eight years in prison for orchestrating what the judge called a “despicable and inconceivable” kidnap plot to claim the reward money offered for information leading to the safe return of her daughter. Apparently Karen was tired of being broke and decided to plot a kidnap and claim the reward money. The police finally put two and two together and realised that throughout the ordeal Karen had shown remarkably little interest in the safety and wellbeing of her daughter, preferring instead to soak up the attention (and eventually she hoped, the reward money) she received from the national press.

When I say ‘psychopath’, what do you think of? Maybe a serial killer or a violent rapist? You’d probably be right, most serial killers are psychopaths, but all too often I’ve seen the words serial killer and psychopath used interchangeably. Dr Robert Hare is a world renowned expert on the psychopath (he identified it) and to date has devoted his entire career to understanding psychopathy.

A psychopath is unable to feel guilt, remorse or emotion. Hare has estimated that approximately 1% of the general population is psychopathic to some degree, even if they’ve committed no crime. Psychopaths are unable to feel emotion and any sense of shame or responsibility is totally lost on them. Sound dangerous? You’d be right about that! In his psychopathy checklist (PCL) and its revised edition (PCL-R) Hare puts forward a reliable diagnostic tool for identifying psychopaths. The list of characteristics includes:

A grandiose sense of self-worth, superficial charm, criminal versatility, impulse control problems, irresponsibility, inability to tolerate boredom, narcissism, pathological lying, shallow affect, deceitful, manipulative, lack of empathy, lack of remorse, a sense of extreme entitlement, lack of or diminished levels of anxiety/nervousness and other emotions, promiscuous sexual behaviour, sexually deviant lifestyle, poor judgment, failure to learn from experience, lack of personal insight, failure to follow any life plan, abuse of drugs including alcohol and an inability to distinguish right from wrong.

I should point out at this stage that the list above is in no way exhaustive and is no substitute for the PCL-R being administered by a qualified and trained professional however I have read extensively on Hare’s research (I am myself a psychologist) and cannot help but come to a few conclusions of my own from time to time. Let’s call it a hunch and (hopefully) without seeming rude or in the least bit arrogant my hunches have turned out to be correct or more than one occasion.

The truth is I’ve always thought there was something amiss with Amanda Knox and I had a similar feeling when I first saw Karen Matthews’s emotional pleas on the TV, the same monotone sound bites, cut and paste facial expressions with crocodile tears in all the right places yet no depth of character, nothing, zip, nada, the lights are on but nobody is home. I think it’s fair to say I’m not alone in thinking that Amanda’s observed behaviour has been ‘odd’ to say the least. Being dubbed ‘the face of an angel with ice cold eyes’ rather sums it up don’t you think?

I’ve noticed that the Friends of Amanda website has stepped up a gear recently and the PR campaign has increased momentum, Candace Dempsey continues to delude herself that we are still dealing with a ‘normal’ young woman here instead of a girl that is obviously a skilled manipulator. Amanda is supposed to look nice, she is wholesome, smart, a superficially charming all-American girl that wouldn’t hurt a fly but don’t be fooled, stereotyping prevents us from seeing the female as a potentially violent individual. A lot of people have gotten away with terrible things because they simply didn’t ‘look like the sort of person that would do that kind of thing’.

Research has shown that female perpetrators can be just as violent as male perpetrators but are much more likely to coerce a male accomplice into helping commit a crime. If caught female perpetrators often protect themselves with the old “she couldn’t possibly be guilty women don’t do that sort of thing” defence which exactly the tactic which is failing for Amanda Knox. Anybody with half a brain can see that the evidence points to her being there on the night of the murder if not the one who made the fatal knife wound that killed Meredith.

I fear the PR campaign will be the ultimate blockade to the truth in this case and any hope the public had of hearing the truth from Amanda’s own mouth has rapidly faded with every day of Dempsey’s crusade. Amanda will never talk. She has too much to lose and a whole lot to gain by keeping everyone in the dark.

 

Murder in Italy – How to talk a lot of c**p and make money

After all the speculation and accusations, the trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito for their part in the murder and sexual assault of Meredith Kercher officially got underway on 16th January in Perugia Italy. The court ruled that the trial could held in the open but specified that certain more sensitive parts would remain behind closed doors. Though this may be a blow for the Kercher family who, by appealing to the judge for the ruling to be held away from the prying eyes of the world media hoped to preserve what little dignity for Meredith there was left, one American writer was getting ready to line her pockets.

I am speaking of the ‘award winning’ Seattle PI blogger Candace Dempsey.

