Slate’s Katie Crouch Comes Across Like A Callous, Ill-Informed Knox PR Puppet

Slate’s sneering self-promoter Katie Crouch seems to forget that there is a real victim here. Like Lis Wiehl she seems to find Meredith’s death one huge joke.

For a slightly trapped Umbrian tourist with a 16-month-old on her hands, this case seemed a gift. Finally, something to talk about in my broken Italian with the locals! Do you think she’s guilty? My pension owner, a jolly man with two kids, said yes, definitely. Hadn’t I been to college? It was an orgy with a knife! An American expatriate friend over cappuccinos at Sandri’s: Guilty. It’s a known fact that the girl had sex with three men in two months. Need we say more?

She seems to rely only on ill-informed gossip from bar-flies to conclude that Amanda Knox is innocent and, yes, she should be set free. Even a remotely competent reporter would have managed to find out and report on these basic facts.

  • Italy’s is one of the most cautious and painstaking justice systems in the world. It is so careful and so reluctant to conclude guilt that its incarceration rate is less than one-sixth that of the United States. Italy has less than 100,000 prisoners behind bars. The US with a population less than five times that of Italy has 2.7 MILLION.

  • Part of every trial and appeal process in Italy as required by the constitution is an exhaustive report explaining every verdict and sentence. In this case there are FOUR such documents amounting to nearly 700 pages. Two for two trials and two for Guede’s two appeals. One of those is by the Supreme Court and it confirms three people attacked Meredith on the night.

Had Katie Crouch read Judge Micheli’s sentencing report for Rudy Guede (linked to in our right column) and Judge Massei’s sentencing report for Knox and Sollecito (linked to in full and summary above) here’s betting she would never have concluded as she did.  These claims for example would never have been made.

After naming Knox and Sollecito as co-killers, Guede’s time was reduced to 16 years.

Rudy Guede has never named Knox and Sollecito as “co-killers”. He named them as the only two killers, only once, to their faces, in the appeal. His sentence was automatically reduced solely because he opted for the fast track process which Italy allows. It was not a reward and he did not testify at Knox’s and Sollecito’s trial.

During the trial, Knox and Sollecito were accused of planning and carrying out a sex crime that ended in the slow sawing open of the victim’s throat…. Then there was the prosecutor’s theory of a bullying four-way sex game gone wrong.

The sex crime idea is not so farcical as Katie Crouch suggests. Meredith had been sexually molested, and her body had been re-arranged some time after her death to point to a sex attack. It was reasonable that the prosecutor put this to the court. Judge Micheli named Knox as the probable initiator in sending her to trial. Judge Massei named Guede as the probable initiator. Guede, Knox and Sollecito were all convicted of a sex crime. Two trials and two appeals have all concluded that three people had to have participated in Meredith’s attack.

For one thing, during her interrogation, Amanda named her boss, a bar owner named Patrick Lumumba, as the killer, and herself as present in the cottage. But Lumumba had an airtight alibi of tending his bar, Le Chic, that night. Why this bogus accusation implicating herself?

This is fully explained by Judge Massei. The interrogators were checking Knox’s recent calls and Lumumba’s name came up. Knox was in an apparent panic at the time as she had just been told that Sollecito had just destroyed her first alibi. Naming Lumumba (which she did not recant until he was released) was an apparent panic attempt to create another.

Meredith Kercher’s blood was on the murder weapon, a knife found in Sollecito’s kitchen. But no it wasn’t, the experts who testified at the appeals said.

This is simply incorrect. The scientific police expert who conducted the original test invited defense experts to be present. One did appear, and he witnessed Meredith’s DNA profile emerging from the machine.  One prosecution witness at the appeal said there was enough material for a retest and the prosecution asked Judge Hellman for this. After a consultation with the jury he said what they had heard already was enough.

OK, well, what about the fact that Knox bought bleach at 7 in the morning after the murder? Wait, but she didn’t. A witness later said her co-worker was coerced into saying that by a reporter. (Plus, after a violent diaper emergency, I myself can tell you that no store in Perugia is open at seven in the morning.)

This is an absurd mis-statement of the relevant evidence. The manager of the Conad testified that Knox was waiting for the store to open when he arrived. Nobody testified that she bought bleach. The real significance of this evidence is that it destroys Knox’s claim that she slept in until after 10:00.

I got up at 5 in the morning and crept to the cottage where the murder happened, staring in the window that the prosecutor argued no one could climb into, meaning the killer had to have keys. But the window didn’t look that high. I could probably climb up there.

A tall and very agile defense staff member tried this and after getting his hands up to the windowsill he had to give up. Judge Massei describes extensively the evidence below the wall, on the wall, on the window sill, and in the room itself to prove that nobody entered by that route. The only DNA found in the room was Knox’s mixed with Meredith’s DNA. No DNA of Guede or any other possible perpetrator was found there.

Knox and Sollecito turned off their phones that night not so they couldn’t be tracked, but because they didn’t want their parents bothering them during sex.

