Thursday, January 16, 2020

Meredith’s Perugia #40: Among The 10 Best Under-Rated Italian Destinations

Posted by Our Main Posters

Night view from police helicopter

The Local (Italy Edition)

Click above for the full ten, another of which is also in Umbria. This is The Local’s assessment of Perugia.

Maybe it’s a stretch to list a city of 165,000 people as off the beaten path. But this beautiful, hilltop walled city, only 160 km north of Rome, is often overlooked on the Rome-Florence-Venice tourist pilgrimage. It’s in the heart of Umbria, another underrated region.

You enter Perugia via escalator and walkway through a string of long, dark tunnels known as the Rocca Paolina, built as a fortress in the 1540s. They spit you out onto grand Piazza della Repubblica where Corso Vannucci leads you past Palazzo dei Priori, a Gothic palace holding the city’s main art gallery. Continue down the street to San Lorenzo, a medieval cathedral that overlooks the main Piazza IV Novembre.

Sightsee during the day; party at night. Perugia is one of Italy’s main university towns and the city is brimming with happening pubs, bars and cafes. Take little Via delle Streghe off Vannucci and try typical Umbrian cuisine such as cinghiale (wild boar) and tartufi (truffles) at La Taverna, an elegant, moderately priced restaurant with terrific food and atmosphere.

In terms of average IQ Perugia is among the world’s brightest cities, a result of the huge university teaching and research presence relative to the town’s total population - it is also internationally prominent for its soccer and its music, chocolate and arts festivals.

Posted by Our Main Posters on 01/16/20 at 08:49 PM in

Tweet This Post


News from Italy is often pretty interesting. Typically the good news much exceeds the (gulp!) sometimes horrific news.

Many or most folks in the US here, where there are many prominent Italian-Americans, know more about happenings there than in most places.

Caused in part by a George Clooney/Brad Pitt/Leonardo DiCaprio effect?

The Oscar-winning UK actor Colin Firth, and the billionaire film producer George Lucas, each have houses about 15 minutes west of Perugia.

And coming soon, a few miles north-west of Perugia, a Jennifer Lopez effect?

Posted by Peter Quennell on 01/17/20 at 09:25 AM | #

The National Gallery in Washington and the Metropolitan Museum in NYC each have extensive Italian painting and sculpture collections and many marble Roman sculptures.

They each occupy even more gallery space than the French impressionist collections, which are not exactly peanuts.

And in London at the National Gallery in April there’ll be a show of works by the baroque artist Artemesia Gentileschi. We posted on her in 2013 - see good comments there:

This quote below about the London show is factual, though maybe a bit dry for a female artist whose paintings and life story evoke raw excitement!

National Gallery, London, 4 April-26 July

The first UK exhibition on Artemisia Gentileschi (1593-1654) will focus on her singular position as a successful female painter in 17th-century Europe and how she turned it to her advantage….

The broad chronology ranges across the Italian painter’s 40-year career, “drawing attention to her adaptability to different markets and tastes in the cities where she worked”, Treves says. Trained in the Roman studio of her father Orazio Gentileschi, Artemisia established herself as an artist in Florence and returned to Rome in the 1620s before settling for the last 25 years of her life in Naples.

The museum’s recently acquired Self Portrait as Saint Catherine of Alexandria (1615-17), which was unknown until it was discovered by a French auctioneer, will appear for the first time in context with star loans such as Susannah and the Elders (1610), Artemisia’s first signed work, and the unflinchingly bloody Judith Beheading Holofernes (1611-12).

One room of the exhibition will explore images of the female hero, underscoring how Artemisia “brought an unprecedented female perspective to traditional subject matter”, Treves says.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 01/17/20 at 10:02 AM | #

Caravaggio was and still is widely seen as the most innovative of the new-wave baroque renaissance artists.

He transformed future painting on a scale only ever equaled by the impressionists. Even now there are research efforts to figure out all his secrets.

Artemesia learned from him. He was a close friend of her artist father. I think she ended up at least being his equal.

See that mention in the quote above of her “Judith Beheading Holofernes”?

