Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think she's innocent. I thought it at the time. I also made that connection when I read Monster of Florence & looked up to see if he was involved with the Knox case. I think her "odd" behavior stemmed from her, at a time of crisis, not realizing She was under suspicion & not having anyone (like a parent) on hand to support her.
I don't know if I'll reAd the book, like others have said I usually am not interested in books written by people involved.
I got it from the library, I'm about halfway through.
Amanda is a completely average, middle class girl. Her family is not wealthy. She worked 3 jobs so she could study abroad using her own funds, she rented a room for ~$500 a month in a flat shared with 3 other people and she took a low-paying part time job in a bar in Perugia. Why do people assume she's spoiled?
In NO WAY do I believe she took part in the murder. Rudy Guede acted alone. I didn't have to read her book to believe this, but the book helps clear up many misconceptions people have about the whole case stemming from the pitiful media coverage. If she's a killer, she has to be one of the most incredibly cunning psychopaths on the planet. And her boyfriend of one week, Raffaele, would have to be equally psychopathic.
Read her book with an open mind and decide for yourself. Those who are biased against her because she seems "snooty" may as well not bother. I'm sure they will continue to comment without knowing any of the facts, though.
If she's a killer, she has to be one of the most incredibly cunning psychopaths on the planet.
And the unluckiest since she was still 'caught'
Raffaele's book is really good too - he gives more information that I didn't know before and he is critical of both the Italian legal system and Merediths family's legal council (I am also critical of them)
Mignini is currently suing Raffaele for the things he has dared to write. Hope that lawsuit comes to nothing too.
Mignini is currently involved in over 12 lawsuits for libel (he is litigious in the extreme) and apparently keeps a blacklist of people he engages in wars of attrition with so he can ruin their lives for daring to cross him.
I just read it. I never really followed the case when it was playing out, as it seemed to be a lot of tabloid-created drama and sensation. As I read Knox's book, I was continually looking up facts online to check on whether she was telling the truth. Every time I fact-checked her, she seemed to be accurate.
My conclusion? I believe that she and her boyfriend were not at all involved in the murder of her roommate.
However, her behavior, a result of her very distorted perceptions, and pattern of interacting with people, is what made her appear very strange and possibly guilty to the police. This young woman needs some intense psychotherapy, and that's not even to address the trauma of being wrongly convicted and imprisoned in a foreign country. She has serious personality issues, possibly even a diagnosable disorder (but that would be unprofessional of me to "diagnose" her without evaluating her in person).
First, the way the law enforcement professionals conducted the investigation was appalling. I would like to think that could never have happened here in the US (but you never know). They repeatedly contaminated evidence, violated policies, and made it clear that they wanted to force the evidence to fit their hypothesis that this very strange and immature girl and her equally immature boyfriend were the murderers or at least involved. they continued in this pursuit even when they had the actual murderer with a confession and lots of evidence, including lots of (uncontaminated) DNA. I found many stories about the prosecutor abusing his power in other cases, to the point of fabricating evidence. He's been sanctioned repeatedly. So even though Knox is a questionable/unreliable reporter, the Prosecutor has no credibility in my eyes.
But Knox demonstrated throughout her book her life-long pattern of very distorted perceptions of people, events, and relationships. I don't believe that she manufactured all that on purpose, being some cold, calculating sociopath who wants to appear mentally ill. If she'd done that on purpose, she could have done a much better job of it (as any self-respecting sociopath could do).
Instead, in her many attempts throughout the book to explain herself, she only succeeds in showing how bizarre and distorted her beliefs really were/are. From the beginning of the investigation, she really believed that she was "helping" the police. When any ordinary person with average intelligence and reasonable ability to assess one's surroundings would have seen that they clearly saw her as a suspect, she continued to believe that they saw her as an innocent and very helpful person.
When it became very clear that they were interrogating her, and not just asking a witness for helpful information, she never asked for a lawyer, even knowing that Italy's rules about the right to an attorney are like ours. When she did vaguely mention a lawyer, they did the old "if you get a lawyer it'll just make you look guilty" and she bought it, and kept talking without legal representation. Anyone who has had a semester of civics, justice, or frankly anyone who has seen 2-3 episodes of Law & Order or any other detective show, would have seen right through that and demanded an attorney. Nope, she was this bizarrely wide-eyed innocent child and she went along with them.
She seems to have a seriously dysfunctional need to please others whom she sees as authorities. She repeatedly wanted to prove to the police that she was their "friend," but not in a sociopathic manipulative way, but in a very childlike naïve way. This tendency in her made her very susceptible to suggestion, and this led to her briefly doubting her own memory and believing when the investigators convinced her that she must have amnesia about being present during the murder. She goes on about her later research into the psychological explanation for why this happened, but the info she cites really pertains to people subjected to extended imprisonment, torture, and other "enhanced interrogation techniques." She was questioned for several hours and was only sleep deprived a day or two. But I think she was extra sensitive to what some call "false memory syndrome." She created memories that were not true in order to please the interrogators, and she really believed them for a brief time. The published cases of "false memory syndrome" always involved a very dependent, eager-to-please, suggestible, usually personally-disordered person and an unethical professional with an agenda. In Knox's case, it was detectives and not therapists.