They had never simultaneously turned off their phones before. Sollecito’s final alibi has it that Knox was away from his place for four hours which is hardly conducive to a claim that they were having undisturbed sex.

Knox named Lumumba as the murderer because it was 5 in the morning and she’d been interrogated all night in a language she didn’t, at the time, understand very well.

It was not 5 in the morning. She made the claim soon after midnight and then repeated it in writing at her request for Mr Mignini. At the witness interview (which she volunteered for and could have refused) she had a translator present. Knox mentioned the translator in her testimony at trial.

She had only been in Italy about six weeks, and she hadn’t had any food or water for hours.

Knox herself confirmed at trial that she was given refreshments and treated well. Her own lawyers have never backed up such claims or filed an official complaint. For making claims of abuse against the interrogators both Knox and her parents face calunnia suits by those who consider themselves defamed.

Amanda’s DNA is mixed with Meredith’s blood on the bathroom sink because she brushed her teeth every day.

Not even Knox herself made that absurd claim. Katie Crouch should read this post on the various traces of mixed blood which the defenses have kept well away from disputing.

The knife the police had didn’t match Meredith’s wounds because it wasn’t the right one.

A defense witness at trial conceded that the large knife did match one of Meredith’s wounds. Good grief. Is there ANYTHING that Katie Crouch did get right?

Tweet This Post


Crouch’s article is shocking not only because it misstates facts that are not even in dispute, she didn’t even bother to read Wikipedia. 

My understanding was that the appeals court reduced Guede’s sentence because he apologized to the Kerchers.  I have not read the court’s decision in his appeal and I don’t even know if it is available in English.  I am going by a report in the UK papers.

Crouch also claimed that in this summer’s trial on appeal, the DNA evidence was ‘eradicated.’  To the best of my knowledge, that court has not yet issued a decision.  How can she say that?

Posted by jamesepowell on 09/16/11 at 10:39 AM | #

She should stick to looking after her 16 month old baby instead of writing this nonsense.

I assume she had a boyfriend/husband with her. I would not like to think that she abandoned the tot when she got up to go the cottage at 5am. Was the above photo taken by the current tenant?

Any parent knows that diaper emergencies will occur but actually the store owner said that he saw Amanda at 7.45am when he was opening up his store. Mini marts opening at 8 am is pretty common, at least round here. She should have hung around.

Posted by James Raper on 09/16/11 at 01:44 PM | #

I found this almost as offensive as Karen Pruett’s horrible piece.  That one devoted some time to smearing the Kercher family, which I thought was out of line.  This one is an insult to journalism and common sense.

If anything, she’s proving that the basis of her “informed” opinion is not researching case documents, which are widely available, or interviewing officials, but gossiping with various people who had no connection with the case.  While this would be acceptable for someone who wanted to formulate an informal opinion, it is not acceptable for someone writing a piece in fairly well-known magazine.

I feel bad for Patrick Lumumba, who had to put up with an empty-headed foreign lady, talking to him in no official capacity, and badgering him about things he probably wants to put behind him.

The whole sneaking around and overestimating her climbing abilities was mortifying.  She’s probably unaware that the defense tried to do the same thing and it turned out harder than it looked. 

Lastly, only linking two partisan websites at the end demonstrates zero interest in giving her readers a fair picture of how different groups of people view this case.  It also begs the question of whether Ms. Crouch was paid by FOA to write this piece, which would indicate a serious conflict of interest with Slate.

Posted by Vivianna on 09/16/11 at 02:46 PM | #

If I was one of the current tenants and I saw that face staring in my window at 5am I’d be calling the cops.

Posted by Spencer on 09/16/11 at 04:45 PM | #

If I were one of that cops, I would cry for help.

Posted by Helder Licht on 09/16/11 at 05:31 PM | #

Surgical analysis, Peter.

Amanda’s photo in the Slate piece is almost certainly not the one that Katie Crouch snapped (for authenticity) using her cell phone.

This recent photo, like every recent photo, is also in evidence, but of what?  Amanda resembles those attractive types (air-brushed paintings, not photos) which adorned many an ad back in the 40’s & 50’s, a style no longer to the fore & associated in my mind with tennis, sun-suits, sailing—that sort of thing.  Romance of the past.

First thing in Amanda’s favor with a broad public: she’s darned good-looking without a crease in that face except those that nature puts there when a nice girl smiles.  No shadow of guilt, no suggestion of remorse, no hint of anxiety.

She might almost be dismissing her nearly four years’ imprisonment with the lofty indifference of an Oriental sage or the dismissive attitude of a Zen enthusiast: No fuss.

Can it be—is it possible?—is it conceivable that her secret psychopath’s indifference to consequence, a blind indifference to penalty which in any case is to be cancelled, carries over here?

What impresses is the entire absence of the aggrieved determined worried look of a genuine innocence that has been subjected to those many accusations, the harsh verdict, the enduring imprisonment.  So this attractive photo of a smiling young woman, under the circumstances, seems not at all to fit the circumstances in which she finds herself.  She really thinks that the favorable opinion of two academics who would dismiss the DNA against her will overturn everything else?  I can hardly believe that.

