Amanda Knox Meredith Kercher
Disclaimer: None of what I say here is fact. This is just my theory, opinion and speculation. If you are interested in this case, research the evidence on both sides and make up your own mind. Thank you.
For the last few months I've been analyzing the infamous Amanda Knox murder trial case where Knox was accused, tried, convicted and then acquitted of the murder of her roommate Meredith Kercher in Perugia, Italy. It's sure a brain twister and messy jigsaw puzzle with half or more of the spectators believing that Knox is guilty and the other half that she's innocent. I found it immensely fascinating for some reason, as have many others. If you're interested in true crime cases, you should research this one if you haven't yet. It's a very captivating case that stays with you and makes you think and wonder. There are many documentaries about the case on YouTube, as well as websites if you search for "Amanda Knox".
With that said, I'd like to offer a unique but well reasoned and logical perspective that no one else dares to say due to most people's black and white mentality on both sides. Warning: This may be a bit offensive to some, but if you read it, you will see that it's sensible and well reasoned and does not appeal to cheap emotional tactics. So hear me out if you are open minded.
1. First, it seems that when you look into the background of the case leading up to the murder of Meredith Kercher, Kercher had blown off Knox. She refused to answer her texts and didn't even invite her to the Halloween party. She acted kind of snobby, uppity and cliquish, not inclusive at all. Had she been nicer to Knox and invited her to the Halloween party and been more social and inclusive with her, she might be alive today. I'm not saying Kercher deserved to die, her murder was wrong of course, but she doesn't seem like the wonderful angel everyone makes her out to be. She just seemed like a snobby person who was cliquish and exclusive. Nothing special about that. Obviously, Kercher and Knox were not real friends, as Kercher's friends testified. What no one brings up is that there are NO photos of Kercher and Knox together, which there should have been if they were friends as Knox claims. (Note: For a deep detailed analysis of the events and timeline leading up to the murder, see the book Deceit by Nick Van Der Leek)
2. Second, I don't think Kercher deserves any special victim status compared to other murder victims or accident victims. Of course her murder was a tragedy, I'm not denying that, just saying that she doesn't deserve to be a "special victim" compared to other victims of murders or accidents. No offense to her family. Just telling it like it is. I just don't think Kercher was some innocent angel with a good kind heart, based on the background of the case and her relation with Amanda. There's no evidence that Kercher was any kind of angel at all, or even that she had a kind, loving and generous soul. Again, not saying she deserved to die for being rude to Amanda. Just saying that had she been more social and inclusive and nicer to Amanda, she might have been alive today and avoided the murder. No one dares to say this of course, but it may be true.
3. Thirdly, I don't understand why so many people on the internet say that we should "remember Meredith Kercher" rather than Amanda Knox. That makes no sense and is illogical for several obvious reasons:
a) First, only Meredith's friends and family should be remembering her. There's no reason why total strangers on the internet who never knew her should "remember" her. She's just a statistic to everyone who never knew her. Why would a random stranger have any emotional investment or sentiment toward her, a total stranger? How can you "remember" someone you never knew? That makes no sense.
b) Second, it's not like she was an amazing artist or writer or inventor with great accomplishment that deserves to remembered by fans. She was just an ordinary student with good grades, which is nothing special since a good student is just an obedient memorization machine. There's nothing about her to be a fan of or or admirer of. Unlike a great artist, actor, writer or politician who passes away and is remembered by their fans. But Meredith is nothing of that sort. She's just average and ordinary.
c) Thirdly, if you never even knew her, how would you know if she was even a good person, let alone some innocent angel with a loving kind heart like Mother Theresa? Gee whiz. I'm not saying she was a bad person, just saying that unless you knew her, you don't know what kind of person she was. You are just assuming she was an "innocent angel" because everyone likes to think that she was for some odd reason.
d) Fourth, Meredith does not even appear to have had an interesting personality or charisma. Even if we had met her, most likely she would just be another bland personality and modern girl who follows trends and conforms to society. Nothing interesting about that. She seemed bland and square, not charismatic, interesting or having any new ideas that would have changed the world. She seemed to be an obedient conformist type, not a game changer like Donald Trump. Not to be rude, but I see nothing "interesting" about Kercher that one would want to remember. In contrast, Amanda Knox is far more interesting and an enigma, even if she is off, goofy, eccentric and selfish. So what? Lots of villains are eccentric and interesting. For example, the Joker character in Batman is eccentric and psychotic and a lot more interesting than the average person. lol. So he's definitely worth remembering for being interesting and unusual, even if he's evil, twisted and psychotic. I'm not trying to defend Knox or any villains, just saying the real fact that some people are interesting and worth remembering whether good or bad, and some are not, and Kercher seems to be of the latter. No offense to anyone, just being honest. I'm not trying to elevate Knox or downgrade Kercher, just telling it like it is.