It is said to be possibly the most painted of all biblical scenes - they number up in the hundreds. There is even a growth industry in rating the best of them:

Artemesia’s is #1 there.

The hapless Holofernes’s face in her painting is said to be that of the associate of her father who Yummi mentioned here raped her at age 18:

Painted while her attacker still alive. That sure was some comeback… !!

Posted by Peter Quennell on 01/17/20 at 11:30 AM | #

I would like to see the paintings of Artemesia Gentileschi, never heard of her. Thanks for link.

I only learned about Caravaggio about 10 years ago when I went to Malta. He had fled there from Rome, looking for absolution from the Knights of Malta. They’d hired him to paint John the Baptist who is the patron saint of their order.

Caravaggio painted the beheading of John for an altar piece. It was a huge size and the only painting he ever signed.

Sadly his efforts at virtue on Malta ended in tears after vicious fights with the knights. He was imprisoned but escaped.

I did not see his paintings while on Malta, dumb mistake, but was so busy with Fort St. Elmo, Valetta, and Birgu and beautiful churches and riding open top bus around island for the history, time flew.

Yes, isn’t it neat that Jennifer Lopez might move to Italy? No doubt the L.A. madhouse and Hollywood hamster wheel have worn thin. May she find peace.

Posted by Hopeful on 01/17/20 at 02:48 PM | #

Hi Hopeful

If you become addicted to Artemesia you won’t be the only one! That London show will attract visitors from everywhere. (Book now, hint!) 

The National Gallery in Washington collection gives a good sense of the mundane artists who thrived before she and Caravaggio elbowed them aside.

This NYC exhibition in 2002 below came as a total shocker, as pretty well NO-ONE had ever heard of her.

In 2017 the London National Gallery deliberately paid a record price for an Artemesia. Two months ago a British buyer set another record.

The London National Galley show was originally intended as an exhibition of female painters, but there simply have been so few of them - back then it was a cuthroat profession.

This all-Artemesia show from April seems intent on conveying boldness and power rather than weakness.

“Artemesia” by Alexandra Papierre (translated from French at $3.33 and up on eBay) while very long is reckoned to have captured her real heroic nature.

In contrast, the shrill “Passion of Artemesia” by Susan Vreeland is ridiculed for its incessantly whiny “I’m the real victim” tone.

That makes no sense, either historically or in terms of her chosen subjects. She showed nerves of steel at her rape trial.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 01/17/20 at 06:23 PM | #

Talking of London… UK readers, we feel for you! Britain is still being flooded with economic total nonsense. I dont know anyone in NYC who sees things otherwise.

With its growth rate at 1.3% and its decline of the pound at 1.7% the UK is GROWING BACKWARD in real terms.

And the UK has had an average of negative growth for the entire past decade (thanks to all that austerity).

It is the only economy in the EC to be doing so. Half of the EC countries are actually in the 4% to 6% growth range, where northern Italy typically is.

Older Brits might recall the term “The Sick Man Of Europe”. That was Britain in pre-EC days.

Now we seem to be seeing Sick Man Of Europe, Part Deux,  with the political leadership in Cloud Cuckoo Land.

Feel free to contradict this? And maybe cheer all of us up. 😊

Posted by Peter Quennell on 01/17/20 at 11:27 PM | #

Well, I’m no economist but I do foresee Britain slipping back to the Sick Man of Europe as a result of Brexit. As yet, and until the end of the year, and maybe even later, we still do not know what Brexit will actually look like, but this government seems hell bent on casting aside economic security within the EU for a life of free trade on the high seas.

Put like that free trade sounds great, very entrepreneurial, very romantic, a harking back to the days of empire, but in fact there is no such thing as free trade in today’s global modern economy where there are very few economies left in the world that we can roll over and bend to our will any more. That has been a fact for a long time now.There are only a few economic entities that have the limited power to do that, such as the USA, the EU (with whom we now have to negotiate, and they hold all the cards) and China. To believe otherwise is to fantasize that Britain is still a great power.