Katie Crouch, to get back to the article for a moment, is after all a sprightly, clever writer: give her that. She speaks of novel deadlines—so she’s writing a novel?  What’s lacking is a serious care for accuracy in detail, as Peter’s analysis has shown.

Posted by Ernest Werner on 09/16/11 at 06:19 PM | #

Mr. Werner, I found the way she wrote rather offensive to women, to be honest.  It sounds like her husband is an academic (based on the fellowship part) and that she follows him around like a lost, embarrassing puppy.

The way she puts herself across sounds far too young for her age, amateurish, and not particularly intelligent, like a model asked to comment on space travel.  I also found it bizarre that she mentioned lying on tiles, sucking on ice chips when the temperature was around 35-40 degrees.  I realize it’s not comfortable, but come on, lots of people live and work in that kind of weather year-round and they aren’t reduced to tatters.  So childish and dramatic.

It was a cringe-worthy read, not only because of the serious lack of professionalism and research, but because it reinforces a lot of unpleasant stereotypes (i.e. bubble-headed lady writer living in the shadow of an accomplished husband, publishing her musings on topics she can’t properly understand).

As far as her novel goes, I hope it’s another children’s/young adult novel like her previous ones.

Posted by Vivianna on 09/16/11 at 07:43 PM | #

Ms. Crouch’s piece is an assault on common sense and good taste.  Her juvenile style and content do not even rise to the level of the merely superficial. 

Apparently, Ms. Crouch thinks it cute and witty to describe her boyfriend as a fellowship-holder being “served prosecco while you think brilliant thoughts” and herself “eating his leftover shaved ham (very delicious) and attending intimidating dinners.”  The dinner she mentions didn’t seem very intimidating, to judge by the comments she quotes from it about the Amanda Knox case and her summation of them as a “fun theory.”

The flippancy throughout is highly offensive.  Although a mother, Ms. Crouch shows no empathy for Mrs. Kercher.  Instead, she seems oblivious to the fact that an innocent young woman on the threshold of a promising adult life was murdered in an unthinkably brutal manner. 

There’s no need to rehearse Peter’s thorough analysis of the flaws in her arguments for Amanda’s innocence.  Ms. Crouch might find it beneficial to do more reading and less writing and to learn to recognize when she is out of her depth.

Posted by Tullia on 09/16/11 at 11:51 PM | #

@Vivianna & Tullia

Well… I am the least bit surprised.  You are both rather severe but you two give a good deal to think about which I hadn’t at all considered from these other viewpoints.  And of course you send me back to the article for a careful re-reading.

Off to supper across the street. Dan, a skilled carpenter, was a high school classmate of my son, now in Pennsylvania. Karen, herself a school teacher, was a classmate of daughter number two, now in North Carolina.  Lucky me.

Posted by Ernest Werner on 09/17/11 at 12:03 AM | #

I’m surprised no one mentioned this gem:

“But some of this mess, it may be said, was caused by tabloid-hungry folks at dinner parties who wanted a different death for Meredith Kercher than a break-in gone wrong. I know I did, sad as I am about it.”

I ask you, does she sound sad at all? What a hollow soul.

Posted by brmull on 09/17/11 at 07:07 AM | #

Just one more morally and factually challenged profiteer. If I could, I would apologize to the Kerchers personally for these atrocious, insensitive and clueless people running around trying to cash in on the death of their poor Meredith. This one takes the “art” form to a new low.

Posted by Skeptical Bystander on 09/17/11 at 07:18 AM | #

P.S. Not surpisingly, she has been “inspired” by that self-serving fraud Doug Preston:!/KatieACrouch/status/107165920870400001

Posted by Skeptical Bystander on 09/17/11 at 07:21 AM | #

I would love to see her climb a mock-up of Filomena’s window, as she claimed she could.

Judging from a picture she is of below average height and, well, you can see her biceps above. She must have some amazing Spidey-powers.

Posted by brmull on 09/17/11 at 08:58 AM | #

” ...this case seemed a gift. Finally, something to talk about in my broken Italian”.

Really? How callous and insensitive could one be than to turn a murder into a parlour joke?

I wonder how funny all this would be if something happened to HER child?

“Knox and Sollecito turned off their phones that night not so they couldn’t be tracked, but because they didn’t want their parents bothering them during sex.”

Isn’t that what we all do before having sex? turn our phones off in case it’s our parents?

But just as I’m battling my brain as to why such a knuckle-head would write something like this I see this at the conclusion of her ‘piece’:

” To learn more about the Knox-Sollecito case, please visit The appeal decision is expected to be reached by Sept. 25.”

Ahhh .. it all makes sense now!

Posted by Zoff on 09/17/11 at 09:03 AM | #

braccia rubate all’agricoltura

Posted by ncountryside on 09/17/11 at 09:14 AM | #

Ah Yes! Or to quote a well known phrase.

“Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.”