Dempsey has covered the Kercher case throughout and has been a front runner in the unashamed Amanda Knox PR campaign from the beginning. Though I am a firm believer in the principle that a defendant should be innocent until proven guilty I am also highly sceptical of a ‘journalist’ so absolutely convinced that her version of events is beyond question that she will readily take the word of a defendant that has repeatedly lied as gospel. Now with the trial underway and the (almost certainly guilty) verdicts due sometime in the summer, Candace has firmly cemented herself on my s**t-list by plugging an upcoming book about Amanda Knox the murder of Meredith Kercher.

The book titled ‘Murder in Italy: The Story Behind the Murder of Meredith Kercher, the Case Against Amanda Knox and the Strange World of an Italian College Town’ will be published some time after the trial is over. I’m sure the Kercher family are delighted that a glorified food critic will be making money from the tragic loss of their daughter Meredith. Despite reading like the title of an over ambitious media studies project I’m sure the book will be a bestseller and what a wonderfully articulate, sensitive and well researched book it will be, judging from what Dempsey has to say about it, in her own words:

“The person whose death it is is [sic] the most important person in the mystery.”

Deep, really deep.

Who do you think will write the foreword? My money is on Frank Sfarzo over at Perugia Shock who has done an apparent U turn from interesting , objective reporting in favour of supporting the Amanda PR campaign (how much did they pay him for that I wonder).The Kercher family meanwhile are remaining calm, focused and determinedly continuing with their campaign to see justice for Meredith. Meanwhile the defendants, their lawyers and the American ‘experts’ supporting Amanda and her expensive PR campaign are continuing to scrag with the Italian judicial system.

How long will it be before Amanda Knox appears on the front page of American Vogue? Amanda Knox is on trial for murder and Amanda Knox will probably be found guilty considering the enormity of the evidence against her. Instead of supporting the Kercher family the world media has granted one defendant celebrity status. Deeply vulgar.

Being a woman, being American, being pretty, smart, kind or generous really has nothing to do with it and haphazardly suggesting that Amanda knows nothing about what happened that night is both disrespectful to the family of the victim and sloppy reporting. Why does it not surprise me? It’s easy to lie.

The Amanda Show continues……

 

True Justice for Meredith Kercher

True Justice for Meredith Kercher

I first saw Meredith Kercher’s face on the front page of the Daily Mail newspaper on the 3rd November 2007.  Meredith was a 21 year old British student from Coulsdon, South London who was studying at Leeds University and had travelled to Perugia, Italy to study at its prestigious School for Foreigners. She was a pretty and popular student who had recently celebrated Halloween in Perugia and had visited her friend’s apartment for Pizza and a movie on the night of 1st November 2007. The following morning Meredith’s body was found on the floor of her bedroom, covered in blood and concealed by a duvet. She had been brutally sexually assaulted, tortured and her throat savagely cut. What’s more the nature of the fatal wound had ensured poor Meredith had died a slow and agonising death, drowning in her own blood.

The world was stunned. Who could commit such a heinous crime? Forums sprang up, journalists speculated and whispers began circulating that Meredith had been killed for refusing to take part in a sexual orgy. Three suspects were initially identified and arrested Congolese bar owner Patrick Lumumba and a young couple: Italian national Raffaele Sollecito and Meredith’s 21 year old American housemate Amanda Knox. Lumumba was quickly cleared as a suspect when a witness came forward and provided him with an air-tight alibi. As evidence pointed to a third person in the house that night, another suspect Rudy Guede was quickly identified and captured in Germany when police tracked him using his Facebook account. DNA and forensic evidence placed all three suspects at the scene of the crime. Guede opted for a ‘Fast-Track’ trial fearing a plot against him from Knox and Sollecito’s defence lawyer, was convicted and sentenced to 30 years in prison. After what feels like a lifetime of pre-court hearings, appeals, accusations and defence campaigns, Knox and Sollecito will be tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher on the 16th January 2009.

The whole world will be watching. Forums will come alive with the details of the alleged 10,000 page dossier of evidence and the whole world may finally know what really happened to Meredith Kercher. The fantastic website True Justice for Meredith Kercher (link in the side bar) has been the most up to date, factually correct useful source of information about any crime investigation that I have ever come across. I have found the posts riveting, relevant, insightful and above all respectful. Most journalists could do a lot worse that use it as there absolute grounding on the case and maybe they could learn how to ensure they remained impartial at all times whilst ensuring the memory of this beautiful young woman and her family is honoured with respect and dignity. Amanda Knox is on trial and is still innocent until proven guilty. Nobody needs to read her diary. Nobody needs to give her any more attention than she has already received.

Even though I never knew Meredith, even though I never will know her, eat pizza with her, go shopping or have a drink with her. I will always know that Meredith was a very special young woman indeed. A young woman that endured a horrific death and one who deserves to be remembered.

Courtesy of The Sun

( Meredith Kercher 1986 – 2007)