Amanda Knox, what with living up to her parents' expectations of her, while they lived their own grown-up lives; marriages, divorces, like so many everyday people these days do, still, somehow, this person - who was a child not too long ago - girl/woman, was in some way damaged emotionally and unlike the image others had of her that she tried to live up to and play out for them, she was in no way as self-assured as it may have seemed to others.

She was not as self-assured as they wished her to act out for them, in order to pertain and live up to their own ideas.

They wanted her to act out an image they had of her, act out a role for them.

And that is where her insecurity lies.
She was not truly happy at all.
She was not happy having to live up to a role someone else made for her, she needed an own will.
It is also, this WILL - the lack of one - that is one of the main causes of anorexia nervosa. Not being really able to be you.

It will, most certainly, I'm sure, be uncovered that what partly was the reason for all of this tragedy, was that Amanda Knox was unsure of herself, the over-emphasised presence, a stance and disposition she had, was to cover for her true insecurities. People who are shy often are the last people you'd think of as being that was inclined because they are just so loud and over-present (shouting and singing in a restaurant without any cue, totally out of place and time)

That set of complexes, it may well be, led to her being unable to respond and integrate as an adult and to accept what others thought.

Unable to deal with situations if she was not the central player, situations which placed her in contrast to others, with other females, any notion, in her mind, of her being a lesser person through contrasts that appeared, gave her sense of insecurity a huge jolt/knock and it was as if another person was then her enemy, when this was not true at all.

If she had been stable, with true inner peace and stability, then she'd have known how to have a tougher hide, without going bonkers at anyone.

She'd have known it is normal and ordinary for people to disagree or even criticize but that if others did criticize, it did not have to mean, necessarily, that they thought you was a very bad person.

I think the reason behind why Meredith lost her life was Amanda's inability to understand that Meredith was not condemning her forever.

Amanda had always been told that she is the achiever, the winner, her pseudo logica fantastica got the better of her and she had no grasp of reality, not once she had removed herself, removed herself from the stage with the props to serve her self-illusion, props held her up in her sense of identity.

The props were her life back in Seattle.

Once put into a different environment, her real self was trying to find the way.

She had no sense of realistic identity.
She was the absolute centre of the universe because she had been taught to be that way, but, she in her heart, I reckon, was not happy or comfortable with the prim and proper way to go.
Jesuit education?

She smoked dope and liked to party, and... what's wrong with that?
The only thing is that a world opened up for her in Perugia, Italy, and it surely did go to her head before she got her bearings.

Her sense of identity was not one in tune with reality, it is sad that she never got help.

Sad for Knox, sad for her family but far more devastating for Meredith and sad for Meredith's family and friends.

You can see it in Amanda Knox's facial-body language, laughing when she should look serious, crying tears in a pool filled with crocodiles.

Of course she is scared but she is totally stressed and if she killed that lives inside her now, and cannot be turned back, if she was Amanda Knox prim n proper, studious and also, I can believe it, sweet and kind, she is now that no more.
Amanda Knox could be redeemed if she just stopped the hurt for good and backed down, it is not too late, though it goes without saying; it is too late for Meredith Kercher.

Knox had been built up to be put down, accordingly, in the real world, if you imagine that you are always the winner then when that is challenged by real life situations, a person without the intellectual and emotional baggage may revert to the rule of the fist to keep their pseudo logica going the way they only know how, they've known no other way.
It is threat that causes the fish to jump out of the water and fear that makes people shed their skin like snakes.

These thing are the basic ingredients of mental illness.

And it is the rule of the fist that this is all about, it killed Meredith Kercher.

The underlying reasons for why the rule of the fist had to be used by the killer(s) will have to be found out.

The realm of dismissal and denial will need to be fully penetrated.

Behind the veil of lies and behind the unhealthy familial relationships the units of behaviour that amounted to the totality of what happened will reveal how simple and stupid and silly things were made into a huge mountain of gross indecency, tragedy, cruelty, the result has been awful, yet, in contrast, the real reasons behind it are so lame it will be hardly conceivable to any average thinking person on the street when truth be known.

To kill because of thinking somehow that you were not good enough?