I just bet that some of the filth that is fed to a gullible American public by such im-posters who change their name in order to appear more numerous are just banking upon the public to have a retention capability of less than a thirty second sound bite.

This article is one of those. It aims at the very lowest of peoples psyche who, while too lazy to do the homework for themselves, would rather believe that which their hysteria demands.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 09/17/11 at 10:13 AM | #

Comes down to a difference in the way we have read Katie Crouch, who has simply adopted a well-known convention, an accepted convention, of making a sort of “dummy” of herself (like a puppet on strings) & putting the little doll through its paces in the tale she weaves.

And yes, Grahame R., to tell a good story is the point of it all from Katie’s perspective.  She’s been abandoned by her boyfriend, while he eats Italian “prosecco” (whatever that is) & thinks brilliant thoughts on his fellowship abroad—he thinks those thoughts, please note, not she. Poor Katie has to go back home, tot in tow, & pay her bills.

But not yet, as she thinks, having come to Perugia in part because she senses a good story there which would be written with a nod to the prosecution’s case but a deeper sympathy for the Knox clan. It might help to pay the bills.

She pretends—or makes her puppet pretend - to be somewhat doubtful of Knox’s innocence, at first. Canny enough, if we compare the contemptible piece on perugia shock.

But yes, her “take” here (or the convention she adopts) & given the freshness of the wound is simply mistaken. Even rather deplorably so, as the several critics here make plain. Seriousness is called for & she’s not serious.

So what is she? A talented writer trying to make a living in this most unreliable way of doing that. She thinks Amanda might possibly be released soon but is by no means quite sure of it. After all, she’s talked with locals & knows something of the score. But however the appeal may go, she wants to be on the right side of things, states’ side.

As long as Slate will publish this, there will be those who serve it.  Only say this much for Slate (& Katie C): even Slate would not have published the trash on perugia shock which is really infra dig—oops! but which Katie herself has recommended.

Damn it all!

Posted by Ernest Werner on 09/17/11 at 06:14 PM | #

Interesting analysis, Ernest. But I think you give her too much credit. I think she really is dumb. If you read her other article for Slate she brags about how easy it is to write trashy young-adult fiction (her livelihood) insulting all her readers in the process—almost 100% of the comments are against her. That’s not the way to sell books.

Posted by brmull on 09/17/11 at 08:24 PM | #

She recommends Perugia Shock and the main groupie website to anyone who wants to learn about the case?  Says it all really…

Never have I seen such an ill informed, naively written and immature article since the cook wrote a laughable article on the great city of London - where I lived and loved for many years.

On reading, the reader would think simply setting foot off the plane at Heathrow airport would mean certain death.  I got the impression she hadn’t even been there.

Same as above really.

Posted by Deathfish2000 on 09/17/11 at 08:28 PM | #

@Mr. Werner - Prosecco is a champagne-like fizzy wine. I think she has this total fantasy of what a fellowship entails.  Maybe it’s different for star academics, and maybe her husband is well-established and got the star treatment, but usually they give you a stipend which is barely enough to live on (i.e. rent, modest food, bus fare, etc.). And thinking “brilliant thoughts” isn’t enough, since they want you to have a publishable piece by the end.  I think that’s why I developed an intense dislike for her from the first lines of that story. She’s playing the part of a ditzy blond, following her smart husband around, and probably embarrassing herself in front of his colleagues.

I just expect more of a woman who is a professional writer. I expect her to present herself as articulate and knowledgeable, as a solid thinker and a thorough researcher. Unless you’re in the entertainment business or write strictly about babies and small furry animals, it’s not appropriate to be all cutesy and spaniel-eyed, and especially not when you’re writing about serious topics.

On a different note, I hope you had a lovely dinner with your neighbors 😊

Posted by Vivianna on 09/18/11 at 04:18 PM | #


You put the matter very well & in truth I agree with you.  Hadn’t any idea what prosecco meant, until now.

Good neighbors, good dinner, wine… And thanks.

Posted by Ernest Werner on 09/18/11 at 05:16 PM | #


“I just expect more of a woman who is a professional writer. I expect her to present herself as articulate and knowledgeable, as a solid thinker and a thorough researcher.”

Don´t these words exactly describe Barbie Latza Nadeau and Andrea Vogt? I´ve always liked Nadeau because she appears so reasonable and writes for Newsweek , a respected paper.

Posted by aethelred23 on 09/18/11 at 08:16 PM | #

From this trash article:

“One night, in the garden of a local restaurant, after some lemon liqueur that had the same effect on my conversational skills as grain alcohol, I piped up to ask what the table thought of “the Amanda Knox thing.”...“This went on until my toddler passed out in a rose bed.”

Really?  REALLY?  You allowed your child to pass out in the garden of a restaurant, and you expect your readers to continue on with your “article”? Seriously.

“I got up at 5 in the morning and crept to the cottage where the murder happened, staring IN the window that the prosecutor argued no one could climb into, meaning the killer had to have keys.”

How could you “stare IN the window” and what did you see?  You write very poorly, and your article is full of errors.  You make it sound as if the window was at eye level.

