A Death in Italy: The Definitive Account of the AK case

A Death in Italy: The Definitive Account of the AK case

Postby Jstanz » Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:52 pm

Anyone know anything about this? Notice the publication date of 8/21/12.....It has a new cover picture of Amanda, too.

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/a-death ... hn+follain

A Death in Italy: The Definitive Account of the Amanda Knox Case
by John Follain

Product Details:
ISBN-13: 9781250024244
Publisher: St. Martin's Press
Publication date: 8/21/2012
Edition description: First Edition
Edition number: 1
Pages: 464
Product dimensions: 6.12 (w) x 9.25 (h) x 1.15 (d)

Note date of publication this summer (B&N is taking advance orders). He's switched the name of the book from the MK case to the AK case.
All my grammar and spelling mistakes are the result of auto-correct. If auto-correct is not used here, I still blame it.
Jstanz
 
Posts: 2781
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 8:13 am

Re: The Definitive Account of the AMANDA KNOX CASE

Postby roteoctober » Wed Mar 14, 2012 3:29 pm

IIRC anglolawyer has read (or is still reading) it, so maybe you can ask to him directly through an MP, if he doesn't read your request in this section.
roteoctober
Tech Director
 
Posts: 2433
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 4:01 pm
Location: Turin - Italy

Re: The Definitive Account of the AMANDA KNOX CASE

Postby Jstanz » Wed Mar 14, 2012 3:40 pm

roteoctober wrote:IIRC anglolawyer has read (or is still reading) it, so maybe you can ask to him directly through an MP, if he doesn't read your request in this section.


Thanks roteoctober, I realized after I posted this that this is just the US publication of the same book. I had originally thought that maybe he changed some things, but I doubt that.
All my grammar and spelling mistakes are the result of auto-correct. If auto-correct is not used here, I still blame it.
Jstanz
 
Posts: 2781
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 8:13 am

Re: The Definitive Account of the AMANDA KNOX CASE

Postby Clive Wismayer » Wed Mar 14, 2012 3:59 pm

roteoctober wrote:IIRC anglolawyer has read (or is still reading) it, so maybe you can ask to him directly through an MP, if he doesn't read your request in this section.

I have read it and I keep recommending it, as the guilters bible. It really is very good if handled with caution. There is a brilliant review here on IIP which I can never find, by Dr David Anderson. Maybe Sarah will see this post and reproduce that review somewhere prominent.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: The Definitive Account of the AMANDA KNOX CASE

Postby Hans » Wed Mar 14, 2012 4:10 pm

anglolawyer wrote:
roteoctober wrote:IIRC anglolawyer has read (or is still reading) it, so maybe you can ask to him directly through an MP, if he doesn't read your request in this section.

I have read it and I keep recommending it, as the guilters bible. It really is very good if handled with caution. There is a brilliant review here on IIP which I can never find, by Dr David Anderson. Maybe Sarah will see this post and reproduce that review somewhere prominent.

This one? (from Amazon.co.uk)
David Anderson wrote:This review is from: Death in Perugia: The Definitive Account of the Meredith Kercher Case from Her Murder to the Acquittal of Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox (Paperback)
This is the book we have been promised by British tabloid journalist John Follain, since the end of the first trial and the conviction two years ago of Amanda Knox and her then boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito. Since then it was delayed seemingly ad perpetuam. But at last, after the final release from prison after four years of Amanda and Raffaele, I was able to buy and read a copy! It is a difficult book to review fairly, and I write as one who has closely read six other books on the subject (and given up on a seventh).

I find even the cover of his book, showing Amanda Knox in incredulous tears of joy in court at the declaration of her obvious innocence, juxtaposed with Hodder and Stoughton's final title, to be at best incongruous. I know that Follain still believes that Knox and Sollecito are guilty since he told me as much the day after their acquittal. "So you say, David, so you say", he said. My personal position, since I awoke to the injustice two years ago, is that this was always the most improbable amongst many unlikely hypotheses. As a European who lives in retirement in Italy, I then worked as hard as I could to help expose the injustice. Follain, on the other hand, was throughout so close to the Prosecution that he had to suffer the flushed embarrassment of a shoulder-squeezing benediction from Prosecutor Mignini as the latter left the Court after his final summing up in the Appeal! Earlier, the author had managed to be nominated for the Magazine Journalism Awards of 2008, for his interview with the Knox family for a Sunday Times article that - oopsy daisy - led to Mignini to sue Amanda's parents for calumny! While the Knoxes are still being prosecuted by Mignini, Follain and Rupert Murdoch's Sunday Times, have neatly dodged the fate they caused others less fortunate or less wealthy than they!!