4. Fourth, not to put down Kercher, but I don't see why everyone is saying that she was "beautiful and gorgeous". She's obviously not. At best, she's only mildly cute. Definitely not "beautiful or gorgeous." People are crazy and weird. They are just exaggerating about her looks to prop her up as some "innocent beautiful rose" who was sacrificed in this infamous ordeal and tragically snatched away from the world, like some sacrificial lamb who was as white as snow, similar to the crucified savior motif in Christianity. It's some kind of weird psychological need to glorify the victim of the case or something, as if she were some sacred martyr. Yet in reality these people didn't even know her. So go figure. Had they known her, they might not have liked her or seen some traits they didn't like. She may not have even been nice to everyone. So it's presumptuous to think she was some "innocent beauty as white as snow". People sure are weird. lol.
Moreover, if you are into Eastern or New Age spirituality, such as Buddhism, Hinduism or New Age, then you might have heard that bad things happen to victims because of their karma from past lives. If that's true (and there is compelling evidence for reincarnation if you research Dr. Ian Stevenson and all the unexplainable reincarnation cases that are well documented) then it could be that Kercher had bad karma from previous lives that caused this. Not saying that's a fact, but it's a possibility that can't be discounted.
5. Fifth, upon examining all the details of the case and Amanda Knox's odd behavior and self-contradictions and lies and lack of a solid alibi and the DNA evidence against her, it does appear that she was involved somehow in the murder and isn't saying all she knows. A key point that the pro-innocence crowd doesn't understand is that while each piece of evidence against Knox can be explained with alternate explanations, when you add them all up cumulatively, all the evidence (and there's a long list of it) against her points to a very strong picture of guilt. If you read Deceit by Nick Van Der Leek or Angel Face by Barbie Latza Nadeau, you will see that the big picture of all the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle in the case does indeed point to a very strong indication of guilt.
However, I don't think she is a murdering type of girl, nor a violent person, though she may be a selfish narcissist and sociopath. Therefore, if she was involved with the murder of Kercher, it was probably due to her losing control of herself that night, and doing something she normally wouldn't do. She may have been on drugs or cocaine, from what I heard, especially since a few months prior she slept with a cocaine dealer, perhaps to obtain free cocaine (since it ain't cheap). So she may have been under the influence of drugs or hard drugs, and lost control of her inhibitions and did something she normally would not do, and blacked out while doing the deed, so she doesn't even remember it. What this means is that it was probably more like manslaughter, not first degree premeditated murder. So her punishment should be less, not 26 years, even if she is guilty.
Now since she already spent 4 years in jail and suffered a lot of psychological stress, I think she already suffered enough, even if she was guilty or involved in the murder, because clearly if she was involved, it was a case of Manslaughter, not premeditated murder. She obviously regrets it and has suffered a lot during those 4 years in prison, and had her reputation ruined too. I think that's enough punishment for Manslaughter. Everyone has a breaking point, even good healthy people can lose it sometimes and do things they normally wouldn't do, under certain circumstances. And everyone has a dark side too, or at least most people do.
So one mistake on one night does not warrant 26 years in jail as punishment. Such a long jail sentence isn't going to bring Kercher back anyway, it's just pure vindictiveness. And besides, Rudy Guede was convicted of the murder of Kercher, yet he is already out of jail, so why not Knox too, assuming she is guilty too? If she was guilty, she doesn't deserve any more jail time then Guede served.
I think my reasoning here makes sense and is well thought out, but again, no one dares to say this, because everyone is either Pro-Knox and think she's 100 percent innocent, or Anti-Knox and think she's guilty and should continue to rot in jail and pay for the rest of her life. I take a more unique view and say that most likely she's guilty or involved in some way in the murder, but it was Manslaughter and she has suffered enough already, for the reasons I cited above. That's a unique view that no one dares to take between the two polar extremes.
What do you guys think? Post your thoughts below.
Addendum: A Theory No One Has Proposed
One more unique point that no one has made is that keep in mind that this murder took place right after Halloween. If you look into Halloween's roots and traditions, it's a pagan festival with dark roots. Legend says that the souls of the dead, from the lowest levels of the spirit world, come out at night. I don't know about you, but I've never felt comfortable when out at night on Halloween. I've always felt a dark vibe on Halloween night, like something was off or unusual. I've never had good luck that night, only bad luck. I've even experienced increased bouts of OCD on Halloween night too.
So if the legend is true, and the spirits or ghosts from the lowest astral realms come out at night on Halloween, it's possible that they could have lingered around a little while afterward. Now, it's said by spiritualists that alcohol and drugs are gateways that can allow spirits to enter into one's body or possess them or take control of them. That's why alcohol is called "spirits". (The German spiritual author Hans Wilhelm has a great video about this too) If so, then it's possible that on the night of the murder, if Knox was drunk or on drugs, that it could have caused a gateway in her to open and allow spirits/ghosts/demons/entities to enter into her to possess her or influence her for a while. If so, then she may have been possessed temporarily or under the influence of dark spirits/ghosts/demons/entities. And that's why she lost control of herself and committed a murder she normally would not have. Either that or she was involved and incited Rudy Guede into it somehow. The same could be said of her boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito and Rudy Guede too, if they were drunk or on drugs as well, then they could have been under dark spiritual influence or possession as well. Any serious student of the occult or parapsychology will tell you such things are indeed plausible and possible and do happen.