It is about not being able to value the self that causes a person to be incapable of being able to value others.
Even if love is in the air, a person without true self-esteem is unreceptive to it, such people live in a world of fantasy and paranoia and cannot see that others care about them, even when offering criticism.

Who told you that?

And why is it nobody taught you that life is made up of give and take, success is not about always having to be right, why was it nobody taught you Amanda Knox? that it is okay, to listen, to sometimes get a lesser result and that if someone criticizes you it is after all, only their opinion of you, and it may in fact not be true, but that you must not see everything as a full-on frontal attack on your entire personality.

Amanda Knox, in her being, she did perceive things to be breaking her world up, by the challenge that she had never been taught to deal with realistically by anyone, how to deal with real life.

Some families see certain patterns in fact al families do, if there is one person who is always made to be the scapegoat and then somehow that person is removed or not present anymore, someone else is burdened with the role later on.
It is why families need therapy.

Most get no therapy and consider themselves normal.

The Knox family is in no way unique, it is the familial self-love where loving thy neighbour is not absorbed as a lesson of existence and a strategy for higher thinking that is part of ordinary family ways.

Unenlightened love, self-love, vain love.
A modern disease.
Also an age old travesty of life, inability of humans to put humanity fully into force.
Humans are only part human, they are very much beast.
999 the number, the number of nonsense, non sense, no common sense, madness.
Two and two makes 11.

Love in the materialistic modern-day people is selfish love.
That is the way of people.
Very often it is. Selfish love is a product of neediness come about through all-time pervading insecurity and communal identity crisis.
The human knows not what to believe and knows not who the human really is.
That Knox does not know who she is makes her one of the many
.Are people, after all, success and failure, money and poverty, are they their jobs, their children, their characters?

All of those things are limited and are inconsequential, none of it is real, in terms of what the essence of a person is.

It is this great time pervading sense of loss that causes the human to err and to kill and to rob and to cheat and to be unhappy as well as to die unenlightened.

It has been going on, since forever, and Knox and Sollecito and Guede, are extreme representations of the bad in the universe, in the world, in towns and villages everywhere.
Nothing is impossible, what people thought cannot happen, happens, that a university educated young woman could torment and hurt and take out her frustrations on another female, is totally ordinary behaviour for the modern day accumulation of negative energy.
These people have lent their own lives to become channels and representations of all that is wrong with us all, when we are no good and hateful.

If people lived in a world where there never was any greed and cruelty and unkindness, would someone think it up? or is the bad in people something that we as a race can never get rid of?


Usually, violence, instead of speech and debate and conversation and reasoning, is part of what the uneducated do, but, this is no fixed rule, great people make great wars, also well-educated people are also prone to the same flaws, the weakness that causes people to be quick to anger and to revert to violence, is all due to a set of complex hang-ups inside the perpetrator's mind, violence becomes the reflex solution, it drives them to be unreasonable, impatient, uptight and nasty in a flash.
The true criminal mind is marked by the aftermath of murder (for instance), where instead of realising it was all wrong and admitting they've been all bad, they carry on, concealing the first set of crimes, in this way, they cement their feet firmly in the category of the evil-minded, it they were not before, they become it when they start doing these things. The fear, causes them to inherit evil-mindedness. The fear, causes evil.

Cosmoslover2: If what you are trying to say above is that Meredith was in the cottage alone, Amanda came home with Rudy as she was planning to score hash, Meredith was busy and didn't notice Amanda taking her money from her drawer (for whatever messed up reason Amanda had to steal...control & jealousy? Dominance of her better educated, better looking flat mate?)Meredith notices Amanda's theft and begins to rip her a new one, cornered Knox reaches for something which happens to be a knife, hits her flatmate in the neck, panic ensues, Rudy rushes from the bathroom to help (forgetting to flush), quick tidy up done, Amanda back to Raf's and Rudy goes dancing, back for more cleaning the next morning, body found and here we are. This scenario explains why Raf cannot remember what he is supposed to say, why Amanda is confused, and why it is believed that Amanda made the fatal blow. Amanda is not a murderer, she is a liar who committed manslaughter, which is not the same thing. A murder is a stone cold premeditated killer, Amanda is a silly girl with an anger management problem who did a terrible thing in the heat of the moment. She needs to 'fess up, get Raffaele off the hook, get Rudy's sentence lowered and suck up the sentence she is given. She could probably plea bargain to only serve 10 years. 10 years certainty has to be better than gambling with a life sentence? Regardless of what the Knox PR machine says, the odds are stacked against Amanda, more so than Raffaele. In a US/UK/Aus civil court where all is required is "balance of probabilities" she would be convicted no problem whatsoever; criminal court requires "beyond reasonable doubt" and this could struggle but people have been convicted on less evidence. Does the Italian system work on "beyond reasonable doubt" or something else anyone? I know they do not have a jury and follow a version of the Napoleanonic code but not the basis for conviction?

