In this post, without implying that the case against Raffaele Sollecito and Rudy Guede are in any way less important to the overall outcome of the case or justice for Meredith and her family, I would like to focus on the case against Amanda Knox as I believe it is extremely important for a number of reasons, most crucially in helping us to unlock secrets about the female gender, the crimes they commit and the reasons they may have for doing do.

I recently began thinking about Amanda in more detail as well as the society that created, unleashed and ultimately unraveled her.

I would like to point out at this stage that Amanda Knox is not the first female to be accused of such a heinous and brutal act against a fellow human being (nor will she be the last) but surprisingly this is the first real international case to be so publicly (and brutally) critical of a female defendant in a way that has become normal and totally acceptable when trying male defendants for similarly violent crimes. I believe the overwhelming fascination with Amanda Knox is that she has defied a feminist stereotype about the kinds of women that commit crime and the reasons they have for doing so and by doing this, people are more willing to be critical of her.

The idea of the feminist movement was to liberate women, give them access to better jobs, better rates of pay, a platform in important social and political matters as well equal rights and privileges alongside men in society. But feminism is a bit like communism, it only works on paper and this is because there are still a great number of women who demand the perks of being treated equally without also taking equal responsibility.  Amanda Knox is a case in point and it makes me furious that other women are vocally (despite all the evidence so far) defending and hence condoning her actions simply because she is female. The victim was female too. She no longer has a voice and Amanda doesn’t need two! Amanda has a voice of her own and has already used it to tell an astronomical amount of malicious lies.

While we are on the subject of malicious, aggravated and astonishing lies, what was the tactless, omnipresent voice of the FOA saying last week? Apparently: ‘All you need is love.’ How charming,  I’m sure the family of the young woman Amanda Knox is on trial for killing will bear that in mind *sighs*

The problem with feminism, coupled with the new and equally unworkable socialist idea that anyone can do anything they want, whenever they want and without thinking about the consequences, is that is has falsely encouraged young people (particularly women like Amanda) in the notion that they are invincible and that no matter what happens somebody will always be there to pick up the pieces  and clean up the mess (even murder). Young women like Amanda are born underneath an idealistic umbrella and brought up safe in the knowledge that they can be anything they want to be or have anything they want to have just by demanding it (go look at Cosmopolitan and Teen Vogue if you don’t believe me).

Sexual liberation is another contentious issue (Amanda again is a case in point), nobody is saying you can’t be sexually liberated , it’s just that some people don’t want to have a pink rampant rabbit vibrator practically shoved in their face in order to let everyone know how absolutely wonderful is it to be able to have random sex on a train with whoever they like and all in the name of being sexually liberated. So childish and unnecessary.

Feminism has formed the dangerous and uncontrollable principle that all women are equal because they say they are and anyone that disagrees is anti-women, even if you point out how they refuse to accept responsibility for bad things they have done. You cannot  condone behaviour for women that would simply be unacceptable for men. I condone equality amongst both sexes but wish more women would take responsibility too! That’s feminism.

Kids are brought up to believe they can do anything they like, why then are we surprised when someone gets hurt or killed?

Kids like Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy were brought up around these ideas, believing that other people exist to parasite off and to clean up their mess when they go out into the world and leave in their wake absolute havoc, mayhem and destruction.

I’ve noticed that most feminists who are reading or writing about this case are squealing about the ‘total injustice being done to Amanda-wa-wa-wa!’ by the horrible, horrible, nasty Italian men, seemingly forgetting that it would be these same men that would be in charge of ensuring justice was served had it been Amanda Knox who’d been brutally killed that night.

So to the people that have been using gender as an excuse for why Amanda should be given a slap on the wrist and promptly flown back to Seattle on a private jet with a hand-written note of apology from prosecutor Mignini, I’d like to say this: the victim is still a victim and the perpetrator is still a perpetrator, regardless of who the victim happens to be and regardless of the gender of said perpetrator. This is called justice you can find it in the dictionary, under ‘J’ you can also find the word gender under ‘G’, I hope you’ve noticed they are separate words, start with separate letters and are should be completely and utterly unrelated.

Luckily, it seems the idea of ‘selective justice’ (i.e. one rule for me and another for my male friend here) is not very popular in Italy, where Amanda is currently being held equally responsible to her male counterparts for murder and sexual violence. As we all knew it would, the truth is gradually coming out, ugly as it is, and remember it’s only just begun. The case is unique and important, not because of what she did, but because of the equal way she is being prosecuted.

I urge you all to put aside your preconceptions and look at the evidence closely, justice for Meredith depends on it.

Advertisements

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!