I can remember the days when the quarterly trading figures were national news and were for the most part in the red i.e running a deficit. The trade deficit was also a useful pressure point for trade union action. Anyone remember our docks and energy industry strikes? Anyone remember the consequent anti union legislation and Margaret Thatcher taking on the miners, and the bitterness that caused? No wonder we were so anxious to join what was then the European project. No wonder Thatcher was a fervent proponent of the single market and the customs union.

Doing that, accepting the rules of a level playing field, and enlightened industrial relations, is what calmed down the constant economic and industrial strife at the heart of this island’s life in a post colonial world.

Conversely, what we have left is no globally significant competitive manufacturing base and an over-reliance on the services and financial sectors. The financial sector, built up during our membership of the EU, we will lose to Europe, and elsewhere.

I predict that we are going to turn the clock back to those bad old days. All in pursuit of a fantasy.

A few bongs from Big Ben will not change the future.

Yes, I’m a devastated Remainer, so what do I know, eh?

Posted by James Raper on 01/18/20 at 06:19 AM | #

I’m no economist either but Brother Heflin taught me to sow financial seed if I want a financial harvest. Brother Roberts taught me to believe for my seed to be multiplied to meet my needs “in due season” maybe not immediately. There are daisies and oaks, one takes longer to grow.

King David told me that he had been young but he had gotten old when he said “I’ve never seen the righteous forsaken nor his seed begging for bread.”

Bro. Heflin told me in Virginia, “If you have a great need, sow a great seed, giving brings a release.” So in 2007 I inherited valuable land, sold it in 2008 for top dollar right before the real estate bubble burst in U.S.

With the proceeds I paid the realtor, tithed on the sale price (more than tithed) and had the best ten years of my life.

I continue to sow. Am now in 2020 expecting a 2nd harvest and fresh wisdom to use it well. My final dream is to do archaelogy digs in the Holy Land near the old temple and take my family to visit Israel, too. I’d like to go with Rev. Irvin Baxter who leads tours with Endtime ministries.

The nations’ economies may boom or bust but the believer in Christ will not be in want. Give and you shall receive. He promises He will provide, He will not be a debtor to any man. Aim your seed at your need and trust after giving it. Don’t uproot what you have planted by doubt and unbelief.

“You are the move you make” as pop song says. Make a move. “How can we tell the dancer from the dance?”

Posted by Hopeful on 01/18/20 at 01:16 PM | #

Insightful perceptions by James R and Hopeful. Dont think economists have you beat! This big-guy/little-guy tension is being misunderstood and ill-managed pretty well world-wide.

The big guys (through corruption and foolish rules of the game) are gaining every edge, while the little guys who really can add true new value become instead victims of scorched earth.

The other mega-problem specific to the EC is that the Euro currency mechanism should have been accompanied by a development mechanism to somehow build everyone in, like the UK midlands and the south of Italy (and another mechanism to stop it expanding before each new member gets onto the same rung).

Ironically the UK retaining the pound meant (1) it achieved geographically unequal growth anyway; and (2) it could fool everyone about its actual terrible performance, by comparing apples to oranges (now on steroids, my beef above) rather than apples to apples.

Thus the pound was retained at a huge price. Apples-to-apples clarity by way of the Euro could have suggested instead this great and easily available future to the Brits:

“Dont get further out! Get further in! Don’t just remain (sorry, a feeble battle-cry at best), instead storm the barricades, and set the whole EC enterprise right.”

Posted by Peter Quennell on 01/18/20 at 08:58 PM | #

Last night I watched this programme:

At 35 minutes the profiler points out the distancing by use of words the killer uses: “got home, watched film, had shower”, etc. 

The killer omits the ‘I’ because he is unconsciously distancing himself.

In another ghastly appearance, Amanda Knox does exactly the same thing here. And it’s the first thing she says:

Posted by DavidB on 01/19/20 at 04:26 AM | #

Hi DavidB

A telling catch. You might want to share it with Peter Hyatt. I dont recall he ever pointed to that, at least re Knox, though he found a lot to write about in Knox as here:

Posted by Peter Quennell on 01/19/20 at 06:47 AM | #

@DavidB, Yes, Distancing queen Knox points to herself, refuses to say “I”, merely points toward herself unable to say with the natural first person pronoun, “I” as in,  “I did not commit a crime”.

