Amanda Knox: Did she? Or didn't she?

As pretty much everyone on the planet knows except perhaps a handful of Taliban, Amanda Knox and her ex-boyfriend are not going to spend the better part of 30 years in prison for the senseless slaying of her (ex)roommate, Meredith (Mez) Kircher.  I've been of two minds about this whole fiasco since the start of it.
First off, if we are to believe the press - and, much mud has been slung these 4-odd years since Mez was found with her throat cut - Amanda immediately started telling tales the moment she was brought in for questioning.  Her tales threw an innocent guy in prison - and she fingered the police for abuse.  In both cases she was found guilty of perjury, character assassination and defamation.
But, whether or not she & her boyfriend were actually present the night Mez died was never fully proven, and certainly not beyond the shadow of a doubt.  No weapon was ever retrieved, and seemingly, no motive to be found.
However, the case was being prosecuted by none other than the dubious prosecutor of Florence (don't ask), now infamous for his bizarre deployment of his 'investigative powers' and his spinning a web that ruined many an innocent life - while never truly catching the true culprit.  This man, who reminds me of a character from A Confederacy of Dunces, wove a story of sex cults and dark rituals while trying to finger an illiterate farmer for crimes he probably did not commit.  Crimes perpetrated by the Monster of Florence, who periodically took out young lovers while perched in lover's lane.  
The case has been famously chronicled in an eponymous book by author Daniel Prescott and journalist, Mario Spezi.  
Problem was, our self-styled Lieutenant Colombo then went after these very journalists as the monsters themselves, even though Prescott was never in Italy whenever the crimes were committed.  Both have been under investigation, one tried, and even now one friend is defending himself from the zealous prosecution team.  You can read a short article by Prescott on the case in the Atlantic Monthly.
So, applying what we know about railroad justice, even though the kids seemed to have something to hide, the prosecution needed a bit more than wild sex scenes played out in court to pin them to the murder.  Rudy Guede is already imprisoned for the murder, and so, there was nowhere to go but be set free for these kids.
Sadly, whatever the sequence of events that night, those kids will most likely take to their graves.  And, sadder still, while Amanda garners book deals and goes on speaker circuits, one person, practically ignored in the media, was the one who got more than her character assassinated that night in Perugia. 


----------------------------------------------------------
As Amanda enjoyed her first days of freedom, reportedly eating pizza & lasagna as during her Italian sojourn, the bartender who she falsely accused of murder had this much to say:  Amanda is quite an actress.  Those tears she shed upon sentencing were nothing but crocodile tears.

Amanda Knox: Did she, or didn't she?

Well, so many people have been asking me if the proud Ms. Peacock did it in the bedroom with a kitchen knife, I thought I'd put my hands into the fray surrounding Italy's first O.J. trial (leave it to the Americans to export this insane media frenzy, too).


Just like everyone poring the Italian papers, I was utterly convinced Amanda Knox was guilty, along with her Harry Potter-like boyfriend, Raffaelle Sollecito. Like the Preppy Murder 20 years before, could it be, as the prosecutor suggested, it was a sex game gone awry? But, looking at the American press, you begin to question her guilt. An excellent article in last summer's Newsweek makes a fairly non-biased summary of the very Italian convoluted 'trial procedures' (if you can call them that), which begin to illustrate the chaos of the case. To highlight just a few:


- Knox's original witness list contained 35 names but defense lawyers have retracted 23.
- The jury is not sequestered, and are allowed to talk with each other and read papers along the way.
- Sollecito's chief forensic consultant walked away from the case (and stuck lawyers with a 50,000 euro bill) in May because he disagreed with the defense strategy.
- The witnesses who actually testified for the defense caused even more confusion: two forensic scientists placed on the stand contradicted each other. (Sollecito's expert told the jury that Kercher was killed by a single assailant from behind; Knox's said Kercher was killed from the front).
- Sollecito's lead attorney, a parliamentarian in Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's party, missed court for weeks.
- His other two attorneys dismantled their joint practice during the course of the case.


Furthermore, we have a guy already in jail for Meredith's murder, Rudy Guede, caught after a series of knife break-ins around Perugia and across Italy (and repeatedly released), and then picked up only after fleeing to Germany. In America, one of these three would have been fingered for the actual murder, the others as accomplices to the crime -- after all, how many people actually held the knife?


To this circus, one must evaluate the excellent observations made by an American journalist during another media circus trial: Douglas Preston & Mario Spezi in their book about a serial killer in Florence, quaintly called, Il Mostro - 'The Monster of Florence'. In a nutshell, they reveal that a) the prosecutor devises his own cockamany theory, then b) pursues it with unbridled fervor, c) stopping at nothing to prove his point. He then d) brings in sex cults and e) stuff straight out of a Sydney Sheldon novel, like accusing an innocent man in Perugia for running a black sect, and at one point, even arrests said journalist for being the mostro himself, despite the fact he was most likely at the Olive Garden (to be differentiated from 'an' Italian olive garden) near his home in the U.S. when it occurred. During all of this, the hungry media was fed lines -- no investigative reporting, just repeating the rumours endlessly for effect. In fact, all those accused by this loose cannon have been released by Italy's Supreme Court and the case remains unsolved.


This same prosecutor, with his fervid imagination, is the man behind the Foxy Knoxy trial.
And, while I agree with the Times' view that in Italy (as elsewhere, I might add), circumstantial evidence and on-trial behaviour is important; even with Amanda's conflicting stories, her base accusations that the police beat her (provoking them to sue her for slander), and all the other conflicts in this comedy of DNA errors, I cannot honestly state that she should be convicted 'beyond a shadow of a doubt'.

Doing as Romans Do

Last month, I was fortunate enough to hear my favorite Edutainment guy, Alberto Angela (host of the show, Ulysse) who, along with his dad, Piero Angela (host of the Quark series) make it the only two guys in Italy (aside from yours truly, Caroline Lawrence and The History Channel) who make history entertaining. He regaled us with stories from his just published in English book, A Day in the Life of Ancient Rome.
[for a funny version by Rick Steves, go here.]

What was at once totally wonderful and – admittedly – depressing, was that, in these 2000 years, not a whole lot has changed. After reading Colleen McCullough’s The First Man in Rome series, boy, that point really hit home! Between the politics, the affairs, the theater, the filth, the intrigue...Basically the only difference I found between then and now was that, in the old days, actors were seen as only one rank above prostitutes and singers were usually slaves. Nowadays, actors not only are royalty, they even marry into Europe’s royal families. Makes you wish for days of yore…

But I digress. Here is a short list, alà Alberto Angela, of things people complained about in Ancient Rome (people like Marzio, who would have been today’s equivalent of a learned David Letterman or in the very least, a blogger):

Traffic – the Romans had strict rules for when you could come into the City Center with your mule, much like the ZTL zones today. Not only that, whenever a politician’s posse came riding through, all traffic was stopped to let them get ahead, just like those omnipresent and obnoxious blue cars of today. In addition, Roman roads were constantly filled with holes and in need of repair

Pollution -- While today it’s car pollution and small particles, in the day, it was the smoke arising from nearly every fire pit around town.

Immigration – everyone seemed to complain about the arrival – in an already crowded place – of more and more immigrants from across the empire. The higher up you went in the multi-storey building, the more people you’d find crowded into single rooms – not like the state of the poor immigrants of today.

Housing – there was a huge shortage of housing, with people speculating on the real estate and building, just as today. Although I imagine that they all didn’t enjoy ‘second houses’ while many flats were left empty due to fear of renting them out.

Justice System – there was a very long waiting list for court cases to go through the system; today, it’s an average of 5 years. They also had spectacular court cases like the current Amanda Knox case in Perugia, giving rise to Judge Judy and her ilk.

Misc. – Rome was a very dangerous place by day or night, and, along security was a huge issue back then as now. Graffiti was commonplace and an eyesore, except I think there’s was even more permanently carved in stone. And finally, as a sign of demise, of course, there were the low birthrates and the high divorces.

Pretty much the biggest difference was the advent of household appliances: fans, blenders, ovens, water spouts. You name it: in ancient times, these duties were carried out by slaves but today, these little objects still respond to the commands of the master of the household.

And who says history doesn’t repeat itself?

Separated at Birth?

I know that the Bush Administration is getting a bad rap these days, blamed for all kinds of things...but, I couldn't help but noticing the uncanny similarity between one of the Bush girls and Amanda Knox, currently on trial for murder here in Perugia.
Could it be...??? And they thought the DUI was a problem...

Unveiling the Veline Defense

My original posting from her first trial.  October 2011, Amanda Knox and her ex-boyfriend, Raffaelle Sollecito is defending her case through the Court of Appeals.  


Anyone who has heard any news from Italy these days knows about the murder trial going on in Perugia. Amanda Knox and her (now) ex boyfriend who are on trial for murdering her roommate with a quick knife cut to the throat. And, although she changed her story time and again, she says she’s innocent.
Obviously, the time she’s already spent in jail watching Italian TV (in Italy, you’re guilty until proven innocent) has taught her a few things. And so 'Foxy Knoxy' (her former internet i.d.) has decided on a charm defense, trying to turn it on for the presiding judge, after seemingly already winning over her lawyers. So here we have another case of a 20-something naughty girl (or Veline, as they're commonly called here, basically, 'eye candy'), flirting around with yet another overdressed septuagenarian man. Only this time, he’s not donning a 3 pc. suit, but covered head to toe in robes.
There’s one thing her Italian finishing school didn’t teach her, though. That laughing is not acceptable for girls of any repute, let alone of ones of hers. I might add that, given the circumstances (oh, say, a senseless murder of a roommate or, you know, the fact that you may rot in an Italian prison for some 30 years), that one might cop a more serious pose. I’m thinking something along the lines of say, the Statue of Liberty and decidedly not Charo.
So her coquettish behaviour, giggles and hardy laughs with the men obviously garnered the big headlines. Not so much for offending the décor of the trial itself, but for having so blatantly flaunted one of the Golden Rules for Women Living in Italy: THOU SHALT NOT LAUGH IN PUBLIC. I swear it was one of the original 10 Commandments.
Amanda says in her defense, “They’ll come ‘round to seeing my side of the story”. But what about the victim’s side? 
 Let’s just hope the judge can keep his hormones out of the courtroom. Perhaps the prosecution can show him a few episodes from Perry Mason or Colombo as a sort of counter-defense measure.