The two young people were eventually declared innocent `because they did not commit the crime'. This is as innocent as you can get in Italy. So how does John Follain manage to write a book which suggests guilt while recording much of the sequence of events which led to their clear and unequivocal acquittal by a slow but finally as fair a review process as you get in medieval 21st century Italy? That has taxed me, and I still find it difficult to spot the tabloid maestro's slight of hand. So first let me address an easy question; is the book's title fair? Is it THE DEFINITIVE account?

The Prosecution case was constructed from the start around an extreme hypothesis. This was that two young lovers with no history of violence had engaged in a sex game and the gruesome killing of the girl's friend and flatmate with an Ivorian burglar they didn't know. They then covered their heinous crime by staging a break-in, and cunningly then `discovered' the crime and made it look as though they were trying to help the police. Since all of this was rejected as false on appeal, we have to accept it as nonsense. So what would the counter hypothesis be? Surely an investigative journalist for a tabloid of the calibre of the Sunday Times, should counter this by exploring in such a book as this the diametrically opposed explanation, even at the risk of also being sued for calumny? This is that a highly disturbed police and prosecutorial system, for reasons of its own, or even just out of sheer malice, chose to pin the crime on the nearest and softest available target(s), and then to reconstruct facts to support their theory. Follain must realise this wouldn't be the first or indeed the last case of criminal activities being conducted in the name of solving a crime?

Such a possible, indeed obvious, construction is not remotely touched upon in this book. What we have instead is a time line, but one which does not really tell us in words what the author believed or now believes. To be fair, parts of the book seem to be quite fairly written; these are like a calm patches between revelatory rapids, and both for me, as one seeking to understand the collective psychopathology of what really went on, are in their ways revealing. In the rapids he has enormously convenient but rocky blind spots, which he uses ruthlessly. To give you a feel for these, let me quote some sentences plucked verbatim from his book, concerning major elements for the prosecution. I find such insights very revealing, just because Follain was and still is so close to the cerebral functioning of the Prosecutors and the police. Thus we have......

Detective Superintendent Monica Napoleoni.....

'......For the first time in her career, Napoleoni found herself leading a major investigation when her boss Chiacciera, who had argued against arresting Patrick, Amanda, and Raffaele, dropped out of it - officially because he was too busy with other cases......
........She `liked to wear her silver shield-shaped badge as a pendant on a chain around her neck and occasionally tucked her semi-automatic ordnance pistol into a Louis Vuitton handbag'. ...
.........Delighted that Rudy had been caught but frustrated that she hadn't been the one who arrested him, Napoleoni and her colleagues turned their car round and headed back to Perugia.....
..........For her turn as a witness, the detective Napoleoni swapped the jeans and casual clothes she always wore on duty for her navy-blue police uniform........
........,(to lawyer for Lumumba, Carlo Pacelli) `Obviously she was treated firmly, because it wasn't as if we were at the cinema or the circus, even if someone thought we were' Napoleoni said, in a clear dig at Amanda's yoga exercises at the police station......
........(Kerchers in Court)- (they) watched from a back row where they sat next to the detective Napoleoni, who proudly wore her police badge on a chain around her neck......
........(Upon Amanda and Raffaele's conviction) - Meredith's father John embraced Mignini, then turned to Napoleoni; he hugged her, cupped her cheeks in his hands and then hugged her again.........-`Thank you for Meredith'; Stephanie said to her.'

Prosecutor Giuliano Mignini........

