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 book arrived late in the day after Amanda's acquittal. Far from offering anything sensationally new it goes over the same story with a lot more padding and a lot less investigation. Disappointingly it says very little about the only real convicted killer Rudy Guede to focus with greater emphasis on the quirky collective mindset of Meredith's English chums and hand-picked juicy titbits from the Court procedures.

This approach has its good as well as bad points. It gives the reader a more detailed version of events that reveal the characters more intimately. It also perhaps intentionally exposes personal bitterness, cliques, value judgements, spite, mistrust, jealousy and all the other half-truths that make the truth and the facts of the case the first casualty almost from page one. The result is that Follain uses these human shortcomings and the resulting testimonies as absolutes when there in fact exist only maybes. At the time of these testimonies from Meredith's friends Amanda would have been safely banged up in Capanne Prison with no right to reply. The seeds were thus sown for this book with the girls safely back in England and the trial yet to come.

THE STAGED STAGED BREAK-IN!

There is no evidence of glass being exclusively on top of the clothing being conclusive evidence of a staged break-in according to the crime scene photographs. Follain says that glass shards were found above and "below clothing" in Romanelli's room. In fact the room was first entered by the Postal Police and Romanelli herself. They considerably altered the crime scene by trying to find out if anything was stolen. The possibility of garments being moved in this scenario explains glass being above and below clothing, since glass would logically stick to clothing. There is photographic evidence of a spray of glass well into the room that indicated that the rock hit the window from the outside with considerable force. The Caribinieri arrived a little later with the photographs taken at around 3 o'clock that day.

Amanda had lived at the cottage for around a month. She would be well aware of the possibilities of potential break-ins. She knew that the front door didn't shut properly unless it was locked. She also would have been aware that the door to the balcony was particularly vulnerable. If the scenario had transpired the way the prosecution contrived it Amanda would have abandoned these obvious solutions in favour of selecting the most difficult and inaccessible entry point to stage the break in. Logically it would be just as unlikely to stage a break in at that location, as it would be an actuality. But of course the prosecution didn't entertain logic!

A VERY BLONDE RED HERRING

There is a cryptic reference to "blonde hairs" being found in the dead Meredith's hand. The blonde hair referred can be sourced to the writer Barbie Nadeau. The hair was lost according to some sources or turned out to be wool fibre according to others. In any case it is a mischievous red herring planted by Follain in order to deceive. I have never heard of this information from any other source. I know nothing of that being presented as evidence.

If the crime scene photographs are interpreted logically it can be ascertained that the rock was not in a paper bag. It was thrown through the window with some force that knocked over a paper bag of clothes belonging to Filomana Romanelli. The rock can be seen next to the bag with splinters of glass next to it and fragments of rock. The inner shutter (facing externally) shows an impact mark with glass in it that also indicates that the rock was thrown from the outside. Any convincing evidence to the contrary simply doesn't exist. The result of the Hellman-Zanetti motivation report clearly indicated that "The act did not exist" i.e. the break-in was actual.

THE CHAMOMILE TEA TORTURE

The chapters dealing with the arrest and confession of Amanda and Raffaele are sheer parody. It appears that the reason that Amanda implicated Patrick Lumumba is based on her reaction to the "See you later" text she sent to him while being plied with cakes, goodies and chamomile tea, with lashings of patience. Mama Mia! How did she survive!! No wonder she was reduced to an emotional wreck! The truth is that whatever happened in the Questura when Amanda was charged is always going to be conjecture. Follain is again placing statements of fact where only maybes exist. He has no right to state that Amanda refused a lawyer when he simply does not know the facts. In any case it is not a matter of choice, a lawyer for the defendant must be present. The police either did not record the sessions or are withholding the recordings. This implies that they have a lot to conceal. The bottom line is that she should have had a lawyer according to Italian law and the confession was inadmissible in court because she was denied one. Police testimonies in this case cannot be interpreted as the truth, yet Follain does not question their integrity.

CURIOUSER AND CURIOUSER

But, It's not just what is said in this book that's curious, it's what isn't said! Let's try to fill in some omissions.

Nothing much is said about the computer hard drives belonging to Filomena, Raffaele, Amanda and Meredith that were erased at the hands of the police thereby destroying evidence of a perfectly normal relationship between Amanda and Meredith. Also wiping out any last sentiments and memories that Meredith would have had for her friends and family.

Nothing is said about the crucial role of Rocco Girlanda, a local deputy and Member of Government, who visited and befriended Amanda in prison and with along with other Italian lawmakers saw the iniquity of the case against Amanda and Raffaele sent a petition to the Italian PM Georgio Napolitano indicating the inconsistencies of the original trial, and demanded an investigation.

Nothing much is said about the undisputed killer Rudy Guede who is credited by Follain with having a previously clean record, when in fact he carried out at least 3 break-ins previously, with the burglary of a nursery in Milan where he was caught red-handed stealing a knife and helping himself to the fridge. On his possession he had items stolen from an attorney's office, these items were a laptop and a small hammer for breaking toughened glass (no prizes for guessing what he would have used that for).

Despite being caught red-handed, Rudy was only booked and then set free. It was only a matter of days before he broke into the girls' cottage and murdered Meredith. But he would have already had the means to do so if he hadn't been caught red-handed at the nursery. The kitchen knife, as well as the hammer for breaking toughened glass would have made his modus operandi clear to the officers in Milan, but they let him go, WHY? WHO sanctioned his release?