More proof that Candace Dempsey over at her PI hosted blog is streamlining her comments section to suit her own interests; she deletes any comment that questions other blogs and message boards, and comments that don't favor Amanda Knox's innocence. It's biased, and as I said above, a sham.

She just deleted this well thought out post in response to one of hers:

"#218893
Posted by Polly Wogg at 11/19/08 9:17 a.m.
Here are some resposes to Candace's post #218658:



Candace: Only for those who enjoy inter-blog gossip… forgive me my immaturity, I cannot resist. I promise I will not do this often.

The Shadow: You are forgiven for your immaturity. After all, you cannot resist



Candace: Just when you think that the House of Darkness can't get any darker, a friend just sent the latest from that increasingly sinister destination.

The Shadow: Is the House of Darkness any relation to the Ministry of Misinformation? Just wondering. That's so funny about your friend sending you the latest from there. That's what friends are for, right?



Candace: Yesterday they spammed my blog and Frank's when they found out about my book deal. Now they've announced two bold new initiatives. Are they going to send an investigative reporter to Perugia to find out more about the crime? No.

The Shadow: Wait a minute. Who is this "they" you refer to? How do you know who "they" are? Does this mean you can "see" who posts on your blog? Wow! 1984 and all that.
As for sending someone to Perugia, or even having someone there, what in the world would you know about it? Do you know who posts on other boards and blogs too? Do you know where they live? Do you know what they do?


Candace: They are going to do a Frog-y watch on my blog. They are going to repost any comment of his that I delete.

The Shadow: Oh my God! They're going to do what? Your friend doesn't have it quite right. Actually, that was Michael's idea. You got a problem with that? The fact is, many posters the world over enjoy Frog-y's comments and would like to save them from your erratic deletion habits. If you feel there's something wrong with this, then why don't you stop deleting his comments so that everyone is free to make of them what they will? Or are you afraid that is just what they will do?


Candace: Now why would they do this if Frog-y doesn't come from there? And how could they possibly have the deleted posts? Who could provide them? They always say they don't read my blog.

The Shadow: No, dear, once again your friend has got it wrong. "They" don't always say "they" don't read your blog. In fact, some of "them" seem to find it unintentionally funny, and "they" enjoy it now that you have three interesting posters, one of whom you keep deleting. Your friend who sent you the latest news needs to learn to read a little more carefully and report back more accurately. As for your question why would anyone do this if Frog-y didn't come from "there," what in the world does that mean? Where is "there"? Did no one tell you that in cyberspace, as Gertrude Stein famously remarked of her hometown (Oakland, California), there is no there there?

Using your logic, we would have to say that Frog-y is from your blog, since that is the only place he posts. So he comes from "there" -- but where is there?

I began copying all of Frog-y's posts when I noticed how often you deleted them or threatened to. It's pretty easy; I just stop by once a day and copy all of his posts. True, maybe I have missed some because I don't stop by often enough and you have been known to delete first and ask questions later.

Why do you delete his posts, by the way? The obvious answer is because you can. And sometimes the obvious answer is the right one. After all, he asks the really good questions and makes the really good points, which seems to bug the heck out of you. All in all, Frog-y has been pretty good-natured about the whole thing. I think his fan base is expanding as a result. Now if I could only figure out where "there" was, I would drive on over and tell him so in person. I might even get his autograph.



Candace: They are going to try to thwart the copyright notice on Frank's blog, because evidently he didn't copyright his first posts. He now has posted a blanket copyright on the whole site, but they don't think this is binding. So they are going to do screenshots of his cache files and then ... well, they don't say. And I can never follow their tortured logic.