In addition, you’re kind of creepy.

Do everyone a favor and enjoy being a mom, and don’t write about things you know nothing about; especially the murder of Meredith Kercher, the true victim here.  Most likely, even the defense teams would appreciate it.

Posted by Tara on 09/18/11 at 08:55 PM | #

Perhaps she could find work at the Observer:

Posted by Spencer on 09/18/11 at 11:20 PM | #

“The prosecution is already rumbling about an appeal, but can’t file until at least 90 days after the verdict, plenty of time for both defendants to find shelter in a safer country.”

I found the above quote at the above address by Candice Demsey, self-appointed and righteous FOA supporter.

PLEASE, can someone with absolute knowledge of italian law advise whether the above is true? She would be allowed to leave the country pending an appeal?

Posted by Zoff on 09/19/11 at 07:28 AM | #

I would imagine that even if they were set free, their passports might be held if an appeal was pending.

Even so, I don’t think Dempsey realizes that their options of a “safer country” are pretty limited - Russia? A banana republic? Somewhere in the Middle East? They’d have to find a place which doesn’t maintain such close ties with the EU as to feel obligated to send them back.

Posted by Vivianna on 09/19/11 at 12:59 PM | #

Sorry for double-post, but I think I may have found an answer to Zoff’s question.  This is from a story written by Andrea Vogt and published yesterday in Seattle PI:

“The jury members have free reign to fashion their decision as they please. They could acquit, convict or also choose to convict on lesser charges, reducing sentences, or even opt to release Knox from prison but order house arrest with electronic monitoring in Italy as the case moves on to the final phase in Court of Cassation.”

Link to this story (well-written, balanced, non-partisan):

Posted by Vivianna on 09/19/11 at 01:11 PM | #

Knox’s cellmate, “Black Widow” Angela Biriukova was acquitted and set free, then convicted in absentia on appeal after she fled to Ukraine. She was eventually extradited back to Italy.

Knox’s camp aren’t talking about this scenario; they’re just exulting in how she’s going to return to Seattle vindicated and rich.

I expect and pray that Judge Hellman and the jury see that justice is served, but if not there’s some solace in knowing that Knox will be forever on the run.

Posted by brmull on 09/19/11 at 01:28 PM | #

“If Knox and Sollecito’s conviction is overturned we are ready to ask for a retrial immediately,” Guede’s attorney Valter Biscotti said last week.

Now I understand why Guede didnt accuse them in court…

Posted by Giselle on 09/19/11 at 01:54 PM | #

Hi Zoff

Rule of thumb. Anything at all coming out of Seattle concerning Knox, read as a lie or just an attempt to sway public opinion. If you start from that premise you won’t go far wrong. 99% of the comments eminating from Seattle and elsewhere are based upon the delusional/hysterical wish that they are right whereas anybody with a countervailing point of view is wrong.

This is based upon those of diminished mental capacity who’s only recourse is to call us ‘guilters’ having been sucked into the Knox P/R parasitical money grubbing and self promoting scheme of things. Katie Crouch/Steve Moore/Candice Dempsey/Oggy for example. Just some of the people who try to make this tragedy into personal financial gain.

As to the Italian point of view Peter would know more about that than I. The legal aspect I mean. In the meantime no worries. The flight risk imposed upon the first trial and guilty verdicts are still in place.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 09/19/11 at 03:22 PM | #

Hi, The Machine, your sources said the conviction would be upheld but sentences reduced?

I’m wondering what sort of mitigating factors would lead to a reduction of sentence for both defendants? Unless it’s for one of them? Or would that be strictly a mathematical re-calculation?

Posted by Ergon on 09/19/11 at 04:17 PM | #

I am a little puzzled by Madison Paxton, Amanda’s Seattle friend who’s been staying in Perugia for Amanda. Although she works there now as a newspaper photographer, she is surely on the receiving end of Knox money—no?  I can’t believe that the sacrifice of her ordinary life in Seattle for Amanda’s sake has gone without its major compensation. So why never a question about that? Any way of finding out?

Major (secret?) compensation could account for her statements, quoted in at least two recent news reports: Amanda is “transformed,” her character “honed,” her optimism “bubbly”—transformed in part by the finds of the two recent experts but honed, of course, by the enduring ordeal.

The puzzle is to account for her steadfast belief in Amanda’s innocence all this while with never a doubt or a question. (And I say that compensation would explain that.) But the other side of it, an even deeper puzzle: does Amanda present herself week in, week out as altogether innocent, framed, a victim of “Italian justice?”

There is a question here which weighs on me from the viewpoint of an existentialist philosophy. Are we seriously to believe (then) that for all this space of time two best friends have agreeably maintained a false relationship based on a falsification in the way they present themselves?

One might say, of course, that this view is speculative.  Maybe so, but on the premise of Amanda’s guilt?...

Posted by Ernest Werner on 09/19/11 at 04:20 PM | #

@ Giselle, but Rudy did accuse them in court. Thus placing himself there too.