She’s trying to differentiate herself from Lorena Bobbitt who did clearly commit a crime but who was acquitted on temporary insanity due to abuse by hubby. Knox tries to say that compared to Bobbitt, I, Amanda Knox did NOT commit a crime but she can’t get out the spoken “I”, merely points to self.

Knox makes another Freudian slip when she talks about supporting other shamed and vilified women and reclaiming her narrative. She tries to say that she and Lorena are making their truth known, that they’re putting out the true story of their real character. Then she stumbles and says, “We are showing that not only are we the characters that you thought we were….” blah blah blah.

She should have said, “We are showing that not only are we NOT the characters you thought we were….”

or simpler yet, “We’re showing that we are NOT the characters you thought we were.”

So she flubs it.

Of course she hopes to slide on this mistake by an appeal to the confusion of convoluted language, but who chose the language? She did. This is not her first rodeo or first interview. In competing with Lorena she is stressed and truths slip out.

Her own speech tells us here that “...we are the characters that you thought we were!” Bad characters and probably worse than you imagined is subtext, imo.

I think her “not only” is some vague subconscious identification with Lorena as in “not only one of us but two of us” have done real crimes. It’s possible Knox feels she would have been acquitted on temporary insanity due to booze and drugs had she pled that way.

This interview reveals that Knox knows all the latest jargon which is meant to make dark seem light and light seem dark, to obfuscate truth. Up is down, down is up. She can spin anything, cloud the room with clever lingo and deny shame but many are not buying it. She can’t stop lying. By lying she is colluding with her own future insanity. She can’t even say the words, “I did not commit a crime.”

(not to mention serving time for her crime of calumnia against Patrick, it’s public record that she did commit that crime! and probably the theft of money at cottage)

Distancing herself from truth, she moves closer to the abyss.

Knox seems nervous around Bobbitt. The contrast between the two women is not flattering to Knox:

Although Bobbitt did use a knife her victim survived. Meredith is dead.

Bobbitt had been treated horribly by the person she cut. Meredith had treated Knox very nicely.

Bobbitt seems genuinely sweet and devoted to helping “survivors” of domestic abuse so they won’t act out into violence like she did.

Knox doesn’t care much about others. Knox is not committed to the hard social work of helping people like Bobbitt is. Instead she’s chasing attention, pity, false moral outrage at her victimhood and primarily a paid platform for herself $$$ ch-ching. As always she is “waiting to be heard.”

Lorena Bobbitt acted against her “roommate” terribly, so wrongly but she’s not the complete killer liar that Knox is.

Now I will look at the link to faking-it-tears-of-a-crime.

Thanks for the links.

Posted by Hopeful on 01/19/20 at 05:03 PM | #

It’s no mistake that AK has allied herself with Bobbitt. They are both publicity seekers. There appears to be a high level of narcissism emanating from both women in that although the world expects them to crawl under a rock AND DIE!!!! cackle, cackle. they will be doing no such thing. Lorena wants recognition for her work and engagement with her community and they both spend a disproportionate amount of time going on chat shows to tell everyone that they are not going away. Yes girls we get it. We noticed. If you don’t want to become a punchline or a cheap joke or a headline, then leave your husband and don’t cut his penis off and chuck it away. It is pathetically naive to suppose that a lurid, violent crime would not elicit a dramatic response. Both women’s crimes would have faded in the mists of time had they not been hell bent on sustaining the public’s interest in them.

PS Hopeful. Yes good old Freud! That slip was a classic.

PPS This is a retweet by Jon Ronson by AK.

I find it SO interesting that people frame it the way they do. I’m sure cognitive dissonance is involved. We see ourselves as good people. We hurt someone disproportionately. Then we frantically come up with ways to not feel bad about it.

What do you guys make of this? I would be interested on your takes.

Posted by pensky on 01/20/20 at 05:12 AM | #

Pete, thanks for those links. Fascinating stuff.

‘One of the things I am sure that definitely happened the night on which Meredith was murdered was that Raffaele and I ate fairly late, I think around 11 in the evening, although I can’t be sure because I didn’t look at the clock. ‘

Thanks, Amanda for being so clear about what you were doing on the night on which Meredith was murdered.  (and such a sensitive way of putting it).

