Books & Ideas

Bloody Abroad

Amanda Knox Finds Herself

June 05, 2013
Sascha Pohflepp (

Waiting To Be Heard
by Amanda Knox
Harper, $28.99 (cloth)

“The angel-faced killer.” “Luciferina.” “Foxy Knoxy.” “The Wicked Fox.” These were some of the nicknames coined by tabloid journalists to describe Amanda Knox: the pretty American exchange student in Perugia, Italy, who, along with her Italian boyfriend, was convicted of the 2007 murder of her British flatmate Meredith Kercher in what prosecutors described as a marijuana-induced, psychosexual rage. In the Italian court of public opinion, Knox’s criminal behavior was symptomatic of something larger than her idiosyncratic insanity. It reflected something pervasively rotten in the state of American expatriate culture. As investigative reporter Nina Burleigh claimed in her 2011 book The Fatal Gift of Beauty, even Italian feminists were convinced that “the young woman was a sick product of America’s excessive morality, a repressed girl who had gone murderously wild as soon as she landed on the more liberated European shores.”

To the Italian prosecutors and criminal psychologists who put her behind bars, Knox was worse than the average Pilgrim daughter enjoying her junior year abroad. Her unfettered libido, her self-proclaimed urge to “do what every American girl does” in Italy and “get fucked up,” was all the more damning because she was a bonafide “graphomaniac.” Or, in plain speak, a compulsive writer who nursed a pathological sense of narrative entitlement. Knox chronicled her dangerous liaisons abroad in a handwritten journal, a Myspace blog, and letters to her family and friends. In an interview with Burleigh, an anonymous friend explained that Knox perceived her life in Italy as an ongoing story of which she was simultaneously the author and protagonist. Knox’s belief in her life’s narrative telos was an aesthetic commitment that rendered her, to the outside world, both naïve and narcissistic. This was a surefire sign, according to prosecutors, of her perversity. “She’s not a rational person, not one hundred percent,” this so-called friend divulged. “She believes she’s an artist. And she believes she’s a writer. She believes that her life is all a developing movie, a plot that . . . is not designed yet. There’s no screenplay. She’s making the screenplay.”

The female protagonists of study abroad novels rarely aspire to acts of aesthetic creation.

But what kind of story did Knox’s detractors believe she was writing herself into? Without the horrific twist of Kercher’s murder, Knox’s semester in Perugia would have simply reenacted the plot of many a study abroad novel, a popular subgenre of young adult chick lit that features the American girl on a cosmopolitan courtship quest in the Old World. Armed with teams of female romance novelists, trade publishers such as Penguin and HarperTeen routinely churn out these glossy paperbacks, whose very titles betray their thematic and formal staleness: Wanderlust, Anna and the French Kiss, Heart and Salsa, Swede Dreams, French Kissmas, When Irish Guys are Smiling, multiplied ad infinitum and ad nauseum.

But while a nickname such as “Foxy Knoxy” undoubtedly taps into the sexual motifs of young adult chick lit, Knox’s alleged sense of narrative self-consciousness bucks an important generic trend. The female protagonists of study abroad novels rarely aspire to acts of aesthetic creation. Rather than imagine their characters as writing their own stories into existence, the creative teams represent them as objects amenable to their readers’ projected desires for material and erotic experiences. They are but vessels whose stories can vicariously “bring you all over the world” through “travel, adventure, and, of course, romance!”

For the more bookish critics who have followed Knox’s trial, the tragic contours of her story suggest another, earlier literary analogue: the expatriate fictions of Henry James. In an interview with The New York Times in December 2009, playwright and Knox fetishist John Guare asked, “Is [Knox] Henry James’s Daisy Miller, the archetypal American girl in Europe who comes to a disastrous end?” That hypothetical question launched a serious and sustained discussion on the Jamesian plight of Foxy Knoxy among U.S. and U.K. gossip rags, bloggers, and serious book reviewers, many of whom concluded that James had predicted Knox’s unseemly “end” a full century before she was even born. Not only does Knox’s story smack of James’s early flair for the melodramatic, but the archetypal American girl’s impulse to treat her self consciousness as an artistic or literary work was the basis of James’s most famous expatriate fiction, The Portrait of A Lady. And, like Knox, Isabel Archer’s narrative consciousness in The Portrait of a Lady gravitated to metaphors of literary production. “She herself was a character,” James wrote of his protagonist. “She could not help being aware of that.”

Unlike Isabel’s, Knox’s belief that she was crafting her life story abroad proved more than just a suggestive metaphor. Immediately after successfully appealing her murder conviction in November 2011 and returning to the United States, Knox signed a $4 million deal with HarperCollins for the memoir Waiting To Be Heard, a book whose very existence enacts her friend’s testimony that Knox “believes she’s a writer.”

• • •

One thing is for certain: Waiting To Be Heard is no Jamesian fiction. Nor is it study abroad chick lit, although Knox does spend the first half of the memoir dangling familiar tropes from both genres in front of her expectant readers.

Most obvious among these tropes is Knox’s desire that her semester at the School for Foreigners in Perugia transform her from a 21st century American ingénue—a goofy pothead and aspiring creative writer clueless to her own sexual desirability—into an upper-middle class cosmopolite. This airbrushed projection of what Knox frequently refers to as her “grown-up self” awaits her somewhere on the Continent, imaginatively displaced from her hometown of Seattle by a semester’s worth of time and space. But Knox doesn’t yet know how to go about finding her future self. In August 2007 this is her biggest problem—a luxury unto itself. “As I got ready to leave for Perugia,” she worries, “I knew I hadn’t become my own person yet, and I didn’t know how to get myself there.”

If Knox’s preoccupation with her self-development strikes a familiar chord, it’s because the notion of “finding yourself” has such widespread purchase in contemporary American culture. In the past decade or so, this has been especially (if not exclusively) borne out by the navel-gazing fictions of young female talents, yielding an uneasy alliance between pop feminist thought and cheaply distilled notions of human subjectivity. Think of Lena Dunham, creator of the HBO series Girls, whose lead character Hannah is fond of making such proclamations as, “I’m busy becoming who I am!” Think of the personal essay form as it’s practiced by the likes of Tracy Clark-Flory, Rebecca Curtis, and Elizabeth Wurtzel. Think of how Sheila Heti’s novel How Should A Person Be? (2012) places the putative problem of being—and crucially, the problem of being a woman—front and center.

Knox ends up playing the role she’s fought so hard to escape: a defendant of her own life.

For these women, as for Knox, the answer to how a person should be has something, if not everything, to do with sex. Or more specifically, the causal relationship one draws between sex and a thorny constellation of intersubjective relations and feelings such as empowerment, insecurity, and dependence. “For me,” Knox writes, “sex was emotional, and I didn’t want it to be anymore—I hated feeling dependent on anyone else. I wanted sex to be about empowerment and pleasure, not about Does this person like me? Will he still like me tomorrow?