'......Autopsies didn't unsettle Mignini as they did several of his colleagues, and he didn't bother to wear a mask........
.......Mignini didn't hesitate. Some of his colleagues kept the police at arms length, simply giving them instructions and then waiting for the results, but Mignini wanted to be as closely involved as possible as if he was a detective himself.......
.......From the very time he'd looked into her bedroom his hunch had been that only a woman could have been so shaken by the sight of the victim as to seek to hide the body....... The DNA finding quickly became public.......
.........In a room at the Capanne prison, with Mignini as a silent observer, Rudy first described (to Judge Matteini) how he knew Amanda.....
.........Mignini had thought long and hard about the best way to tackle Amanda. Her greatest strength was her intelligence; her greatest weakness was her fragility......
.........'They were telling me I was guilty..After hours' -Amanda said and then broke off. She brought her hands up to her head and covered her ears - `that gesture again', Mignini thought to himself - and (she) started to cry. As Amanda wiped the tears away with her fingers, Mignini immediately made a point of requesting that the tears be noted for the record........
........Mignini was still seething as he strode out of prison. He had never carried out such a tense interrogation......
........In his spare time - he had none now - Mignini loved reading history books, especially tales of great battles ranging from those in ancient times to the Second World War, and in some ways he saw what awaited him in court as a battle......
.........Mignini rose and began his final request for the sentencing of the accused. Amanda was a narcissist, he said, who nurtured anger and was unusually aggressive. She manipulated people, indulging in theatricals and in transgressive behaviour. She had little empathy for others, suffered from `emotional anaesthesia', and had a tendency to dominate relationships in order to satisfy her immediate needs.......
.........(at the end of the first trial)..As soon as Mignini saw them he went up to kiss Arline and Stephanie on the cheeks, and to shake hands with Lyle..... '

Second Prosecutor, Manuela Comodi.......

'.......Comodi saw Amanda as the instigator. She was a charismatic figure, capable of influencing others, and she was the driving force who had drawn the group together, setting in motion the spiral of events......
..........The film was Comodi's idea..when she realised the film's potential, she decided to show the entire reconstruction. `For most people what you see on TV exists; what you don't see on TV doesn't exist'........
.........The junior prosecutor Comodi watched Amanda and Raffaele leave and suddenly thought to herself: `They're going to be convicted, I'm sure of it'. She then thought `How absurd, how terrible for two such young kids to have so many years in jail ahead of them.'....'

The Kercher's lawyer Francesco Maresca........

'......(Day 1 of the trial) Whatever the reason was, Amanda's smiles and laughs exasperated Maresca. `Let's see if either of them will be laughing when it's all over,' he remarked.........
........ On Valentine's day... (re the T-shirt with 'All you need is love' on it). Maresca could hardly contain his anger. `Amanda's gone too far. It's fine to declare yourself innocent all your life but there are limits. I can't stand this frivolous attitude. It's offensive to the court, and it's especially offensive to Meredith's family......
.........(after acquittal) Seeing her lawyer Maresca looking crestfallen, Arline asked him `Are you alright?' Maresca was amazed that she should be concerned about him at such a moment. `Yes, yes' he replied, `and you?'.....'

Meredith's friend Sophie Purton, (who Follain craftily quotes as a surrogate for his own unvoiced opinion) ........

.......One thing tormented Sophie, and she talked about it again with Meredith's other friends Amy and Robyn: was there anything they could have done that night to prevent Meredith being killed?.......
........(in court) From time to time, Sophie would close her eyes as she remembered aloud Amanda's coldness when she hugged her at the police station, or Amanda telling her Meredith had died.....
......... (for the acquittal) Sophie believed Amanda and Raffaele were guilty and was confident they would be convicted; she couldn't even imagine an acquittal........

These are just a small selection of Follain's fallacious textbites, from a book which reveals as much by what it doesn't say as by what it does. For me it provides great insight into the pathology behind a cunningly constructed and gross miscarriage of justice. Clearly two horses were backed, and 90% was written with two diametrically opposed possible endings, and these bits were not touched again after the appeal. This is by no means the definitive account of what really went on, but Follain does at times prove genuinely informative in those places where he lapses into fact as opposed to supposition and innuendo, and some of this is hard to find elsewhere. But the book mainly provides unique insight, which would only have been revealed to a journalist seen as `one of us', into the disturbed individual and collective psychopathology of all those who both prosecuted and persecuted in this case. Brains (ruthlessly aided by journalists such as Follain) that constructed, for dark reasons yet fully to emerge, a case against two perfectly normal youngsters, for what was in fact a horrendous but commonplace crime of break-in, sexual assault and murder carried out by one highly disturbed young man.

So please do not expect to find enlightenment from this book if you know nothing about the case. But if your understanding of this and of institutionalised evil is deeper than that, then at least borrow a copy.
He [Raffaele] is collateral damage in the unreasonable, irresponsible, and unrelenting scapegoating of the prosecution’s grotesque caricature that is “Foxy Knoxy”
~ Amanda Knox
Hans
 
Posts: 4544
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 8:41 pm
Location: Germany

Re: The Definitive Account of the AMANDA KNOX CASE

Postby Clive Wismayer » Wed Mar 14, 2012 4:45 pm

The very one. Have a

:coke:
Clive Wismayer
 


Return to Book Reviews and Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests