Amanda Knox again: very likely guilty, though most Americans will never know it
Last night I saw a made for TV movie about the Meredith Kercher murder case. It was interesting seeing the story brought to life by actors, and particularly seeing the juxtaposition of contemporary sexually liberated, racially integrated, and aimless and amoral college students with the beautiful medieval city of Perugia. While most of the acting was good, the actress playing Amanda Knox was a disaster; the actress was a generic young woman with a victimized expression on her face. She had none of the unusual, disturbing, cat-like charisma of the real Amanda Knox. An even greater flaw was that the movie ended up being just another installment in the pro-Amanda propaganda line that the U.S. media, to its utter disgrace, has pushed all along.
When I last wrote about the Amanda Knox / Rafaele Sollecito case in December 2009 (see this and this), I said that while Amanda and Rafaele were probably guilty, with a 60 to 70 percent likelihood of guilt, I didn’t see enough evidence to convict. That was based largely on my difficulty with the prosecutors’ complicated scenario of how the murder occurred, in which Amanda, Rafaele, and the African Rudy Guede cooperated in a sexual torture of Meredith that turned into murder. I’ve always had trouble seeing that happen. However, as a friend has pointed out, there may be a more direct path to a belief in Amanda and Rafaele’s guilt, namely certain facts that by themselves are simply incompatible with their innocence. For example, their lie about having spent the entire night at Rafaele’s house. Why would they have told that lie, other than to cover up their involvement in the murder? Or their showing up at the murder house with cleaning equipment on the morning after the murder. Why would they have done that, other than to clean up the evidence of the murder? Or Amanda’s telephone call to her mother at 4:47 a.m. Seattle time, which Amanda later denied having any memory of making. Why would Amanda wake up her mother in the middle of the night, unless she already knew she was in serious trouble?
While I obviously can’t know how I would vote on the defendants’ guilt short of serving on the jury and hearing all the evidence, I can think of arguments that the prosecution could make that might persuade me beyond a reasonable doubt that Amanda and Rafaele are guilty, along with Rudy Guede.
Another point: I said in December 2009 that I saw nothing in Amanda’s history that would suggest she was capable of this murder. That’s a weak argument. As I’ve learned from watching many episodes of the excellent cable TV programs Forensic Files and (before it changed to a one-hour, inferior format) Snapped, many murders are committed by individuals who, prior to the murder, gave no sign that they were capable of such an act.
I have read a lot about this case and have come to the conclusion that Amanda Knox and her boyfriend were not guilty. Not even close.LA replies:
The fact that you could say that Amanda and Rafaele are “not guilty, not even close” (not even close?) indicates that you are still inside the pro-Amanda line, which is all that most Americans are exposed to, and have never been outside it. The pro-Amanda line simply suppresses all evidence pointing to Amanda’s and Rafaele’s guilt. I was inside it myself until I began reading other sources.February 23
I am pro-Amanda based on forensic analyses and expert opinions. You mentioned in your blog that Amanda and Raffael were caught standing on the porch with a mop and bucket in hand. This is completely false. As written at the site I referenced:LA replies:
I didn’t say “mop and bucket.” I said “cleaning equipment.”Stogie continues:
By the way, I looked through the site you referenced [True Justice for Meredith], and its arguments are extremely weak. Most if not all of the “evidence” listed there has been thoroughly refuted at injusticeinperugia.org. (For example, the bra strap, which had the DNA on it not only of Raffael, but four other people, and which lay on the apartment floor for 47 days before it was discovered and thus hopelessly contaminated.)LA replies:
The controversy over the bra strap is old hat, like the DNA on the kitchen knife and the business about making it look like a break-in had occurred. There are more decisive pieces of evidence than that. Barbie Nadeau does not even rely on the kitchen knife.LA writes:
I wanted to add that the actress who played Amanda’s mother in the movie did a fantastic job of bringing to life a certain type of contemporary liberal American woman—all pathetic befuddled emotion, no thinking. I don’t remember her name offhand, but she’s an actress I’ve seen many times before.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at February 22, 2011 10:07 AM | Send