The Shadow: There you go again. Who is this "they"? I read the board and noticed that two posters are trying to figure out a way to show that all of the posts through October 2008 were not published under copyright. Anyway, their logic is pretty easy to follow, so maybe you need a friend with a little more on the ball. I've got an even better idea, though. Since you're an investigative reporter, you could go and have a look at the board yourself.

You don't even need to sign up. There are unregistered guests online all the time and nobody bothers them or asks for ID or anything. You could be, like, totally clandestine. Like Harriet the Spy. How cool is that?! If you don't know where the board "is," just send an email to Frog-y. He gets around cyberspace pretty well, I hear. Or O8. She seems to know everything.

Who wouldn't want to visit the House of Darkness at least once?



Candace: They are also claiming Frank started his blog before Meredith was murdered. So I guess he has psychic powers too.

The Shadow: Have you ever been diagnosed as clinically paranoid? For the last time, who is this "they"? But more importantly, your friend really needs to get her facts straight or stop smoking that wacky weed. Nowhere in the House of Darkness have I seen it written that Frank started his blog before Meredith was murdered. This is an old rumor that surfaced on an Italian blog, and was mentioned by a delightful HoD poster who is at least trilingual. Again, intrepid investigative reporter that you are, maybe you could hunt down that blog, do a quick google translation of the rumor and subsequent discussion, and bring it back to your readers.

You seem not to understand that posters on the board often talk about things that are rumored. And here's the really freaky thing: it doesn't mean they believe them! This is an activity known as speculation. I think your friend is not reading our board very carefully. You either need some new friends or you need to go over there yourself and have a look. Most investigative reporters do that before they go public. But I guess you cannot help it. When the urge to vent strikes, you just go for it, don't you? Anyway, I think you should check these things out first, because otherwise you look like someone who doesn't know what heck they're talking about.



Candace: This is why Meredith's hometown newspaper called them "conspiracy theorists." And why they take that as a compliment.

The Shadow: I'm beginning to see a pattern to your thought processes. What's really interesting about this coverage by the Croydon Guardian is that it has garnered a lot of attention for another blog, a non-profit blog devoted to true justice for Meredith Kercher. I would love to provide a link, but you know how it is with you and links!

In fact, I would love to hang out "here" for awhile, but I gotta get back to the House of Darkness. Anyone who wants to know "where" it is can just ask Candace. And Candace can ask her friend. Make sure you get good directions, however. There's an address, of course, but Candace can't post it. Something about copyright!

Respectfully Submitted
The Shadow

Copyright@PollyWogg 2008"

No anon

Manslaughter is not what I was saying, and a murderer is not only someone who kills in a premeditated fashion, there is murder without premeditation and it is also serious, but premeditated murder is punished in the most severe way.

I was talking about psychology and how it has shaped up what came to be, but I was talking about the psychiatric implements, the idea I have, that Knox, to start with Knox, has psychiatric problems.

Whether those problems are so severe or of a type that could mean Knox could be said to not know what she was doing, I very much doubt it indeed, the murder then, not premediated, but murder nonetheless. And vicious, merciless and cruel, nonetheless.

Premeditation is a very hard thing to prove, after all, a person could decide in a few minutes, or within half an hour to kill, either version, whether a few minutes, half an hour, a day or a week are all premeditated if there was a decision to kill.

If these three did go from having fun in a sexual way to abuse on the sexual front and it turned bad fast through spontaneous reaction, I do still consider it a possibility that a fast decision was made that Meredith had to die.

This, in order to save their own skins, is what they thought, because the fight had been so bad already, to have 43 bruises and the like, means there was an almighty struggle, my impression is that most of that took place outside of Meredith's own room, and the actual killing was only the culmination of gross hostility and abuse.

By cleaning the rest of the place, the hall, the own room, they hid vital clues, but through the very act of perverting the course of justice started right then when they decided to cover their tracks, they created different clues to what had gone on.

They imagined that by cleaning the hall where most of the struggle took place - where there were few items that got broken because there were no items in the hall to be broken - that they could hide their tracks.