Hopeful, I agree with everything you say. And so true, into the abyss. 
I wonder what it is doing to her health..

Posted by DavidB on 01/20/20 at 11:20 AM | #

@pensky, You quote a retweet that is priceless: Knox, “We see ourselves as good people. We hurt someone disproportionately. Then we frantically come up with ways to not feel bad about it.”

This statement if Knox made it seems to expose her mental gymnastics to justify her crime. The “frantically” part sounds pure Knox. The lies to self as well.

Knox seems to be a Jekyll-Hyde. She hides her true self but craves every way available to showcase her false selves which are many. The artistic temperament, wild imagination, consummate actress part of herself. I think she likes the hide and seek game as duper’s delight.

Here are my new theories (possibly all wrong) about her book title, “Waiting To Be Heard”. Whether she chose the title or it was selected by her ghost writer doesn’t seem to matter, it still seems to reflect something of the mind of Knox and the crime.

There’s of course the main thrust of the title, her prison waiting. Knox felt muffled in prison and wanted her voice to be heard but she had to wait a long time. She was muzzled by legal precautions.

Analysis of a book title:
My esoteric take for what it’s worth:

The title is full of people’s initials involved with the crime.
The very first letter, W, is Meredith’s initial ‘M’ turned upside down as the attackers did to her. Knox wanted to overturn Meredith.

In envy she disguises the letter M which is initial of the person most prominent in the case. By turning it upside down to become the letter “W” Knox includes it but hides it. The letter “M” turned on its head shows Knox was Meredith’s opposite.

But everything in this book started with “M”, Meredith.

“M” is Knox’s middle initial for Marie, a form of Mary. She doesn’t want her own initial to appear obvious in the title so turns it upside down into a “W”. Also, perhaps she psychically broke away from “Mother Mary” of her mom’s church in doing this crime, killing Mary and Meredith so to speak.

The little “a” in Waiting is amanda.

She in this “a” is right beside the capital letter M, despite its being flipped upside down.  Larger in life than amanda felt, she hides in the little “a”, and later a silent “a” in heard.

In “Waiting” right after the ‘a’ the “i” is silent. Knox is the I who had to remain silent, her true self had to be shut up. Lawyers warned her.

The “t” is a cross, suffering, blood, or Meredith’s cut across throat.

The “in” in word “Waiting” is formed of an ‘i’ and an ‘n’ together. This is Knox as the I saying “I and him, Guede, g”. I and g were a team.

Another stretch but I see the “n” as a short form of “and”, followed by the initial g for Guede.

“i n g” or “I and G”  Knox may be saying “I and Guede” who perhaps were waiting just the two of them at the cottage for Meredith to return.

The “To” in “to be heard” is a tiny little word but is right in the middle of the title. It could be the number Two, she and Guede waiting just the two of them, getting high on drugs and maybe fooling around. Just the two of them, waiting. The waiting two.

In “to” the letter “t” standing like a cross appears again in a word that might symbolize two people, Guede and Amanda, these two people.

The t as a symbol of a cross as blood or cut across throat, in this small word the cross appears, the number appears, the image of blood if T is a cross might suggest these two did the cutting, or one of these two.

They both did some suffering. Guede had a cut on his finger, Knox had a scratch down her throat. The judges said she bled at murder scene. So these two suffered a bit and certainly after being jailed.

Look at the letters preceding and following the “To/Two”. It’s the “g” for guede, and the sound (not the spelling but the sound) of ‘her’ as in heard. Maybe he as the ‘g’ and her were the two with knives.

They are waiting to “be heard”. Hold on, because this theory is a long shot but say “be heard” “be heard” “be heard”. Say it fast. An elision of this is “bird”.

Could that mean to flip the bird to someone, the ‘f’ word. That’s what they were waiting for, to flip the bird in the worst way to someone (this interpretation is a reach, I grant).

Or the homophone of “be hurt” is possible.

In the word “heard” is also the homonym of “herd”. Knox when Raf arrived to join her and Rudy would form a herd compared to the single Meredith and ride roughshod over her.

