Area 25 Character Traits

25-01   Ms. Kercher took responsibilities, studies and relationships seriously

25-02   Ms. Kercher was studying under an approved accredited university program.

25-03   Ms. Kercher took a self defense course, had a strong character and would have defended herself. (Arlene Kercher 2009)

25-04   Ms. Kercher had scruples about watering marijuana plants of the boys in the downstairs apartments.

25-05   Ms. Kercher had close English girlfriends as well as Italian friends.

25-06   Ms. Kercher stayed in constant contact with her family.

25-07   Ms. Kercher made normal young adult concessions.

25-08   Knox abandoned work offers in Germany.

25-09   Knox was not studying under an approved, accredited university program.

25-10   Knox had few female friends.

25-11   Knox had a number of male friends.

25-12   Knox was in contact with drug dealers and was spending large amounts of cash.

25-13   Knox had been ticketed for making noise and throw rocks at a party.

25-14   Knox had played a break-in prank on a “╦ťfriend’.

25-15   Knox had written stories about a rape and violence.

25-16   Knox lied to the police and lied in court.

25-17   Sollecito had a knife fetish and always carried a knife with him.

25-18   He was a habitual marijuana user.

25-19   Sollecito had a collection of manga depicting sexual and graphic violence on women.

25-20   Sollecito had been admonished by his school for having bestiality pornography.

25-21   Sollecito had attempted injuring a girl in elementary school with scissors.

25-22   Sollecito lied to the police and lied in court.

25-23   Guede rented an apartment in Perugia and had lived there for over 15 years prior to the murder.

25-24   Guede had not been arrested, though he had broken into an apartment while drunk at least once.

25-25   Guede lied to the police.

Posted by Marcello. on 11/01/14 at 10:47 PM in 25 Character traits

Tweet This Post


[Caution. This comment area is under “Area 25 Character Traits”.  General comments on the list could be missed down here. We suggest that they be posted under the top post.]

Posted by Peter Quennell on 11/29/14 at 04:33 PM | #

Hello and THANKS to all involved in this amazing list!  I have a question about the following:

25-07   Ms. Kercher made normal young adult concessions.

What exactly does that mean?  I am very familiar with the case, but don’t understand that point (what’s behind it) and why it’s raised to the level of an evidentiary item.  Is it meant to convey that Meredith could compromise in order to get along with others, unlike attention-seeking, abrasive, narcissistic, pathological obKnoxious?

Thanks again for all the hard work resulting in this amazing and compelling (unarguable!) list of facts that shows clearly that the three were correctly convicted of sexually assaulting, torturing, and murdering Meredith Kercher.

Posted by all4justice on 12/01/14 at 11:30 PM | #

Thanks all4justice. Someone else tied up on another project will address this directly.

It did make me think about SeekingUnderstanding’s distinction between the huge majority who by the end of childhood have come to be socialized and those few who dont, who often struggle and make waves all of their lives.

Other than sometimes being slippery when brought to justice, I cant see any advantage to the latter state. Its not just that Knox couldnt compromise, its that she wasn’t a winning charismatic personality and force for good like Meredith was.

I do wonder if early on she may have tried to mimic winning behavior though. The whole arc of her experience in Germany seems telling.

Knox had walked out of a plum job at the Berlin parliament indifferently; but seemed genuinely alarmed that her uncle was upset at her. 

This frustration-inducing state of mind has been claimed for example in the Robert Durst defense as the basis for primeval anger which may have got him off the hook for three murders.

By the way, that Durst verdict was not a popular one among others who self-diagnose that they may have the same mindset, but restrain themselves, none of them wanting to be labeled by employers etc as potential murderers.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 12/03/14 at 06:14 PM | #

To let you all know that concerns re: 25:07 had been discussed at length by the editors at the Wiki.

I think the meaning (“normal concessions” might even be in one of the judge’s reports if I recall correctly) was that Meredith was a normal young woman who drank, smoked pot a little, had sex.

Not to contrast with Knox’s behaviour and character traits. Not to emphasize their differences, or adduce implications of guilt.

But there are signs of some form of instability in Knox. Not, however, in Meredith.

I was a little uncertain about its inclusion as “Evidence” but it is a fact that courts do consider character traits and behaviour as circumstantial evidence.

So thanks for your question. 25.07 will be further edited on the Wiki to make the meaning clear.

Posted by Ergon on 12/03/14 at 07:09 PM | #

From a professional-psychology point of view. the sad thing is that people like Meredith whom others might label as ‘charismatic’ would not set out to be so…. 

They would not be trying to impress, nor trying to inspire others with humour or wit, optimism, intelligence or their talents, and so on.

They would realize that life is a serious business, and that we all do have responsibilities…  and they would simply be getting on with the business of being who they are, being themselves.

Then if they’re attractive and lovable and clever and competent on top of this..  it’s something that just happens, not that they set out to be so.

Of course, this is terribly frustrating for someone who doesn’t know how to be themselves - or be authentic.