If a huge fight had ensued in Meredith's room, then her things would have been damaged.

They were found to be far too tidy.
Meredith's room wa not smashed up.

The fighting must have taken place in the hall and elsewhere in the house.

This is why Knox and Sollecito came across, at first, as though nothing and nobody could be more clever than they, yet, their arrogance will be their downfall.

They really are not as clever as they thought they were.

Their main theme, individually, is selfishness, meaning even if a girl died their own life is so important in their eyes that they are willing to live with the awful truth if they can only get away with murder and that is then what they are trying to do.

They could not bear to imagine themselves losing what they have in life, their things, their pleasures, yet, on the other hand, they feel and felt, no compassion or sense of sorrow for what they, it seems, did to Meredith Kercher.

And what was part of the motive, is what gives them their disposition, they still think, in their minds, that they were right.

This 'being right' was read by the judge as contempt.

He saw that very clearly, as did the other judges before him, as well as all people in a professionl function who have been involved in this case up until now.

The culprits do not display the dispositions of people who have been wronged.

They display features of people who hide the fact that they think they were right when they killed Meredith.

To them it was a fight and they won, and what they think is that it's a pity about Meredith Kercher dying and all, but let us get on now.

Our lives are vastly more important.

Narciss falling in love with his own reflection in the water looks ordinary by comparison, his selfish vanity did not mean he killed people.

In Italy, there is the head judge, and there are lay-persons who are called judges and not jurors in Italian.

Though the word jury does not have to pertain to law only, when speaking in terms of law, it is misleading in the case of Italian law to speak of jury, even though the Italian Ministry of Justice website, writes the word jury. The site may be governmental but the standard of translation is poor, and unprofessional. The meanings are incorrect.

The Italian word 'popolari' translated into English is not popular in this context of law, what it means is that the lay-person acting as a side judge is not a career judge, therefore; a lay person, a person unskilled, untrained, a person without a Masters degree in law or any other training in law too.

Academically, the translation in Italian terms according to their laws, is that the seating on the judicial bench is made of up career judges and lay-persons acting as side judges, not jurors, because these lay people are instructed by the head judges, and decide, with these head judges, though it is the judge that heads the case deciding on guilt, ultimately, or innocence, ultimately.

This must all be written down to back-up the reasons why they came to their descision, and sentencing takes place immediately, not in a later court appearance or appointment.

In law, when speaking of juries, it is a notion that in most people's minds leads to an idea - because of the American and UK systems they are invariably familiar with - of a process of law where the jury does not sit on the same bench as the judges or judges, the professionally trained in law, but where the jury members sit independently on their own panel/bench and where they decide who is guilty or innocent with the judge then determining the sentence.

So to speak of jury, in Italian terms, is a misconception, it is not what is happening and offers no insight into the process.

The lay-persons sitting in on proceedings on the same bench as the career judges in Italy, help the main judges, the career judges come to their final decisions.

The idea is to get to the true version of events as they perspired.

Whereas, much may be discluded in am American or Brit trial, in Italy, everything is taken into consideration in order to get to a more realistic impression of what really happened.

The defence and the prosecution stand before the panel of judges with the intention of convincing the bench, that their version is the right version, their version is what really happened.

If the defence convinces the panel that their version is what really happened, then the culprits get off.

If the prosecution can show a picture that is like a puzzle where all of the pieces fall into place in a most believable manner, then they win.

Not just DNA alone can win a case.

In a way, the Italian job, is one where there is far more a human element, one that says it has to make sense.

Whereas, in America, people may know it doesn't make sense, yet a person can get off sometimes through the power of money and influence.

This is reflected in the plea bargaining that takes place secretly, under both the UK and American versions of law, but which is non-existent in Italy because of the constitution holding the bearers of law responsible for the prosecution of crimes for what they are, a prosecutor has no own authorization to prosecute for a lesser charge if a defendant helps the police.
Under Italan law, the constitution dictates that it is illegal to act making up an own law as you go.

Because that is what plea bargaining amounts to, meaning, far too much space is left for messing about with interpretation of what the law must mean, or may mean, an individual then gets to play lawgod.
In Italy, the laws are written and are to be kept to, at all times.
The prosecutor has no right to introduce own discretion.