More apt is the word “ear” which is in the center of “heard”. It might have been Meredith pulling at Knox’s ear and earring during a fight that prompted the escalation.

In the final word “heard” is a silent “a” for amanda. Right beside her is the letter “r”, the first mention of Raffaele.

So by the end of the title we have amanda standing right next to raffaele, suggested by the final letters of “ard”. A homophone comes to mind, “hard”. The fight was “hard”?

Raffaele if this uncertain theory is right, played a more distant part in the knifing than Knox and Guede did. He is not closest to Meredith in the letters of the title, he comes almost last, his initial is mentioned last.

But the final “r” could stand for Rudy, as the former “g” stood for him.

In which case Rudy is seen in the title in the first word and in the last.

The “rd” even sounds like Rudy if the letters rd are voiced and the “ard” would then show that a, amanda is right beside rd, rudy.

Maybe the two of them were the central players and Raffaele was lost in a drug fog on the couch until the screaming began. We know he put his hands on the bra clasp but maybe in cleanup only?

Rudy described some “petting” behavior he claimed (falsely) that he did with Meredith at the cottage. Could he have done it with Knox in partial exchange for the drugs she wanted or as her thanks, or her under the influence?

Then perhaps after a bit of that which they broke off she called Raffaele over to party with them. After he arrived the disagreements with Meredith ensued?

I used to think of Raffaele as paramount in the struggle and the knifing, but could it have been done by Guede and Knox with Raf doing cleanup and coverup?

@pensky, another thing I saw in your comment was how Knox thinks being silent about the Perugia nightmare is the equivalent of dying. “crawl under a rock and die!!” Nope, never. She wants to be heard.

Knox said in 2009 after the Perugia verdict that “You got it all wrong.” I think she was being honest about that for a rare moment. Maybe the prosecution got some details wrong about who did what. Maybe it was Rudy and Knox, less Raffaele?

Posted by Hopeful on 01/20/20 at 11:46 AM | #

The judges who put forward a scenario were all in agreement on what happened i.e. Knox inflicted the fatal wound, Sollecito slashed Meredith’s neck with a smaller knife and Guede restrained Meredith with one hand and sexually assaulted her with the other.

The fact Knox came into contact with so much of Meredith’s blood and tracked it around different parts of the cottage corroborates their belief that she inflicted the fatal wound.

Sollecito’s kitchen knife was the murder weapon - which further corroborates their belief that Guede didn’t inflict the fatal wound.

Posted by The Machine on 01/21/20 at 02:08 AM | #

@Hopeful I agree with you somewhat that Bobbitt - who committed a dreadful, heinous crime - at least had the justification of having been tortured to that point by an abusive husband (think about how dogs abused as puppies turn into spiteful savage and unapproachable).

However, she did the crime and she did the time.  She didn’t murder.  Thus it was grotesque for Knox to point to herself and claim (unlike Bobbitt, she implies) she didn’t commit a crime.  You can see Bobbitt and the tv presenter looking momentarily stunned at this intercession.

Bobbitt at the time had the benefit of a strong women’s liberation movement behind her and she was presented as the victim of male sexist abuse.  Knox benefitted from a similar campaign that saw her as the victim of sexist Italian police.  That is all they seem to have in common: a perception of being downtrodden females in an oppressive world.

Rudy Guede may have had cuts apparent on in fingers.  However, NONE of Guede’s blood was found at the scene.  It is a fact Knox’ blood was found on the tap and that her blood WAS found mixed in with Meredith’s in the cotton bud box, sink and bidet.  There are no two ways about it.

Posted by KrissyG on 01/21/20 at 06:36 AM | #

There is yet another non-story about Amanda Knox in the mainstream media. This time she has posted a selfie of herself wearing her own prison clothes on Instagram and Sky News think this is a newsworthy event and deserves to be put on the front page of their website.

The mainstream media have become a joke. It defies belief that so many mainstream media organisations have an infantile devotion to this rabid attention seeker.

The article states that Knox was “completely exonerated”. This proves one thing i.e. Sky News can’t be trusted despite their claims to the contrary.