Posted by Ergon on 09/19/11 at 04:20 PM | #

Hello Ernest,

As you may know Rocco Girlanda got her the newspaper gig.  Her acceptance of this would have been sanctioned by the Knox/Mellas decision makers.

It is my opinion having followed this case closely from day one that everything is extremely carefully and purposely controlled as regards to public image - with the PR machine advising and pulling strings of course.

Paxton to me strikes me as an odd character and I believe her friendship with Knox goes beyond normal friendship - I think Paxton is actually in love with her.

She knows like they all do that Knox is guilty, or at some point involved in some way.  Paxton certainly - one only has to look at the letters she has received from Knox, she knows.

Take a look at the blow up of one such letter provided by Some Alibi in which Knox tells Paxton that she “fucked up” and hurt her friend.

From the seriously unkempt hair in Paxtons court appearances (in my opinion this is to give a false impression as if its normal to have hair like that as Knox did on all the photos at the crime scene) to the deliberate nerdy look presented, this is all intentional.

To change subject somewhat, I believe even though they have been busy crafting a false image of Knox - the real Knox cannot help but show through.  One example of this we have just seen.

It is my opinion that the involvement Knox has had with regards to the video of the rock band is the ongoing insane jealousy Knox feels towards her victim Meredith.

I thought it at the time and I still think now that Knox was bitterly jealous of Meredith as she appeared with ease in a professionally produced music video - while she herself was only at the stage of inanely strumming away one chord on her guitar, and annoying the hell out of everybody in doing so.

People may not go along with what I say here but this is just my personal opinion.

Posted by Deathfish2000 on 09/19/11 at 05:01 PM | #

From the very beginning to me at least, there has always been this element of covert homosexuality in Knox. OK so what? But let’s consider the overt masculine activities Knox engaged in. The rock climbing, the soccer. Hanging with the boys rather than the girls plus the way she dressed etc: this and other ‘Butch’ activities. I’m not suggesting Knox is gay in the true sense but I believe she is a confused bisexual female which would explain her desire to control and have sex with many male partners who as soon as she had them to reject them only to move on to the next. This is indicative of her basic dislike of the male population who have always seemed to let her down. This is just an idea of course but it would explain her rampant hate for Meredith which is ongoing. The snide remarks concerning menstrual blood in the bathroom for example. This would explain particularly if Knox was sexually attracted to Meredith but got turned down. Psychologically this rejection would weigh heavily upon Knox since it is reminicant of the rejection by her father. I state this which is compounded by everything Meredith stood for, her scholastic abilities plus the ease with which she moved through society plus as ‘Deathfish’ has pointed out, Merediths ease in a pro music video.
In the US Knox had it more or less her own way except she was under some kind of control by her mother. If she had been erudite from a journalistic point of view (although given her scribblings I find that hard to beleive) Then her sexual proclivity and escapades would have made her more popular with whoever in Seattle. Counternance this point with the threat she felt from Meredith and her insane jealousy would account for her wanting to destroy Meredith by arranging to have her raped by Guede who in Knox’s mind was inferior due to the colour of his skin and Merediths also i,e “How can a black girl be better than me?” etc: It does not take a great leap of faith to imagine that after Sollecito Knox would have moved onto the next and so on. This is indicative of bisexuality and would provide the basis for the motive of the murder itself. I have no doubt whatever that Knox has convinced herself that it did not happen and that she is the victim. A ploy she has used very effectively in the past to deflect scorn and criticism in her home life and one in which she now basks in the limelight of in court. Enter Miss Paxton and the pieces start to fall into place

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 09/19/11 at 06:42 PM | #

Ergon, I think I have not phrased myself correctly. Rudy did accuse RS and AK in court, however I was surprised that he did not go all out and get into the details. I remember speculations and discussions that he may do so since his appeals were up. Now his lawyer is saying that if RS and AK are acquitted, Rudy will appeal. It makes perfect sense that he did not spill the beans and tell the truth - he still stands a chance….This is just my opinion, I would love to hear your view on this.


Posted by Giselle on 09/19/11 at 06:58 PM | #

@Giselle, my understanding is that Rudy Guede’s conviction is final. His lawyer doesn’t even know what reason the Appeals court would have for acquitting RS and AK. How could he then promise he’ll file an appeal?
@Grahame, funny, but I too believe that AK had strong attraction for Meredith, and said so in a previous comment.

Posted by Ergon on 09/19/11 at 08:47 PM | #

@Graham Rhodes - I’m not sure I’m following you, but are you suggesting that engaging in activities which don’t require you to wear pink, sleeping with several men, possibly considering to dump your boyfriend for another guy, and being a racist are somehow indicative of bisexuality?

First of all, there’s nothing wrong with being homosexual or bisexual. It’s not a “life style” or a “choice,” contrary to what bigots may want us to think. It’s not synonymous with promiscuity and it’s certainly not conducive to criminal behavior.  If anything, gay people are far more likely to be victims than perpetrators.

