Thursday, 29 September 2011

Amanda Knox as Fallen Angel





So this is the latest humdinger picture of Amanda Knox. I don't know if she is guilty or not guilty but this is what Carlo Pacelli, the prosecuting lawyer said below. Sadly for Carlo, his comments do kind of point in the opposite direction from which he wants them to point. Carlo needs a strong dose of the old bromides, he's getting a bit hot under the collar here. I bet he has a messy fridge! And we know where that can lead.

More old posts on trial by photography here, the seven deadly narratives of women criminals here and the Myra Hindley mugshot here.


He then told the court that the woman before them appeared to be charming, intelligent, and ‘angel faced because she has spent four years in jail’. 

He added: ‘She is the daughter everyone wants, so you need to know what she was like four years ago.

‘She was a diabolical, Satanic, demonic she-devil. She was muddy on the outside and dirty on the inside. She has two souls, the clean one – you see her before you – and the other.

‘She is borderline. She likes alcohol, drugs and she likes hot, wild sex.’ Knox’s father Curt and stepfather Chris Mellas shook their heads as Mr Pacelli’s description was translated for them while Knox herself looked intently at the judge and jury.

4 comments:

mrs.deane said...

"liking alcohol, drugs, hot wild sex" - that applies to half the world's population, and that's a conservative estimate.

[what is diabolical, is that the verification word asked to fill out happens to read 'undies']

colin pantall said...

Undies - see how satan works, Mrs Deane. May the power of Christ compel you!

Deborah Parkin Photography said...

I have no idea if guilty or innocent but what has always intrigued me about this case is how the focus is on Knox and not Sollecito (& the man serving time already, see, don't know his name unless I look it up) .. it's as if we still find it hard to believe that women are incapable of horrific acts .. we seem to only be comfortable in portraying women as victims and not aggressors. And yet when they are seen as the aggressor we seem to go back to a medieval mentality .. I suppose if they could have burnt her at the stake they would have.

colin pantall said...

I know what you mean but it is the way that women are treated when they are suspected of horrific acts. I saw the film Bandit Queen recently - about a woman who committed horrific acts. I enjoyed it but it does bring to mind what you are saying - the way Phoolan Devi was diminished in the film, her acts trivialised. This is what Arundhati Roy had to say on the matter -

http://www.sawnet.org/books/writing/roy_bq1.html

Take the time and read it - the film is pretty good and worth seeing, the director's arrogance notwithstanding, but everything Roy says is also true.