Of course, the problem here isn’t casual sex. The problem is that even in hindsight, the through-line from sex of whatever kind, caliber, or quantity to becoming one’s grown-up self provides both the narrative and the moralistic propulsion for the first half of Knox’s memoir. As Knox’s describes it in retrospect, each international liaison—there are four in total—climaxes in a life lesson that treads heavily on YA territory and counters the literotic testimony of the European press and the Italian prosecutors.

In the beginning, there was Cristiano, Knox’s seatmate on a train from Milan to Florence, who is “tan, blond, and wearing a tank top that showed off his lean muscular frame.” Although he has “the chiseled good looks of a California beach bum and the alluring accent of an Italian,” he also has herpes, which Knox contracts after “fooling around like crazy” with him. (Voyeurs beware. The memoir offers nothing by way of juicy detail.) “I couldn’t believe this was the first wild thing I’d done in my entire life and—bam! I’d made an impulsive decision, and now I’d have to pay a lifelong consequence,” she writes, a chapter ending that could double as a public service announcement for practicing safe oral sex. After Cristiano, there are Mirko and Bobby, one-night stands whose emotional detachment make Knox feel “regret” and “emptiness,” respectively. When she shares her hang-ups about single-serving sex with her roommates, it’s Kercher who issues a statement of moral absolution. “‘Amanda,’” she said, consolingly, ‘Maybe uninvolved sex just isn’t for you.’” Shortly thereafter, Knox meets Raffaele Sollecito, who quickly becomes her boyfriend for one week—the week when she feels “the warmest, safest, most enveloped” since she’s arrived in Perugia—only to become her co-defendant for the next four years.

If Knox is guilty of anything, then, it’s that she plays right into the hands of her vilest critics: the Italian prosecutors, the British press core, The Daily Beast’s summa slut-shamer Barbie Latza Nadeau, all those who relentlessly worked to make the private minutiae of Knox’s sex life fodder for judicial deliberations. One can imagine a more graceful version of Waiting To Be Heard that simply refused to address the pernicious rumors and misinformation about Knox’s behavior prior to the trial: how many sexual partners she’d entertained, her lingerie purchases, the small pink vibrator she kept in a plastic make-up bag, the kissing and cooing that she and Sollecito engaged in while waiting to be questioned by the police, even her brief shift from casual sex to committed relationship.

These “facts” are hardly relevant to the question of Knox’s culpability, but the weight they’ve been given in official courtroom transcripts and reportage speaks to the material triumph of misogyny’s narrative double standards, pure and simple. By connecting the prurient dots made visible by the media and the prosecutors, if only to challenge them with her own narrative of sexual awakening gone awry—or, more cynically, to sell books—Knox ends up playing the role she’s fought so hard to escape: a defendant of her own life.

• • •

By now, it’s common knowledge that the investigation of Knox and Sollecito, and the joint trials that ensued, were marked by flagrant police misconduct every step along the way. The contaminated DNA samples on Kercher’s bra and on a kitchen knife from Sollecito’s apartment—the smoking guns that landed the couple in jail for 1,427 days—are just two examples, and relatively tame ones at that, of how incompetence and bias came together in the service of injustice.

More appalling still are the routine abuses of juridical power that took place while Knox was held at the Casa Circondariale Capanne di Perugia. There’s the sexual harassment that Knox was subject to at the hands of Vice-Comandante Raffaele Argirò, the prison chief of the Capanne. (“Would you have sex with me? No? I’m too old for you?” Argirò asks on a nightly basis.) There’s the fake HIV-positive test result that sends Knox into an impotent rage, a self-immolating desire to “undo everything—to be out of my body, out of this prison, out of this life that had caved in on me.” (To which Argirò gamely responds, “Don’t worry. I’d still have sex with you right now. Promise me you’ll have sex with me.”) There’s the prison handyman who tries to sexually assault Knox while fixing a clogged drain in her cell bathroom. And finally, there’s the confiscation of Knox’s letters, notes, and prison diary by the police, materials that are later peddled to the Italian press in an effort to shore up prosecutor Giuliano Mignini’s accusations of graphomania. “The physical chaos” of the raid on her cell, Knox writes, “was nothing compared to the chaos in my head. They’d penetrated my innermost space.”

The prison does make Knox into a new person, and a literary subject to boot. Under the Capanne’s disciplinary practices and protocols, writing quickly morphs from an act of recording the exotic and unfamiliar—“just like a tourist who writes a travelogue,” Knox writes soon after her arrest—to an act of willful self-preservation. Physically and linguistically isolated from the Italian prisoners around her, Knox finds that writing is “psychologically essential” and the only way to “find a silver lining in my imprisonment.”

The stronger, darker second half of Waiting To Be Heard thus offers its readers a reflexive prison memoir: a compelling account of writing as a form of metaphysical self-defense that parallels Knox’s status as a defendant on trial for her freedom. In prison Knox prefers books with characters who are lost in the “surreal, existential way,” fictional models of how life on the inside recalibrates one’s sense of self. She now claims to prefer hefty novels such as Dostoyevsky’s The Possessed and Solzhenitsyn’s The First Circle over chick lit goddess Jackie Collins or other YA fare. (One is tempted to point out that desperation drove Knox to acquire a literary and linguistic education superior to anything Perugia’s School for Foreigners had to offer.)

The prison does make Knox into a new person, and a literary subject to boot.

Intriguingly, it is also this institutional genre of writing that enables Knox to draw nontrivial connections between self and gender, gender and national identity, as social phenomena. This is a particular virtue of Waiting To Be Heard as a prison memoir. As Angela Davis notes in her seminal essay “Writing on the Wall: Prisoners on Punishment,” prisoners who turned to writing as an assertion of agency also “came to be viewed as producers of insider knowledge regarding one of the major institutional structures responsible for the perpetuation of racism, poverty, and male dominance” in society at large.

Where self and sociality meet is in the second half of Waiting To Be Heard, in which Knox offers her readers brief yet jarring vignettes that panoramically reveal the population of the women’s prison as the disempowered dregs of Italian society. Without any explicit theorizing on Knox’s part, it becomes abundantly clear from the examples culled from her prison diary how virulently patterns of social oppression—sexual, racial, and class-based—are reproduced by the prison’s discourses of criminality: Cera, Knox’s bisexual roommate for some months, is in jail for allegedly murdering her boyfriend, a crime the wardens interpret as a symbolic rejection of heterosexuality; Pica and Falda are zingare outcasts (a derogatory term for Roma) and petty thieves who insist that the earth is flat; Laura, Knox’s closest friend and guardian, is a fellow American citizen turned accidental drug mule by a scheming Italian boyfriend. Most heartbreaking of all is the story of Gregora, an illiterate mother for whom Knox writes letters, and her toddler Mina. In one of Knox’s darkest days, Mina is placed in an orphanage when Gregora—who cannot “read, write, add, or subtract,” let alone defend herself in a courtroom—is unable to calculate her child’s birthday. What Mina’s fate will be, we can only imagine. 

But like all prison memoirs, Knox’s has its blind spots. Most problematic is how she accounts for—or rather, fails to account for—her own biases as a privileged white exchange student in Perugia, the barely veiled racism that prompted her to finger her former boss, club owner Diya “Patrick” Lumumba, as the perpetrator of the Kercher’s murder. Unsurprisingly, Knox refuses to acknowledge it as such, choosing to attribute her false accusation to the coercive interrogation tactics of the police. It was their roughness, she claims, that led her to believe she was “deeply disturbed and very frightened of Patrick, the African owner of . . . Le Chic.” Throughout the memoir, allusions to the “seediness” of Lumumba’s bar, a porthole to the “dark side” of drug trafficking in Italy, gesture to an urban underworld populated by poor immigrants from North and sub-Saharan Africa.

It is a world that Knox, a naïf to the very end, cannot properly comprehend in all its complexity. Rudy Guede, the man eventually arrested and convicted of Kercher’s murder, is one of those poor, dark-skinned immigrants. Knox never gives a second thought to his guilt, which she judges on the basis of a television news report that obliquely mentions DNA evidence placing him at the scene. (Waiting To Be Heard is littered with such ironies.) “I’d met but didn’t know Rudy Guede. I didn’t know if he was capable of murder. I couldn’t imagine why he might do something so brutal. But I believed that he was guilty, that the evidence could only be interpreted one way,” Knox writes in a passage that’s astonishing for its lack of self-awareness. If the prison memoir knowingly constructs and circulates insider information through its stories of sexual coercion, the inadvertent glimpses it provides into Knox’s racial biases are no less valuable. They illuminate structures and ideologies of punishment so deeply embedded in social thought that even those who call themselves prisoners cannot see the woods for the trees.

 • • •

Given all the media attention centered on Knox, it’s easy to forget about Meredith Kercher. With Knox’s memoir emerging as the focal point of debates over class, race, gender, and due process—as it does in this review—Kercher’s life and the real tragedy of her death are, at best, further obscured by austere literary-critical analysis and, at worst, subject to gossipy hearsay. The aching question remains: How can anyone do justice to Meredith Kercher?

Perhaps this is the saving grace of Waiting To Be Heard. While her ordeal is indeed excruciating, Knox never forgets, “With all I’m going through I’m the lucky one”—an empathetic sentiment, but also a self-renouncing one, implicitly taking to task the misguided impulses of trashy exposés and good investigative journalism alike. For Knox’s account is the only one that insists on remembering Kercher, as it revisits the senselessness of her death in myriad passages rooted in Knox’s anger, sadness, and desire for justice.

At its most mature moments, Waiting To Be Heard is a convoluted apology to Kercher’s family, a gesture of symbolic atonement that Knox never had a chance to convey personally and was dissuaded by her lawyers from delivering in writing. As her appeal approaches, she drafts a letter to the Kerchers that never makes its way into their hands, but it is reproduced in the book, with the same intention to communicate. “I’m sorry for your loss, and I’m sorry it’s taken me so long to say so. . . . In the relatively brief time that Meredith was part of my life, she was always kind to me. I think about her every day.” Reading Waiting To Be Heard, one comes to appreciate more fully the tragedy of Kercher’s death through this tragic interlude in Knox’s life—her terrible journey to her grown-up self.


The evidence against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito is overwhelming. They gave completely different accounts of where they were, who they were with and what they were doing on the night of the murder. Neither Knox nor Sollecito have credible alibis despite three attempts each. All the other people who were questioned had one credible alibi that could be verified. Innocent people don't give multiple conflicting alibis and lie repeatedly to the police. 

The DNA didn't miraculously deposit itself in the most incriminating of places. 


An abundant amount of Raffaele Sollecito's DNA was found on Meredith's bra clasp. His DNA was identified by two separate DNA tests. Of the 17 loci tested in the sample, Sollecito’s profile matched 17 out of 17. Professor Novelli pointed out there's more likelihood of meteorite striking the courtroom in Perguia than there is of the bra clasp being contaminated by dust.


According to Sollecito's forensic expert, Professor Vinci, and Luciano Garofano, Knox's DNA was also on Meredith's bra.


Amanda Knox's DNA was found on the handle of the double DNA knife and a number of independent forensic experts - Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni, Dr. Renato Biondo, Professor Giuesppe Novelli, Professor Francesca Torricelli and Luciano Garofano - categorically stated that Meredith’s DNA was on the blade. Sollecito knew that Meredith’s DNA was on the blade which is why he lied about accidentally pricking her hand whilst cooking.


According to the prosecution's experts, there were five instances of Knox's DNA or blood with Meredith's blood in three different locations in the cottage. Even Amanda Knox's lawyers conceded that her blood had mingled with Meredith's blood. In other words, Meredith and Amanda Knox were both bleeding at the same time.


Knox tracked Meredith's blood into the bathroom, the hallway, her room and Filomena's room, where the break-in was staged. Knox's DNA and Meredith's blood was found mixed together in Filomena's room, in a bare bloody footprint in the hallway and in three places in the bathroom. 


Rudy Guede's bloody footprints led straight out of Meredith's room and out of the house. This means that he didn't stage the break-in in Filomena's room or go into the blood-spattered bathroom after Meredith had been stabbed.


The bloody footprint on the blue bathmat in the bathroom matched the precise characteristics of Sollecito’s foot, but couldn’t possibly belong to Guede. Knox's and Sollecito's bare bloody footprints were revealed by luminol in the hallway. 


It's not a coincidence that the three people - Knox, Sollecito and Guede - who kept telling the police a pack of lies are all implicated by the DNA and forensic evidence.


Amanda Knox voluntarily admitted that she was involved in Meredith's murder in her handwritten note to the police on 6 November 2007. After she was informed that Sollecito was no longer providing her with an alibi, she stated on at least four separate occasions that she was at the cottage when Meredith was killed. At the trial, Sollecito refused to corroborate Knox's alibi that she was at his apartment.


Knox accused an innocent man, Diya Lumumba, of murdering Meredith despite the fact she knew he was completely innocent. She didn't recant her false and malicious allegation against Lumumba the whole time he was in prison. She admitted that it was her fault that Lumumba was in prison in an intercepted conversation with her mother on 10 November 2007.

All of this has been disproven, though. Way disproven. It is very difficult once a theory has been told, to find out that someone else is saying something so totally opposite. 
A huge problem overlooked in all of this is the depth of the victimization of the family of Meredith Kercher.
Not only have they suffered lost of their sister and daughter, they have also been victims of a Prosecution that knowingly, kept the truth from them. It is horrid to knowingly convict the wrong people to prison. It is even more horrible to do this AND keep the family victimized as well. It is a wrong that the Prosecution is responsible for. I feel sorry for the family, they are being kept in prison. 

Merve Emre's claim that there were juridicial abuses is based largely on the word of somebody is a compulsive liar. Amanda Knox gave three different versions of events which all turned out to be false and repeatedly accused an innocent man of murder. The Italian Supreme Court recently confirmed Knox's conviction for slander. She is a convicted criminal and a proven liar. I politely recommend that Merve Emre gets acquainted with the facts of the case by reading the translation of the official court sentencing report. It can be downloaded from Perugia Murder File:
Another invaluable case-related website is True Justice For Meredith Kercher:

In addition to the two sources linked there is also
If you want to know what the truth is this site is just translated court documents and summaries with references to the court documents.
There is so much misinformation on this trial. If you go back to the original documents there is no doubt that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are guilty

DNA, cell phone, witness statements, bloody footprint, the evidence of a coverup/cleanup, and the conflicting and shifting statements, accusing a innocent man of committing the muerder for which she was convicted and served 3 years in prison.

Contradiction in her book that may well be used in the new appeal including her claim of a illegal interrogation by Mignini, the accusation that Mignini denied her access to a lawyer, both very serious allegations.

Merve Emre has taken the easy and lazy route that so many have chosen to take before him, the family/PR created fantasy version.

As the post above politely recommends, Merve Emre should get better acquainted with the true facts.

As the above posters have articulated so well, there is ample evidence of Amandas involvement in the murder of beautiful Meredith Kercher.
I have read court documents as well as her book Waiting to be Heard and they just don't add up with her three changed alibis. Truly, I gave her a chance and she erased all doubts of her guilt.
Unfortunately, her family hired a PR campaign and facts were twisted, photos were altered on their website and threats and physical violence have resulted for some of those who had questions about her story of innocence.
There is a very good reason why the courts upheld her guilty verdict. And she further prooves it everytime she opens her mouth.
Consider the cell phone evidence which is damning, Consider she accused an innocent man. Consider she put herself at the crime in statements. Consider the sloppy cleanup of the crime scene, Consider the fact that both defendants claimed they were so confused from smoking a joint they could not remember what they did that night, even tho they are certain they were not at the crime scene, which physical evidence confirms they were. Consider How Amanda fell apart at police questions when none of the other witnesses had a melt down even tho they were foriegners too...unable to comprehend Italian perfectly. Consider her boyfriend would not confirm her alibi. Consider she has made no attempt to pay restitution to the falsy accused or to the murdered girls family. Ad infinitum...
To understand the truth, one must read official documents and not rely on the fiction as seen thru the eyes of a narcisstic liar. She will face more trials in addition to the time she served in prison for accusing an innocent man.

Good lord Harry, I see you still spend your days scouring the Internet looking for new places to copy/paste your sorely outdated and wholly refuted nonsense.
Amanda and Raffaele had an alibi, one that was confirmed at least until 21:10 on the night of the murder. They have consistently given the same account since 2 Nov 2007, with the only exception coming during a coercive interrogation where both Amanda and Raffaele were lied to by the police. Since there is both CCTV footage and Guede's own words, not to mention the cut off cell call to Meredith's mother shortly after she arrived home, it is all but certain Guede was not let into the cottage by Amanda but in fact broke in, using the same MO he used just a couple of weeks prior to break into a lawyer's office, and was already there when Meredith arrived. The DNA evidence has been fully debunked. The witnesses for the prosecution were laughed out of court. There never was a motive nor has anyone ever been able to provide a timeline of the crime that would involve Amanda and Raffaele and still stick to the indisputable facts of the case.
The biggest mystery that remains is why fools such as yourself, Harry, continue to roam the Internet spreading lies and misinformation in an effort to defame and persecute two innocent people. 

I don't believe 21:10 was a confirmed alibi. I don't believe Raffaele Sollecito consistently gave the same account except for the night of November 5, 2007. I don't believe there is CCTV footage of Rudy Guede. I don't believe Meredith was home when she hung up the phone before ringing her mom. I don't believe the DNA evidence has been debunked, rather the independent experts have been debunked and their report will be thrown out. I do believe Curatolo: bullying the witness when he's in poor health and trying to recall things that happened almost four years earlier is disgraceful. I do believe the motive was Amanda Knox's resentment of Meredith. I do believe Knox, Sollecito and Guede had ample opportunity to commit this terrible crime.

21:10 was confirmed by computer expert and accepted by Massei. Provide one alternate accounting outside of the interrogation of 2 Nov 2007. CCTV footage is not confirmed.. it's not clear enough, but given Guede's own admission to when he arrived there it's a good bet that's who it is. Meredith rung her mother and the call was cutoff and she never redialed. The DNA is what it is.. "Too Low" is not debatable; the folly of how the bra clasp was collected, 46 days after the initial investigation was for all to see; Steffanoni clearly testified she did not test for blood, only to be forced to concede later she had and the tests were negative; the blade tested negative for blood; these are ALL facts. Whether you wish to put your head in the sand is up to you. Curatolo testified to buses and people dressed in costumes. Again, you can deny all you want but the scenario he was recalling was the previous night. Like so many of the prosecutions 'witnesses' Curatolo's testimony didn't come till months later after he was spoken to. As for Amanda's "resentment" of Meredith; that's pure guilter nonsense. All of the evidence and testimony proves otherwise. But then, that's what you people do... you make things up to fit your fantasy. Lots of people had opportunity but only one is proven to have been there. 

It is utterly a lie that the DNA evidence has been "debunked" and no one is persecuting Knox and Sollecito. PROsecuting  is the word you're looking for, I think, in accordance with the law.

OK, well you just keep going on believing the "Too Low", non-blood, collected with dirty gloves 1.5 months to late DNA means something.. the rest of the forensic world holds a different opinion, but don't let that bother you.
And no, I meant persecuted. The prosecution of the case didn't exactly always follow in accordance with the law (there IS a reason why the signed statements from 6 Nov were not allowed) and Steffanoni was less than forthright when she perjured herself wrt to the TMB tests she denied having been done, and then there was the refusal to turn over the EDF's as she was required to do by law...  but no, I was talking about everything done to Amanda and Raffaele prior to the trial itself. Look up the word, anon, and maybe you'll figure it out.

Thiese guys are milking it to the max!  Take a story, that has already been totally twisted out of context from the get go, and milk it for some more material to write about.  My advice to this clown is to take up Comic Book writing.  You will fare better at this and other fiction litterature in your field of study!

Single and Multiple-Entry: For both the one-month and three-month Vietnam tourist visas
American's can choose either single or multiple-entry. We cruise up to the gate into the border zone, dismount the bike and just stroll through. When this project turned out to be a success the evolvement went beyond the borders of Spain and the third office opened in Lisbon.

Also visit my web-site vietnam visa Application form

Are you for real?? Have you even read any impartial evidence? Or are you saturated in the lies and fantasy promoted by the Knox family? She lied. She accused an innocent man.Their alibis CHANGED and did NOT hold water. I am sickened by the USAs consistently weak relationship with reality. You lot still believe in invisible middle eastern deities from 2000 years ago - you are EASILY fooled. ANYONE who has read the court documents can see they are guilty. Sickening.

Merve, I got rather confused by your critique of Amanda Knox's book. Amanda was not found guilty in her first trial due to Italian public opinion or due to a twisted prosecutor, but rather simply because there is a pile of evidence against her and her erstwhile boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito, together with their accomplice Rudy Guede, also found guilty and now with a firm sentence since he chose a "fast-track" trial.
The description of the DNA evidence as "contaminated" sounds like it came from Knox's PR company ("Gogerty-Marriott", a corporate PR concern who works with organisations like Boeing, or persons like T.Boone Pickens). The DNA experts at the second level trial (the first appeal) admitted that there is no logical narrative that can explain Sollecito's DNA on Meredith Kercher's bra, and that there is no way that The Double DNA knife (with Knox's and Meredith's DNA) could be contaminated by other testing items.
In any case, the evidence goes much beyond the DNA.
In a anecdotal manner, Knox's book which you have reviewed contradicts her own courtroom testimony time and again. Just one example: in court Knox testified that she couldn't remember a phone call half way around the world, waking up her mother in Seattle just before Meredith was discovered dead. Now not only does Knox remember that call, she also puts it in a timeframe and a narrative chronology that clearly contradicts technical call records from the Italian telephone operator.
The investigation, evidence, and trial against Knox and Sollecito has little to do with media and PR campaigns, and a lot to do with a serious case against them.

Kermit, as the author of so many amateurish powerpoints you'd think you would have picked up at least a minimal understanding of the technicalities of the DNA evidence. What part of "Too Low" do you not understand?  What part of Negative TMB results do you not understand. You do understand that everyone has seen the video of the keystone kops collecting the bra clasp, with dirty gloves, 47 days after the murder. Contamination did not need to be proven, only that the procedure used to collect samples failed to follow accepted procedures to ensure contamination does not occur. And, of course, I've noted you never bothered, in all those powerpoint pages, did you ever detail how Raffaele managed to get his DNA on the tip of a bent metal clasp and no where else in the room. Neat trick.. I'll look for that in your next powerpoint update.
Merve's review is spot on. Anyone who has read Massei's motivation report knows he speculated on just about everything. The media crucified Amanda and Raffaele from the very start, as is demonstrated in the photo at the top of this page.

Francisco, ref. "Too Low", the same quality of DNA has been used to convict suspects in many jurisdictions around the world, including the USA. Ref 47 days, as you know, DNA samples have been used in murder cases in the USA, that have been collected decades after the crime. Ref. contamination, experts C&V 1) could not provide the court with a scenario for contamination of the bra strap, 2) they admitted that it was impossible for the Double DNA Knife to have been contaminated.
In general, the pro-Knox crowd seems to have gathered around focussing in only on the DNA evidence, which is already quite indicative of guilt. As well there is much other evidence.
BTW, I don't know why Merve concentrates on a supposed media campaign which demonised Knox, when there is a much bigger, more organised and directly funded PR campaign from pro-Knox quarters, arriving at a climatic (read anti-climatic) peak in recent weeks and months with the co-written (read PR authored) "memoirs" by Knox and Sollecito. These two books are so full of contradictory statements with that used by the defense teams in the trials that one doesn't come away from Knox's and Sollecito's words convinced of their innocence.

Kermit, the amount of DNA tested was reported "Too Low" by the Qubit Fluorometer, the lab doing the testing was not certified for that type of testing nor was Stefanoni qualified. Besides, the material being evaluated tested negative for both blood and human species. The groove where Stefanoni supposedly found the material was never able to be relocated, even under microscope. And, of course, the knife being randomly selected made it questionable from the start. You do understand that DNA is broken down far easier than blood, right, so that if the knife was cleaned sufficiently to eliminate any trace of blood it is virtually impossible that DNA remained. Nor did Stefanoni ever explain how sample B became quantifiable yet sample C did not when both yielded a "Too Low" result from the Fluorometer. But, of course, the result Stefanoni announced was what you wanted to hear so why bother questioning every other aspect of the result, right?


If a sample remains pristine, either as an undiscovered piece of evidence or evidence properly collected and stored, yes, DNA can be properly tested 10's of years later. However, if a piece of evidence is improperly handled/stored and results in the possibility of contamination, it is forever considered a useless piece of evidence. The contents of the cottage were completely rearranged between 2 Nov and 18 Dec, so clearly the cottage was not "sealed", thus ensuring pristine conditions could not be considered. The collection process (using dirty gloves, manhandled by two people, replaced on the ground for photography and then improperly stored, resulting in it rusting) is the perfect "what not to do" video for forensic collectors worldwide. I KNOW if this piece of evidence was being used against you or a member of your family you would be strenuously objecting, but since it works against Raffaele you're fine turning your back on it. I consider that disingenuous at best, but whatever.


Actually, debunking the DNA is but a small part of it. Personally, I have always considered the lack of DNA as strong exculpatory evidence, so debating a speck of DNA on a metal hook or how to properly interpret something not human and not blood really wasn't all that important to me. So what other evidence do you speak of?  Could it be the witnesses, virtually all of whom didn't come forward until weeks or months after the case, and who often completely changed their story. Curatolo had the wrong day, Quintavalle is a liar (he was shown a photo of Amanda when Volturo questioned him and he said no.. there were pictures of Amanda in all the papers virtually every day. To think he suddenly had this epiphany about Amanda being there nearly a year later is laughable at best). Capazelli also provided some technically impossible evidence and then completely buried herself when she spoke of later the morning after seeing the headlines of the murder on the local papers.. two hours before Meredith was even discovered.


We could then discuss behavioral 'evidence'. Perhaps in Italy consoling kisses is considered improper, but they are hardly evidence of guilt. Not crying at times when people think they should is also not evidence of guilt. And being angry and upset over the death of a friend and roommate and making the infamous "she f'ing bled to death" comment is also very understandable and not at all associated with guilt.


Then we have such interesting evidence as the oft mentioned cell phones. Back where I come from cell phones are used to prove guilt based on when calls are made and where they are made from. Only in this farce of a prosecution could the turning off of cell phones be considered evidence of guilt. Never mind if they did commit the crime, and if they had thought about cell phones and GPS, then the logical conclusion would have been to leave them on and keep them at the apartment, thus giving them an alibi. Not answering wouldn't have been an issue... they were in bed, in the shower, whatever. But you guys desperately grab at anything, twist it to suggest guilt and turn a blind eye to the logical interpretations that suggest innocence.


The "staged break-in" is only staged if that's what you choose to believe. Of course, neither Amanda or Raffaele had any idea that Guede had committed B&E's recently, nor did they have any idea that he had used a rock to break a second floor window and gain access into a lawyer's office. What a coincidence that this 'staged' break-in used the exact same MO. Of course, we could just assume a guy who had committed B&E's using this MO and who should not have been at the cottage that night but was, actually did break in, but that so doesn't work for your argument so it has to be staged.


No motive, no timeline of the crime, bullcrap DNA, bullcrap witnesses and behavior deemed unusual and therefore guilty. No logical explanation for Amanda and Raffaele to leave a perfect situation for two new lovers and instead head out and commit a violent murder contrary to all behavioral history for the two of them. Completely illogical that they would connect with Guede, someone they didn't even know, to commit this crime. You've allowed the media to lie, fabricate and distort virtually every aspect of this case to present a scenario where it seems almost plausible that Amanda and Raffaele could have committed this crime. However, when someone stops and looks at every aspect of the case thru clear glasses it becomes painfully obvious this is nothing more than a railroad prosecution headed by a corrupt prosecutor far more interested in saving face than finding justice for Meredith.

Francisco said: "it becomes painfully obvious this is nothing more than a railroad prosecution headed by a corrupt prosecutor far more interested in saving face than finding justice for Meredith"
I was waiting for you to arrive at this central point for the pro-Knox forces. Prosecutor Mignini has never been accused of abuse of office nor is there any evidence or accusation of such activity - that is certified by the Supreme Court (and the parenthesis opened by the Florence tribunal will be giving rise to people in Florence answering questions). What then, does he have to save face for?
The only people on this earth shouting out that Mignini has to save face are writers Douglas Preston and Mario Spezi, on one hand (both deep in the do-do), and the pro-Knox forces on the other, who simply latched on to Preston's and Spezi`s mantra.
Mignini is a respected prosector, and has lead many cases over the years, from breaking up prostitution rings to anti-mafia actions.
No one (now, neither in Florence nor anywhere else) describes Mignini in the terms of the two novelists nor the Knox PR forces (except for American media or journalistic associations who simply swallow the tale with no research).
Sorry. Mignini's "face saving" won't work. You'll have to find a different reason to explain why Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are in necessary collusion (according to the charges) with Rudy Guede in Meredith Kercher's murder ... remember that Rudy's sentence putting him in jail underlines in its reasoning that Rudy didn't do it alone.
There's a pile of evidence that points to all of them. I don't think Knox was wise in trying to sell a best-seller "tell all" before her legal travails are over, especially when her tell all so consistently contradicts so many elements of her and Raffaele's separate stories up until now.

Kermit, put this into perspective. AT THE TIME of this crime, Mignini was indicted for abuse of office. He had prosecuted over 20 people in the MoF case, all based on his satanic theories, all of whom were found to be innocent. He was not in good standing and finding a quick answer to this case was going to go a long way to regaining that standing.
It is undeniable that Mignini and Giobbi both claimed to have the case solved before even having forensic evidence. Every point I made above is both factual and evidence of a deliberate effort to make the charges fit despite the evidence. They went out and arrested Lumumba without making any effort to substantiate the accusations he knew damn well were coerced out of Amanda in the first place. When Lumumba came up with an ironclad alibi and forensic evidence put Guede, not Lumumba, in the room, Mignini simply swapped them. This is all well documented in the history books.
Whether it was wise for either of them to write memoirs is debatable. I might argue the way the Italian wheels of (in)justice turn, they might not live long enough to wait for this to be concluded. Regardless, the books have revealed to everyone exactly what took place and it does not paint the prosecution in a very flattering light. And contrary to your continued accusations, there is virtually no contradictions between Amanda's and Raffaele's recollections of what happened that night. Remember, most of us don't really care if they recall different times when they ate dinner or showered. Their alibis have been consistent and unwavering.

Francisco said about prosecutor Mignini: "He had prosecuted over 20 people in the MoF case, all based on his satanic theories, all of whom were found to be innocent. He was not in good standing"
Um, who are these "20 people" who Mignini "prosecuted"? You make it sound like Mignini has actually "prosecuted" persons through the Monster of Florence case.
In fact, Mignini was not the central prosecutor of the Monster of Florence case, but rather that honour went to Paolo Canessa (one of a number of prosecutors in that case).
The MoF "satanic theories" are not Mignini's - those were developed a decade before he ever got involved in the Narducci branch of the case. Why don't you go after people like Michele Giuttari or Canessa or the others in Florence who originally developed and investigated those theories?
Who "found" the 20 people you refer to be "innocent"? Tell us, please.
Mignini is and always has been in good standing. There's a Florence prosecutor who thought otherwise, but neither Mignini nor anyone else in the Italian judicial system has been very concerned about this, in line with the Supreme Court ruling.

There is nothing amateur about the truth, and thank God there are commenters like Kermit that keep putting it front and centre.
The media crucified them? Really? Did the media carry the knife to the cottage? Stage the break-in? Alternately snog and swoon for the cameras? Accuse an innocent of the murder of Meredith? Sexually assault and stab to death?
Just because there is sensational reporting of a sensational murder doesn't mean the accusations are all incorrect, as was shown by the trial where they were unanimously found guilty on a comprehensive pile of evidence.
The story isn't literary, it is squalid, and will remain so for Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito until they tell the truth. That goes for long-winded  pretentious reviews of the same.  

I said the presentations Kermit has put together are amateurish.. the truth was never an aspect of them.
Yes, the media crucified them. The knife was not carried t the cottage (and, btw, no one can even come up with a halfway plausible reason why they would have carried it, but I digress); the break-in was not staged; their behavior was their behavior, it was not for anyone's amusement. That the media, and those who fed off of it, chose to do otherwise is not my concern. Coerced statements are far more common than people seem to realize and this interrogation had every indication of being such.
I could identify dozens of places within Massei's report where he speculates on what something meant. In case you forgot, the court was to find cause beyond reasonable doubt. To repeatedly speculate and then claim you rose to the level of reasonable doubt is idiotic and contradictory. And while I know you guilters just love to point out Cassation overturned the acquittal, for reasons still unknown, you can not dismiss that the Appellate court looked at the case and found zero evidence of guilt. Like everything else, you people just choose to ignore that which doesn't fit. You demean, you belittle, you accuse experts of being incompetent solely on the basis of them concluding innocence. Wake up and smell the coffee... if you can't say WHY they would have committed this crime, and you can explain HOW they committed this crime, then maybe, just maybe, there's a problem with your conclusion.

There has been a huge PR campaing aimed to free Amanda. Why do her supporters threaten those who think guilt?
There is a mountain of evidence against the three...and that is why they are so panicked. PR lies will not overturn evidence.
Thanks to all who still defend Meredith, even as Amandas shills insult her and her family.

Typical copy and paste comments by Kermit & Rag. You always sound like a broken record. You cant back up any of your claims, as usual.

If I say that a certain pro-Knox blogger was arrested for biting an Italian police officer, and that that Italian police officer was not a rogue cop beholden to and sent on the orders of Prosecutor Mignini, I can prove that. If that is one of my broken records, then it's a truthful broken record.
Neither Douglas Preston nor Joel Simon of the CPJ can prove that Prosecutor Mignini was somehow associated with supposed harrassment of that pro-Knox blogger, who has since been arrested in Hawaii and Seattle for similar charges to what the police in Perugia were sent to investigate. (he currently has an arrest warrant issued by the Seattle Court)
Yet somehow the pro-Knox urban legend that a goon squad of cops sent by Mignini to harrass the Knox's trusted blogger and houseguest has not yet been retracted by the Committee to Protect Journalists. That's a sad comment on the current stated of American journalism.

A combination of over 100 police investigators, forensic experts, judges, lawyers, and prosecutors have determined that Amanda Knox participated in the brutal, sadistic murder of Meredith Kercher. The Public Relations campaign supporting Amanda Knox's innocence is a paid operation, plus how many of those Knoxnuts have tried to make a few bucks putting pen to paper writing books full of false information.  It's ghastly what has happened to the memory of Meredith Kercher in the meantime; she is pretty much forgotten. Anyone who reads the actual court reports easily found online at truejustice.Org or perugiamurderfile.Org. will agree that Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito and Rudy Guede were ALL involved in Meredith Kercher's horrific killing. RIP Meredith. 

That's pretty funny Bree. You want to talk about publich relations campaigns, why not just take a close look at the photo at the top of this page. This is precisely what Amanda and Raffaele were up against from day one. This nonsense of PR campaign is a guilter meme that ignores the reality of this case. Amanda and Raffaele were crucified in the media and the Knox's hiring of Marriott was more to deal with media relations and correcting some of the most blatant lies than anything else.
So you have a problem with people who believe in their innocence writing books but have no issue with the media and authors who have written about their guilt. You bias is obvious.
I've read every document available, including those from Guede's trial and appeals and am thoroughly convinced there is zero evidence to suggest anyone other than Guede commited this crime. PMF and TJMK are blatant hate sites willing to lie incessantly to promote their agenda. You guys still can't come up with a motive (not one based on fantasy, such as "resentment") or a timeline of the crime. Considering you guys have had nearly six years to figure something out, I find that rather embarrassing AND telling. 

The characterisation of the newspaper reporting as an equivalent to a PR campaign is absurd. They report what they have;  PR only tells us what their masters pay for, and apparently in this case don't even flinch from grotesque criticisms of Meredith's grieving family.
You don't need PR representation to make appointments to tell the truth. You need PR to negotiate your fees for appearing and somone to negotiate your demands for positive reporting  in exchange for access to Knox and her family. Lists of approved questions and so forth. Mainstream US reporting is corruptible, and PR does the corrupting.
Another example: the best way to stop the likes of Ted Simon from repeating his view that the evidence against Knox and Sollecito is formidable is to hire him! Hey, Presto! Recognisable "expert" now says there is "No evidence" . Simple, really, when you have dedicated PR.
Americans should be very worried.

I completely agree, but for the sake of this discussion it's applicable. A PR campaign is a deliberate effort to make a market segment believe in something. In this case the media was taking what the prosecution was giving it and then playing it up to the hilt. The effect was the same as a PR effort, with the prosecution using the media to sell the idea that Amanda and Raffaele were guilty. Just go back and read the headlines for the first two years of the case.


Grotesque criticisms of Meredith's family?  What kind of nonsense is that? Typical guilter bull crap. That never happened.


Yes, I'm sure you think a family who is being overrun for media requests, and who is watching their daughter get crucified in the media with one salacious, false accusation after another, should sit back and do nothing. Hire a PR company to interface with the media and make an effort to correct the grave injustices Amanda and Raffaele were facing in the media was so offensive to the truth, eh? Is your head buried in the sand. Are you not aware of what was being printed?  Do you honestly find fault with a family trying to correct this?  I mean, seriously... go look at the headline above and multiple that by hundreds of media outlets for over two years. YOU would stand still and not do anything to address this?  No, I didn't think so..


And what's so humorous in all of this is the idea that one middleclass family, up to its collective eyeballs in debt, could somehow control the global media and spin things their way. Please... the media prints what it wants to print. It prints what will sell. You people are desperate to explain away everything that supports the truth of innocence and the PR Supertanker was just the ticket. The Knox’s and Mellas’s are really very impressive families, being able to control the media and all of those subject matter experts who concluded innocence. The guilters have defamed one expert after another, portraying them all as incompetent and bought out. How shameful. 

Here's where you went wrong Merve: Nina Burleigh is not an investigative journalist. She is an "advocacy journalist" as the New York Times reported. Most of what comes out of her mouth is careless and therefore what comes out of your mouth is careless. I stopped reading when you called Barbie Nadeau a vile "slut-shamer". You have strong opinions and don't bother to back them up. That's going to be a problem for your Ph.D. dissertation committee.

The "Bloody Abroad" wordplay is rather offensive.

interesting article; a bit patronizing of your subject, but i suppose that's the genre; as for the murder itself, absolutely tragic. astonishing that we human beings consistently manage to make the horrific that much worse, by endlessly projecting our unexamined neuroses/pathologies onto the subject. 
also: a call for submissions: working title: 12 angry trolls: a play in 3 acts: or else perhaps a poem. a haiku might do.
(anything else might be unbearable).

Barbie Latza Nadeau and Andrea Vogt are both notable for their knowledge and experience of Italy and their independent research of the case. Highly trustworthy, but because they come down on the side of guilt they are victims of personal attacks. Claimig "slut shaming" and so forth is a diversion. No one cares about Knoxes' sexlife. No one cares. It's only about the evidence.

LOL! Their research of the case? If you consider twisting facts and releasing false info. research, then Yes those 2 are experts. They are the perfect example of Yellow journalism.

The way wannabe 'clever commentators' experiment with language is embarrassing enough, but when they throw in comment about complex legal cases about which they know very little it actually becomes pretty reckless. With respect, the author should leave this legal process to the lawyers. There are already too many ignorant show-offs (Burleigh, Dempsey) advocating on behalf of Knox, and trying to make money of her, while actually making her sound extremely guilty indeed.

Lina, I noticed you left Pisa, Nadeau and Vogt off your list. Vogt actually has a few redeeming features, but Pisa and Nadeau were nothing but lying guilter hacks and you're dancing around these authors while criticizing Burleigh and Dempsey clearly shows your bias and does nothing for your credibility.

@Francisco As stated, this is a case for lawyers, not silly old women like Burleigh and Dempsey who want to make money out of Knox.  Both produce sensationalist pap for gullible, ill-educated people who know absolutely nothing about legal process (they don't either).The fact that people like you look for 'credibility' on internet threads like this says it all. It's pathetic.

Great review - perceptive, thoughtful... thank you.
The truth behind this case is obvious - painfully, maddeningly, obvious.
Right until the loonies come out to play - and then it becomes tragically obvious.

"…Knox's account is the only one that insists on remembering Kercher,…"

This review manages to pontificate and offend in equal measure.
Reviewing a memoir written by an accused murderer, a reviewer needs to consider — did she or didn't she? By accepting Knox's innocence as a given without reviewing the evidence is inexcusable.
While quoting Nina Burleigh as an investigative reporter and calling Barbie Latza Nadeau a "summa slut-shamer", you have exposed exactly how mysogyny has evolved in the hands of some "self-styled" feminists. Male dominance is now increasingly maintained by women attacking each other. Nina Burleigh herself comments on this phenomenom in her piece, "Who's Afraid of Vagina Wolf?"
"Something about the tenor and tone of this review is so over the top it seems reasonable to ask why…The reviewers are or were members in good stanging of the "young feminists writers" club."
This reviewer, Merve Emre, takes on this role with her distainful comment about the "navel-gazing fictions of young female talents".
Knox and her PR team have seduced Emre with their own feminist narrative, "just because Knox had casual sex doesn't make her a murderer". 
The PR lies about police misconduct, contaminated DNA, and prosecutorial abuses of power that have been cut and pasted into a confusing, poorly written, highly prententious, feminist wannabe analysis ensures that misogyny has triumphed in this particular reviewer.
Curiously, the reviewer seems to also sympathize with Knox's cell mates. "Cera … allegedly murdered her boyfriend", "Laura … turned accidental drug mule by a scheming Italian boyfriend."
When we can acknowledge that women can and do attack other women, and feminists attack other feminists, then society as a whole will have taken a step forward.
And women murder other women. The violence in this case was perpetrated on a beautiful woman, Meredith Kercher, who was sexually attacked, held down and stabbed to death in her own home. Her life was taken from her in a cruel and brutal manner. Her family will never be the same.
The misogyny implicit in supporting the young "pretty" female murderer is equal to the misogyny shown by the female newscasters at CNN after the Steubenville rape verdict was announced.
Er, so it's tragic because Knox got some of what she deserved? Because as everyone who has followed the case is aware, she is likely to be getting more of what she deserves. In Italy each case has three levels, in Knox's murder case she was convicted of the murder in the first level, the second level aquitted and released her, but the third level declared on March 25th this year that the second level aquittal was invalid and anulled. It legally doesn't exist.
The new second level will begin later this year, but until then Knox stands accused and convicted at the first level waiting for her appeal to start.