Secondly, I wasn’t aware that rock-climbing and soccer are “overtly masculine” activities, but sports in which thousands of girls engage, regardless of sexual preferences.  Would you call me butch because I used to play with cars and dueled people with sticks when I was a kid, or because I happen to be really good at video games? Maybe because I can’t remember when I last wore a skirt or dress? Would it put your mind at ease if I told you that I have elbow-long hair and own a large amount of make-up?

The fact that she associated with boys, combined with her attention-seeking personality, points to the fact that she enjoyed being the only girl in a particular group.  That has little to do with bisexuality and a lot to do with wanting to be the center of attention, the girl who is simultaneously respected as a friend and secretly desired by every guy in her circle.

Next, I’d like to question this statement:

“I believe she is a confused bisexual female which would explain her desire to control and have sex with many male partners who as soon as she had them to reject them only to move on to the next.”

If she were a confused bisexual female, she would have smooched her best friend and felt bad about it, not gone in a rampage sleeping with a bunch of guys.  If you want to find an explanation for the latter behavior, you need to look no further than her narcissism.  There is absolutely no causal relationship between being bisexual and being a man-eater, unless you believe that every bisexual person is promiscuous. You’d have a hard time proving and defending that belief.

“This is just an idea of course but it would explain her rampant hate for Meredith which is ongoing.”

No, it really wouldn’t.  She hated Meredith because she hated men? In other words, she hated everyone? She probably hated Meredith because Meredith effortlessly upstaged her - she got lots of male attention without trying, other girls wanted to be her friend, she did well in school, etc.  She was everything that Amanda wanted to be.  That’s jealousy in its purest form, and it has little to do with sexual orientation. You acknowledge these things and I completely agree with you, because they offer a logical explanation for her hatred of Meredith.

Also, if Amanda had made a pass at Meredith, this bit would have probably been known by the English girls.  Considering that Meredith had been talking about some of Amanda’s annoying habits, I don’t think she would have kept this a secret and it might have motivated her to look for a new apartment. Being hit on by a roommate is an uncomfortable situation, regardless of the roommate’s gender.

“It does not take a great leap of faith to imagine that after Sollecito Knox would have moved onto the next and so on. This is indicative of bisexuality and would provide the basis for the motive of the murder itself.”

Sure, I can imagine that.  What I can’t see is how exactly it’s indicative of bisexuality.  It’s indicative of getting bored fast, of wanting to be pursued by other people or to pursue other people, of being promiscuous, etc.  What do these things have to do with bisexuality?

Are you arguing that bisexuality is the basis for the murder? I find that incredibly offensive because it equates bisexuality with a tendency towards criminal behavior.

Maybe I didn’t understand your post correctly and I apologize in advance for any misunderstandings.  But I resent the reasoning behind it and the conclusions.  I’ve known many wonderful gay and bisexual people in my life, and they are persons, not walking stereotypes or criminal time-bombs.  Even if Amanda Knox came out tomorrow and said she was bisexual, it wouldn’t be the reason why she committed this crime: for that, we can blame her selfishness and her lack of regard for other people.

Posted by Vivianna on 09/19/11 at 08:48 PM | #

I agree with Vivianna. There are certainly men and women who are in love with Knox, although I find her repulsive inside and out (photoshopped Oggi cover notwithstanding). I don’t think she was in love with Meredith. I think Knox was/is in love with herself.

She hooked up with Sollecito, the knife guy, who enabled her to carry out her vengeful fantasy (note the theme of extreme vindictiveness runs through Knox’s story—see for example the final paragraph of Tom Kington’s latest). Whether Guede was brought into the murder plot as a full partner or, more likely, as a patsy we may never know.

Posted by brmull on 09/19/11 at 11:49 PM | #

Vivianna and brmull

  No not at all! I am not demeaning homosexuality. Far from it. We have many freinds in the ‘Gay’ community. In fact my wife and I go to dances with gay couples. I work with friends who are gay. good for them. We are not gay but so what that does not matter since friends are friends. However in Knox’s case all I was doing was throwing out the idea. It would explain in some way an element of motive. Poke holes in my hypothesis by all means and that’s good. But I would sooner be taken to task for suggesting something like an element of motive rather than not put it out there as a possibility. I would rather suggest ‘Tom boy’ activity as a clue to understanding Knox’s motive of rejection by her father and try to make a connection no matter how tenuous to Meredith. If Knox was (is) bisexual then that would lead to motive, an element that the defense has raised time and again. If my post was vague then I apogize for that. But sooner these questions are raised rather than be too embarrassed to make the attempt. Therefore leaving no stone unturned, I stand by the questions I asked as a possible senario.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 09/20/11 at 12:54 PM | #

Grahame, I’m so sorry if I came at you like a bat out of hell. I think that if we want to understand what exactly happened between Knox and her father, we also need to look at his life, his childhood, his parents, etc., information which we don’t necessarily have.  Also, we need to consider things like a dominant personality, a need to be different, or a competitive streak when we look at Knox and her choice of activities. 