All during her interrogation, when anyone with the judgment of a snow-pea would have recognized that she was being held as a suspect, she went on truly believing that she was being held for her protection and that she was "helping" the police. Even after she was formally arrested and sent to the jail, she continued to believe that they were just protecting her and that she'd be back in classes the next day. Her ability to use denial bordered on delusional (and some times even crossed that line in my opinion).
We all hear about people employing denial as a defense when it comes to things like addiction or enabling behavior. Denial is a very primitive defense, usually abandoned in adulthood for more advanced defenses. But some forms of denial are still common in adults, like I mentioned with addiction or enabling, but in those cases, the adult is denying the severity of something, or denying the connection between actions and consequences. Amanda Knox, on the other hand, used very primitive form of denial--denying the reality of what was happening around her. This shows me how immature and childlike she is.
I only got one hint at how she developed this way. She tended to be extremely (bizarrely) optimistic during her trial. If she lost hope, it seemed to be only for a minute or two, then she'd be right back up with her "everything's gonna be okay" attitude. At one point during her trial though, she began to not be so optimistic. In my opinion, and in the opinion of most readers I'd presume, she was being "realistic" rather than strictly optimistic or pessimistic. But when she communicated this realistic attitude to her mother, her mother reacted in a way that implied Amanda was betraying her. The mother even seemed to back away from her emotionally, almost to punish her for "becoming pessimistic." None of this was spelled out in the book, and I doubt Amanda even had the personal insight to see it. But to me, and I guess to any other reader who has been a psychotherapist, it was clear that she had a life-long pattern of having to be extremely optimistic (including naïve and trusting and always expecting the best from people) or risk her mother's love. After mom pulled away, seemingly "hurt" by Amanda's new "realistic" attitude, Amanda jumped right back into being almost delusionally optimistic.
So it's an interesting book. It's a recipe book for what NOT to do if someone close to you is ever the victim of a violent crime, and what NOT to do if questioned by police. Combined with online research, it's a good case study of a very poorly-handled criminal investigation. It's a case study of how the sensational tabloid media can influence the outcome of criminal cases. And it's an insight into an immature young woman's impaired perception of reality. Some readers might even recognize someone they know in Amanda Knox.
I am not a psychotherapist, so I appreciate your insights, TracySam. And I haven't finished the book, so I will look for some of the behaviors you mentioned. While she may have been immature in many respects, I don't think she was abnormally so for a sheltered young adult going abroad for the first time. I say that because I have been one myself, and I relate to a lot of her experiences. I made my own poor decisions and I can even understand trying to walk to the hotel from the train station up a mountain - I get it. Most European towns are not laid out on a grid, the streets are winding and it's easy to misjudge distance and your own fitness level.
No, I never had to deal with a murder or foreign police or anything like that. But if I had found myself in that situation, even as someone addicted to true crime stories and tv shows...if I was in a state of shock, in a country I'd only been in for 6 weeks, speaking through a translator, mentally and physically exhausted, with one or more aggressive police officers trying to extract information...would I have the presence of mind to ask for a lawyer? I'm not sure I would.
She seems to have a seriously dysfunctional need to please others whom she sees as authorities.
Totally normal for a young law abiding person from law abiding parents who has grown up in a safe law abiding world.
Most people trust police and most police and authorities can be trusted. We are taught to trust and OBEY them.
What happened to Amanda had nothing to do with the fact that she trusted the cops and the lawyers and everything to do with the fact that Mignini and his office was intent on prosecuting her no matter how the evidence played out.
I remember another case where a young boy was convicted of killing his parents and he confessed because the cops said he did it and he had always been taught that the cops were the 'good guys' He was young and open to suggestions from people he had always admired.
Totally normal for a young law abiding person from law abiding parents who has grown up in a safe law abiding world.
Most people trust police and most police and authorities can be trusted. We are taught to trust and OBEY them.
What happened to Amanda had nothing to do with the fact that she trusted the cops and the lawyers and everything to do with the fact that Mignini and his office was intent on prosecuting her no matter how the evidence played out.
I remember another case where a young boy was convicted of killing his parents and he confessed because the cops said he did it and he had always been taught that the cops were the 'good guys' He was young and open to suggestions from people he had always admired.
I agree partly. I'm like that too: I was raised to respect authority, I was raised in a relatively safe and law-abiding world, I always follow the rules and trust the police implicitly. However, if you read Knox's book, you might get the point that her level of need to please the authorities was well beyond how you and I think of it.