Posted by The Machine on 01/21/20 at 04:32 PM | #

@The Machine, @KrissyG. You both cut to the chase and keep the facts center front, thanks. Hidden messages in the title intrigued me much like Statement Analysis with Peter Hyatt, both are debatable and would never hold water in a court of law. I have thought about the title, “Waiting to be Heard” so many different ways but even if subconscious revelations of guilt were found in the title, they would not stack up to objective facts, that it WAS Raffaele’s knife used, so more likely Raffaele controlled the knife. Rudy’s hands grasped Meredith’s sleeves on the light blue jacket she wore, so we know he held her tightly at one point. The exact nature of the fatal encounter continues to elude and leave much to the worried imagination.

In contrast to these vague ruminations, it’s refreshing to keep the facts straight, keep it real as you both do in your follow-on comments. My head was spinning from all the “hidden messages” in the book title such as “wade in and dupe the herd”, “ink dupe” and other vague homophones, even “dooby” from “to be”, as in smoke a little dooby.

My head was a barrel of lizards after awhile, yet we need not search in the shadows for the real Knox. She left plenty of evidence of herself in Perugia and in post-offense behaviors. They would fill a book.

@KrissyG, I agree that Knox’s blood was found in many different places at the scene, without a doubt. I wonder how Rudy’s finger got cut? odd that he didn’t leave blood from that. Maybe he rubbed his finger off on his own clothes until it dried?

Now I will check out the Sky News link above to see the latest Knox phony news.

Posted by Hopeful on 01/21/20 at 05:43 PM | #

Freaky Knox, wearing prison clothes while prepping for her “wedding”. Run, Chris, run, you can always get an annulment.

Posted by Hopeful on 01/21/20 at 05:53 PM | #

@hopeful Guede claims he grabbed the knife blade of ‘the man in the doorway’.  The wounds - from what I could see on Google images (don’t look, as they are pretty gruesome) - look consistent with someone grabbing the blade of a knife in self-defence.  Guede’s wounds look very superficial compared to the ones on Google.  Truth is, Meredith’s blood swamped everything in that room, so even if he did bleed it wasn’t identifible by the forensics.

Being interested in psychology myself, it is interesting to look at how she phrases things and also, what she omits.  For example, in her book and Prison Diary she completely omits what she did in that one to two hours of leaving the cottage in the afternoon and going into town. 

@The Machine I can’t stnd reading these silly ‘news clips’ about Knox and her Instagram.  However, wearing her prison clothes and not throwing them away seems to suggest a need to keep reliving that dark time.  Few people try to hang onto bad memories so you wonder what mental dysfunction drives her to relive it.

Posted by KrissyG on 01/22/20 at 04:15 PM | #

@KrissyG, I’m glad you shared thoughts on Knox’s prison clothes that she models right before her wedding. Could it mean Knox sees marriage as a prison she is entering again? Her prison identity will always be stronger than her identity as Mrs. Robinson, maybe that’s the message. I see one of these nuts, Chris or Amanda, snapping after the public display of wedding is over. I give it four years tops.

Posted by Hopeful on 01/22/20 at 09:22 PM | #

“I only knew her for a month and I just want to move on with my life.”

But I’m going to wheel out these prison clothes to remind everyone that I went to prison because I just want to move on with my life.

Small point but typical of AK. She is not wearing prison issue clothes. The inmates were allowed to wear their own clothes and there are many references to her mother bringing her clothes. This referring to the clothes as a prison uniform is a subtle form of manipulation to suggest an austerity at Capanne that does not reflect reality.

Soon out will come the orange jumpsuit and shackles.

Posted by pensky on 01/23/20 at 04:31 AM | #

@Hopeful There is an underlying message: ‘I keep trophies’.  You wonder what else she has kept in her possession unknown to the rest of us. 

Spot the creepy mannequin in the background.

Posted by KrissyG on 01/23/20 at 04:32 AM | #

Tweet This Post

Post A Comment


Where next:

Click here to return to The Top Of The Front Page

Or to next entry Sad Passing Of Meredith’s Dad: His Passionate Thoughts On Mez And The Case

Or to previous entry Meredith’s Perugia #39: Even More Moving Than The Playing Here Is That…