The only way that I can see in which bisexuality could be part of the motive is if Amanda had a crush on Meredith and got turned down in a humiliating way.  But I really don’t think it was the case, because she never gushed about Meredith the way she did about the Italian girls, and Meredith never told her friends about any advances.

It’s understandable why Amanda wanted to be accepted by the Italian girls and why she was almost fascinated with them at the beginning.  They held the keys to this new culture she was trying to learn about and become part of.

Initially, I imagine she was excited about having an English girl in the house, just to have someone to talk to.  She may have imagined Meredith to be more like Madison, or may have stitched together some awful stereotypes, picturing a washed-out blonde with a big nose and bad teeth.  So when Meredith showed up, she was probably not happy to see that she was exotic, beautiful, the type of girl everyone flocks around.  To make matters worse, Meredith was also serious about school and responsible about everything else.

I imagine Amanda was rather deflated than attracted, at this point. She probably figured she would use Meredith to make some friends, but found that her own friends likely preferred Meredith.  To me, it makes more sense that she would have felt competitive towards Meredith rather than attracted to her, and that jealousy was the main basis for the motive.

Posted by Vivianna on 09/20/11 at 01:30 PM | #

Absolutaly my point as well. The main observation though is that while living in the US Knox had it more or less her own way. The society she grew up in did not prepare her at all for Perugia. For example not just Meredith but the other girls in the cottage were all there to work hard and study.
Knox was, and still is, basically a party girl. Oh sure in Seattle she was perceived as being a hard worker. But the standard of scholastic excellence in the US does not travel well. When I was in university it soon became apparant that the students who were excepted therein from the US had to work twice as hard in order to just catch up to the excepted university standard. This is not nastiness on my part it just is. Comparatively speaking we had to work twice as hard to catch up to the Chinese students, it’s just a case of the basic standard
exceptable in whatever country your from. So sure Knox was deflated, being narcissistic and full of her own importance it must have been a very hard lesson that she just couldn’t measure up and just like a naughty child who wants to be noticed she reverted to slovenly methods of uncleanliness. or bacame an irritant such as endlessly strumming her one chord on the guitar. (It would not surprise me to find that there was at least one budding Andraas Segivia living in the cottage also) This makes me wonder whether she was about to be asked to leave? (Once again my mind working) As to all three of her parents well that’s another story and one we will never know.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 09/20/11 at 03:32 PM | #

I would just like to add that when Knox was gushing about her new friends and cool house on her social networking pages she never once mentioned Meredith.
It is quite spooky looking back on it now actually - it is as if she didn’t exist.

Posted by Deathfish2000 on 09/20/11 at 05:34 PM | #

Hi Vivianna, I should explain my comment a little bit further too. Since we know nothing about Amanda Knox’s medical history, everything said here is speculation based on the public record.

The Massei trial and conviction was based on forensic evidence, cellphone records, the falsified break in and alibis, the clean up attempts, the behavior of the defendants..

The Appeals court, despite all the rumours, cannot just overturn the evidence and acquit. That would be a perverse judgment.

So what we have left, while we wait for the final days of the trial, is to speculate on motive. When I said I felt Amanda had an attraction for Meredith it was not to imply she was bi-sexual.

As I said I have no evidence for that. But, based on her behaviours, her need to dominate a crowd, to be the center of attention, shows a narcisstic personality (millions of us have it, unfortunately)

Faced with an obviously gifted individual like Meredith, the need to compete, to get her approval, to not be outshone by her, would all war within her psyche. That she was about to lose her job, and that Lumumba was going to hire Meredith, raise all sorts of flags.

Her family dynamic with Curt and Edda may also have played a part. I see a more comfortable relationship with her father, a complex one with Edda. Whether jealousy played a part, or there were other factors, we can only guess at.

Meredith was older, and more mature. At what point attraction crosses over to sexual feelings, or whether it is always underlying, is a debate for the psychologist in us. It certainly explains why this case holds such fascination for so many obviously intelligent individuals.

But I will say this. The nature of the sexual violence committed on Meredith Kercher reveals, in my mind, the sexual undercurrents that lie deep within the psyche of Amanda Knox.

Posted by Ergon on 09/20/11 at 07:47 PM | #

Ergon, I was also under the impression that RG was out of appeals, but from his lawyer’s comment (per Vogt article) it would appear that if the verdict were overturned for AK and RS then his lawyers would be able to appeal his conviction based on the DNA evidence also. I am assuming that this is possible in Italy since his lawyer has so declared… in this case it would make sense that RG did not out the final nail in AK and RS’s coffins as it would incriminate himself to spill the beans and it seems to in his interest if they were to get off based on DNA.

Posted by Giselle on 09/20/11 at 07:56 PM | #

Thak you for exposing another airhead

Posted by friar fudd on 09/21/11 at 06:48 PM | #
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 Media Starting To Take A Closer Look At The Knox PR Shills With Nina Burleigh Exhibit One

Or to previous entry Nina Burleigh: View From A Broad Who Doesn’t Seem To Like Broads Or Being Abroad