I know that sounds crazy, but if you study the world of the occult, supernatural or paranormal, you will understand that this kind of thing is plausible and well documented. So I think it's a possible theory, which has not been brought up or considered or looked into, at least not publicly. Just something to consider that no one else has brought up yet.
Keep in mind that while Knox may not be a violent or murderer type, the fact is that Kercher died with multiple stab wounds so someone must have done it. Guede could not have done it alone and must have been let into the flat by a resident. Everything points to Knox being involved and there at the crime scene that night. The best explanation is that she and Sollecito and Guede were on hard drugs and hard alcohol so they lost control of their senses and blacked out while committing the murder. So they could not remember what happened that night. In the book Angel Face by Barbie Latza Nadeau the author also postulates the same drug/black out theory as being the best explanation that fits all the data and is the most likely that explains how three non-violent people could commit such a dastardly deed. However, she does not mention the spirit or entity possession aspect that I postulate.
Some unanswered questions, assuming Amanda Knox's guilt, that no one has asked or answered yet (to my knowledge):
Assuming Amanda Knox is guilty and trying to cover up her involvement in the murder, some unanswered questions that have never been addressed are: (feel free to post your answers to them below if you have any)
1. Why would Knox come home at 10am after the murder? If i were her I'd stay away from the crime scene and let the other two roommates discover Meredith's body first so i could distance myself from it and feign ignorance.
2. Why would Knox call her other roommate Filomena and report a burglary? That forces her to return home and ends her time to clean up the evidence. If she wanted to delay the discovery of the body that would be the opposite of what she'd do. She would not tell Filomena anything so she could have more time to clean up the evidence.
3. Why would she tell the postal police that arrived to go into the cottage and look around? If she wanted to delay the discovery of the body she would just pretend nothing was wrong and just take the two lost phones and say "Well I guess Meredith isnt home yet. I'll take her lost phones and give them to her when I see her. Thanks. Have a nice day." And wait for them to leave. Then I'd go back in and continue the clean up.
4. If the murder happened at 10pm like the investigators estimate, that would give plenty of time for Knox and Sollecito to clean up the crime scene before morning. So then why did they leave the blood spots in the bathroom sink and the bloody footprint on the bathmat? Why didnt they use bleach to clean it off and get rid of the bathmat? If I were covering up a murder id get rid of the bathmat if the bloody footprint couldnt be cleaned off because is Sollecito's footprint is on it then it incriminates us. So I'd definitely get rid of it by taking it out to the public trash bin outside. And id bleach off the blood stains in the bathroom sink too. I'd make sure the cottage was squeaky clean before morning. Knox and Sollecito are intelligent so why wouldn't they have done that? Even if Knox isnt good at logic, Sollecito as a computer science major should have been good at logic. So he would have cleaned up all traces of them before morning during all those hours after 10pm that night.Or maybe I am overestimating their intelligence?
5. Why did Amanda and Raffaele turn off their phones that night? That looks suspicious like they are trying to cover up their whereabouts and prevent tracking of them. Why not just leave their phones on and leave them at Raffael's apartment? That way it will look like they are there while they are committing the murder or sex game or whatever. And would have been evidence in favor of their innocence. Why carry your phone with you if it's off, especially since that will be used against you? They obviously aren't very bright or logical and didn't think this through.
6. Finally, since Rudy Guede is already out of jail now and served his sentence, why doesn't he spill the beans on Knox and reveal all that really happened? Since he's free now, he has nothing to lose right? Why is he still covering for her? Why doesn't he just come out with the whole truth? Surely he must know what happened since his DNA was all over Kercher's body and the crime scene. What's to stop him? No one has addressed this either.
Why has no one brought up these points or tried to explain them?
Thanks for reading. Feel free to discuss the Amanda Knox case in our Forum here or post your comments below.
Also, if you're interested in researching both sides of the Amanda Knox case, here are sites from both camps that try to argue their side of the case.
Pro Amanda guilt websites:
Pro Amanda innocence websites:
Did you know Meredith?
ReplyDeleteThere is always a reason people cut of ties with other people, usually because those other people are not nice people.
Do you have many friends?
No I didn't know Meredith. I am going by what I see and read about her from good authors like Nick Van Der Leek, who wrote a meticulous account of the days before the murder. I don't agree with him though that Meredith is a winner and Knox is a loser. Knox is not an angel, but I don't see Meredith as being an angel either. She is just glorified because people want to prop her up as innocent for some reason. Remember the people who praise her and say that we should all "remember her" didn't know her either. But I'm a good judge of character. I have some friends yes, and many acquaintances. Depends on what you mean by "many" and what you consider to be a "friend". In America the word "friend" is too loosely used. It doesn't matter though. I am good in psychology and have met thousands of people and been to 14 countries so I'm a good judge of character. Did you even read my analysis above?
DeleteNot in my experience. Most of my friends disappear because they are NPCs and have no soul and do not care about you anymore. Lots of people do that for no reason. Not because you are not nice. Come on. Lots of people lose interest in you for no reason, especially if you are different and not an NPC like most are.
Delete