The prosecutor, Mignini, was clearly corrupt and on a personal crusade, but a person without Knox's dysfunctions would likely not have played into it so well. She was the perfect victim for Mignini's crusade.
Any reasonable adult, even a 20 year old, would recognize at some point that she was being treated like a suspect and not a witness. At the point where detectives are yelling at you, smacking you in the head, and not letting you go to the bathroom to pee, and you're an innocent person, you would surely decide at that point that there's something wrong here and you need representation.
She said several times in the book how important it was to her for the police to like her, for her to prove to them that she wanted to be helpful, and even how she wanted to be their "friend." You and I might be very respect, compliant, law-abiding citizens, but I doubt either of us would have such feelings.
I'm not just speaking from the point of view of a therapist, or an average law-abiding, authority-pleasing person, but I also routinely conduct investigations in which adults with disabilities are the victims or witnesses. So I've seen first hand how a person with an extreme need to please can be led into saying things that aren't true and even believing them.
Our clients have developmental disabilities or mental illnesses. I sometimes have to investigate allegations of our employees committing verbal/emotional abuse, or other violations of policy or ethics. When I interview the clients, I have to assess whether they are a "reliable reporter," meaning how credible is their testimony? Part of that assessment involves my trying to gently lead them into saying something not true, implying that it would please me (authority figure). If they politely correct me and say "no, not ___, but ____" then they are not easily suggestible, and I can better trust what they are reporting, without worry that someone convinced them to say what they're saying. But a lot of clients are very suggestible, and let me "put words in their mouth." I am sure to do this in a very gentle, non-threatening way that isn't going to affect the person negatively, and I always then "back them out" of the incorrect statement they made to please me. But I have to test them to be able to get to the truth. When I can easily get the client to say something not true, I have to take that into consideration when there is the risk that a staff person convinced them to say something to me.
Not all of these clients I found to be suggestible had severe mental health conditions; many would appear to be just "average" people, some are pretty intelligent. But you'd be surprised how they can be quite easily manipulated into saying something they don't believe.
I agree partly. I'm like that too: I was raised to respect authority, I was raised in a relatively safe and law-abiding world, I always follow the rules and trust the police implicitly. However, if you read Knox's book, you might get the point that her level of need to please the authorities was well beyond how you and I think of it.
The prosecutor, Mignini, was clearly corrupt and on a personal crusade, but a person without Knox's dysfunctions would likely not have played into it so well. She was the perfect victim for Mignini's crusade.
Any reasonable adult, even a 20 year old, would recognize at some point that she was being treated like a suspect and not a witness. At the point where detectives are yelling at you, smacking you in the head, and not letting you go to the bathroom to pee, and you're an innocent person, you would surely decide at that point that there's something wrong here and you need representation.
She said several times in the book how important it was to her for the police to like her, for her to prove to them that she wanted to be helpful, and even how she wanted to be their "friend." You and I might be very respect, compliant, law-abiding citizens, but I doubt either of us would have such feelings.
I disagree, just because I have heard stories - far too many stories of innocent people confessing under duress by the police.
There is another case that sticks in my mind of a 2 men who confessed to murder and then later were set free, (I'd post a link but I cannot think of a single name to go with the story) but one of the men was interviewed after his release and was talking about how he responded to people who say "Well. I'd never confess to something I didn't do'' He got really angry and said ''Until you're in that situation, you have no idea what you'd do''
Mignini didn't need a 'perfect' victim any victim was fine with him, he has many. Including the 20 from the Monster of Florence case.
Mignini wanted her to confess so he used interogation techniques which included lies, manipulations, lack of sleep and no access to any support system for Amanda, in fact I think there were 12 police interrogators.
She was not told she was a suspect at any time and she had no reason to believe that she was one, possibly until it was too late.
They kept the information that she was a suspect a secret - why do you think they did that?
They just kept at her and at her in Italian, for hours late at night and told her that all she had to do was sign her name and everything would be ok.
None of her 'confession' was able to be used against her in court - on the basis that she was never told she was a suspect.
It was a serious and deliberate omission.
I just don't agree that many people would have behaved differently, I think at 20 years old I would have behaved the same way and been in real trouble.
I understand what you're saying about her wanting to be 'friends' with the police and thinking that is odd - but I don't think it is.
She was a stranger in a strange land (been in Italy for only weeks) and was then confronted by a ghastly crime in which she knew she could have been killed herself.
She was seeing the police as allies and did see herself as helpful. I can imagine wanting to be around police, and be on friendly terms with them if someone I lived with was murdered in the house I lived in.
I would be feeling very frightened by the events and grateful that they were there. The very last thing I would suspect would be for them to be my enemies.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
may as well not bother. I'm sure they will continue to comment without knowing any of the facts, though.