It is so sad to see such people just mimic the ‘outer clothing’, as it were, and not have a clue about what goes on inside, ‘the inner process’, as it is called. It’s no wonder such people develop deep-seated envy and fury.

What concerns me in the Meredith case was that Meredith was so exposed to such dysfunctional behaviour/personalities, and she was so tragically vulnerable and unprotected from it in her very own living space.

I hope a warning has been heeded, re this kind of student sharing. Perhaps too much friendliness is not in order, too soon? Perhaps bedroom doors should be locked, as of normal, as they would be in separate flats?

It is awful to come to such a conclusion, - who would want to curb the youthful joie-de-vivre, the trust, the fun ? -  but, unfortunately, retrospectively, it seems sensible.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 12/03/14 at 10:12 PM | #

Hi SeekingUnderstanding. Smart take. It seems to me it is not only a warning needing to be heeded: It is another example of “A weak system needing some tweaking or superceding”.

Perhaps one might make a start by considering these three posts:

Parents normally are expected to sign off for their children’s study-abroad arrangements.

Any student on a formal study arrangement has not only proper funding, but also has some kind of monitoring.

Knox was allowed to have none of that - Stewart Home said that was less than one percent of all foreign students at UP - though UW had staff in Perugia specifically for that monitoring.

Had that monitoring been imposed on Knox I do believe Meredith would have been alive today.

(1) Knox might have been a lot more careful, for example not sleeping with a drug kingpin and high as a kite up to the day she was arrested; and

(2) Meredith and any others impacted by the roomie from hell would have had someone to complain to.

Both UW and Knox’s parents could be considered liable. UW (and many other US colleges) rather speedily took some measures to keep themselves and their students out of the soup in future.

Meanwhile Knox’s parents propagate a massive lie campaign. If that is successful we will see more avoidable deaths shrugged off as a certainty.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 12/04/14 at 06:26 AM | #

In the case of Knox’s parents, fear is a great (and possibly the only) efficient tool - a little dragging through the courts, with the specter of financial ruin, would probably help bring them on the straight & narrow for practical purposes, and otherwise let justice take its course.

Posted by Bjorn on 12/04/14 at 06:53 PM | #

Hi Bjorn.

Right. Which we might see of course - Edda and Curt are still charged for lying to a UK reporter about Knox’s interrogation.

Hard to believe but at one pointed they were actually quoted as saying “We were only repeating what Amanda told us”.

Nice. I wonder what Amanda made of that.

According to the reading of Ergon who has terrific sources, Curt Knox may have separated himself from the Fischer-Moore campaign which is supported by Chris Mellas and Edda Knox (he was not at the Vashon meeting; they were).

But of course Curt Knox still maintains the toxic Marriott presence.  That whole campaign breaks new records for cowardice. It tries to function only in English below the Italian radar and the worst of it is still largely unknown there.

For example, Doug Preston’s inflammatory and misleading book was published in Italy, but only in an expurgated version. The Sollecito book was not even put into Italian (so we did so).

The Knox book was put into Italian, but its publication was dropped at the last moment, as was the UK edition and possibly a Spanish edition. So in Europe only the German edition went ahead.

But the Italians have an array of legal weapons for when they do find out what is being said.  They have already charged Sollecito for the book even though it was not published there. They have charged Oggi for jubilant quotes from Knox’s book.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 12/05/14 at 02:37 PM | #

Interesting point concerning people who are either high on alcohol or high on drugs.

I have had the experience of knowing people who were high all the time.

Of course we didn’t know they were high.

The point being that this was the image we saw from the beginning of our interaction with them.

Therefore we thought this was who they really were. It was only later, if at all, when they sobered up that the true personality came through to show them as being totally different.

The point here is. It’s not at all impossible that Knox was as high as a kite all the time she was in Perugia.

This would explain a lot of her psychotic negative behavior, such as strumming one chord on the guitar time after time.

It would explain the fact that she didn’t wash herself but smelled dirty. It would explain her predilection for sex with anyone in pants.

These are the hallmarks of heavy drug users and would explain why she was a different person while in Capanne.

From time to time I have read the idiotic stuff coming out of GroundReport to the extent that no drugs were found on Knox when she was arrested.

Obviously these people have never heard of designer drugs and/or pills and or anything to get you high.

Knox’s entire behavior is indicative of the identity of the heavy drug user, including a low self esteem, and inner hate for anyone she perceived as a threat.

This is masked by self pity, and the frantic need for more drugs, so that the true inner hated identity can be denied by the drug addict.

Knox slowly coming back down over the next few days at the police station has every indication of an addict starting to sober up.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 12/05/14 at 07:45 PM | #

Very true, Grahame, and very pertinent.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 12/06/14 at 11:09 AM | #
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.

Where next:

Click here to return to The Top Of The Front Page

Or to next entry Area 24 Extreme Unlikelihoods Of Rudy Guede As Single Attacker #2