"…Knox's account is the only one that insists on remembering Kercher,…"
Wow, what a truly disgusting and distasteful line. Many, many people believe Knox is guilty of murdering Kercher.  Would it not be equally revolting if it were written that:
"…OJ's account is the only one that insists on remembering Nicole,…"
Try reading John Kercher's book simply named "Meredith" to remember her.

It's quite strange to read about "PR campaigns" on behalf of Amanda Knox, from the very people who carpet bomb every story about the horrible murder in 2007 in Perugia.  Indeed, Harry Rag, Kermit, and Jeff, among others, waste little time gtetting to these stories to spread the "PR stuff" from their side, that they've been peddling since 2008 or 2009.  Can they not come up with better talking points than, a "PR campaign"?  Gee, if I was subject to their lies, I'd want a PR campaign, too!

If you want to see a real PR campaign, try the hate websites, devoted mainly to ignoring any of the rials which have taken place.  The vilify people, they ignore that these is no such thing as "mixed blood" at the crime scene, and even the convicting judge from 2009 admits that they had no motive for this crime.
Yet read the stuff which has been pounded out ad infinitum from Harry Rag, BRMull, Peggy Ganong, and mysterious astrologer named Ergon, Peter Quennell, Andrea Vogt, Barnie Nadeau and John Follain.
And they have the unmitigated gall to call anyone defending the obvious - the innocence of Knox and Sollecito - a PR campaign!  The folks mentioned in Paragraph 2, some of them have been spreading the same, now disproven stuff for 4 years or more, as if there's never been a trial.
And watch them react when the prosecutor, Mr. Mignini, is talked about.  Yes the prosecutor from the Monster of Florence case.  This prosecutor first had the motive for Knox and Sollecito as a Satanic rite, then when his co-prosecutor threatened to quit if he took that to court - by Nadeau's own admission - it became a sex-game gone wrong.  Then at trial when that didn't fly, the motive became that Knox was jealous of Kercher.  Then when that didn't fly, Mr. Mignini asked for life in prison for the unkindest motive of all - namely, that they didn't have one.  They killed just because!
In truth the PR campaign has been done by obsessed internet bloggers, some of whom occasionally are quoted in legitimate press outlets.  But it's mainly these comnments sections where they shine... a pro-Knox piece will see a carpet bombing of the comments' sections, with cut and paste stuff that's been around since 2008.
If that's not a PR campaign...... and as noted, if I faced such an onslaught, you can bet your boots I'd be going to someone like Marriott asking for, "help!!!!!"

All you need to know about Ganong, Quennell, et al., is that the sites they run do not allow for dissenting opinions. The reason for this is they are not able to defend their position nor can they rebute the counter-arguments they would faced should they allow it.
Early on, when the facts were far and few, it was easy for these guys to peddle a bogus story and get others to believe them. Hell, the media was printing the same crap so it wasn't easy to think otherwise. But that's not the case anymore. The facts are now available and many, many experts have taken a close look at the case and written of their findings. The truth of the matter is any competent investigator who would walk into the crime scene would never have considered Amanda and Raffaele. Sure, she lived there and they were the ones at the cottage first that day, so they had to be looked at and questioned. But the reasons given by Giobbi for why they became suspects (i.e., behavior, not evidence - hell they didn't have any yet) would never have factored in. But once they did, and once the prosecution started spreading rumors and speculation and the media started blowing things completely out of proportion, bloggers such as Ganong and Quennell took the bait and began their own PR campaign. This entire time they have never been able to answer the most basic of questions; why and how. Instead, they simply believed Mignini and then started to see things that weren't there. A discrepency on when Amanda said they ate dinner became a sign of guilt. Turning their cell phones off - never something that would indicate guilt - became exactly that to them. Kermit creates his massive, albeit misguided powerpoints, and the guilter community was born.
As you say, Brian, it's very telling how Mignini went from one speculative motive to another, finally concluding there was none and that they just did it. Likewise, once they realized they had no evidence of Amanda being in Meredith's room the story was changed to Amanda directing events from outside the room. So we went from Amanda, sexually motivated, slashing Meredith's throat to Amanda, for no reason, directing things from outside the room. And people like Ganong and Quennell, never ones to practice critical thought on their own, simply roll with it. Unreal.

This is an interesting piece. Please do not pay any attention to Harry Rag or the rest of the anonymous hater trolls. They are obsessives who personally attack anyone who recognize that there is not a shred of genuine evidence against Knox and Sollecito. The intellectual debate has been over for some time.
Thoughtful observers should now turn their attention to Rudy Guede. All evidence points to Guede as the sole killer. The police effort to frame Knox and Sollecito has been accompanied by an equally intense effort to deflect attention from him and minimize indications of his guilt. Why? The answer has something to do with the fact that Guede was in the midst of an escalating crime wave just before the murder of Meredith and the elements of his crimes fit elemnts of the Kercher murder to a "T." In every instance, Guede made a call and then was released without adequate explanation.  The result that he was free to murder.
It is this fact above all others that the police are anxious to hide. Who did he call and why was he released? Is it true as has been suggested that he was a police informer? What did Mignini and Comodi have to do with this?
We need answers.

Why do people arguing for Knox's innocence always have to blame someone else?  What has feminism or patriotism got to do with Knox's inconsistent stories????  This debate is getting beyond ridiculous!   She lied to police.  What more do you need to know to understand why she was a suspect???? 
Why do the people arguing for Knox's innocence always make sure to emphasise Guede's guilt as a sole perpetrator?  Why are they so obsessed with deflecting any attention away from Knox or Sollecito?  Why is it so important for them to push this message at the public?  I notice the latest attempt at deflection is to act all outraged at Guede's sentence, as if this has anything to do with the evidence implicating Knox and Sollecito.
What evidence do Knox supporters have of
a) anti-Americanism?
b) misogyny?
c) Guede being a police informer?
I have never heard so much nonsense in all my life.

If anybody wants to understand the reasons why Amanda Knox was convicted of murder, I recommend reading the translations of the official court documents and court testimony. They are available online at the Meredith Kercher Wiki website:

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions. CAPTCHA is not case sensitive.
Enter the characters shown in the image.