Nothing much is said about why Monica Napoleoni's boss advised her against arresting Raffaele and Amanda only to go on and busy himself with other cases. Surely Follain could have found out why in greater detail.

QUIXOTICER AND QUIXOTICER

Monica Napoleoni's ethics however are well exposed. Her preference for the underdog is well documented. Follain quotes her as saying "My Father taught me to always help the weakest and never the powerful, and never to betray your principles". Well, ok, all very quixotic, but it's normally the weakest and most disadvantaged that find themselves in positions like Rudy's. This should not mean that the more advantaged are automatically guilty.

In his summing up for the prosecution dated 24th September 2011 when the tide had well and truly turned against him, Prosecutor Mignini is quoted (from other sources) as saying "Don't let the poor black guy be the only one to pay the price for this murder." Unwittingly revealing the black side to his character, and exposing the same quixotic misplaced loyalties as Napoleoni.

EXCENTRICER AND EXCENTRICER

In an interview with the British journalist Bob Graham the wily old fox Mignini resorts to his most original card...Buffoonery. Mignini admitted that in the room where the crime occurred no biological proof was found connected to the presumed assassin Amanda Knox. Mignini indicated that "theoretically, Amanda could have instigated the crime even from another room". So let's try and work this one out. She was convicted of murder by being the main protagonist in the crime, yet managed to orchestrate the whole thing from another room. Perhaps by megaphone, or semaphore, or perhaps even video conferencing!

This, along with the once darling of the prosecution Patrizia Steffanoni having to account for her 50 forensic calamities and being laughed at by everyone in court for finally admitting that she had kept samples in the girls fridge at the crime scene, made it quite obvious the prosecutions ridiculous little game was up.

A GRUDGING CLOSURE

Follain ends the book by downplaying Amanda's just acquittal and focuses on the naïve bewilderment of the Kercher family and the questionable display of grief by Meredith's English friends as his last word then goes on to dramatise Judge Hellmans statement that "Amanda and Raffaele may be guilty of Meredith's murder - even though the court had acquitted them" as his final testimony. The Hellman-Zanetti report that followed only a few months later shows no such ambiguities by ridiculing and dismantling the prosecutions case in only 144 pages of pure logic. Amanda and Raffaele were freed at last from what must be one of the most incompetent and contrived murder cases in recent history. Read more ›

This is an extremely detailed account of the story, very well researched and packed full of information. It never bogs down though, largely because Follain is so good at capturing people, particularly the quirks in Knox's character, the flowery prosecution and defence teams and the dignity of the Kercher family.

There are some weaknesses though. Strangely, Guede is only caught in outline in these pages. The only person found legally responsible for Meredith's death draws the least attention.

One other issue is that the wealth of contradictory evidence is never analysed. The story is told strictly chronologically and no time is spent summarising keys bits of evidence to hep the reader understand the respective view points of Prosecution and Defence. Finally, certain (on the face of it) key strands are forgotten. This may be the result of these being forgotten in the trials themselves but still, the omissions are curious. For example, early in the book, the author explains that blond hairs were found both in the victim's hand, and her vagina. Who did the hair come from and how did it get there? We don't know, because this seemingly crucial evidence is never mentioned again.

Don't read this if you want to be told who did it; the author does not give a view. But if you want an intelligent (as opposed to titilating), well researched account then this fits the bill.

Follain is an engaging writer who has a lot of behind the scenes access to the grusome Kercher murder inquiry and subsequent trials. Unfortunately, Mr. Follain seems to prefer the story told only by one side of the case. This is a side now thoroughly discounted by the Italian judiciary itself.

I prefer Candace Dempsey's account, "Murder in Italy." There's nothing wrong really with Mr. Follain's book for "entertainment value" especially if you enjoy how middle-aged male journalists describe how girls in their 'twenties assess each other. But given that this is a grusome murder, readers (not to mention the victim's family) should expect some balanced accuracy.

In the main I agree with Mr. Thomas Graham's 24 April 2012 review upthread. I do not agree with all Mr. Graham's points, but this is not a review of a review! In the main he's captured the essence of what's wrong with Mr. Follain's book - it is written too much like there might be the remotest substance to the negative media portrayal of Amanda Knox.

There are unexplored possibilities in this book. I for one find it fascinating that Mr. Follain briefly writes that one of the investigators, Marco Chiacchiera, actually cautioned after Knox & Sollecito's fateful interrogation that the American and the Italian student's not be arrested! No other author covers this point. Given the eventual exoneration, Mr. Chiacchiera begins to look like a sage, yet it in the book hangs there unexplored - and given the exoneration of the two students, it remains the most tantalizing of the points Mr. Follain includes.

The Amazon site video, where Mr. Follain speaks about his book, is perhaps more balanced as a "teaser". Unlike others who claim guilt for these two students, Mr. Follain correctly quotes the reason the judges gave for convicting Rudy Guede - namely, that those judges were convinced that Guede did not do this crime alone. Those wrongly fixated on the two students' guilt often quote those judges as if they were saying specifically that Guede and the two students were involved. My understanding of a fast-track Italian trial is that it would be impossible for the judges to say anything that firm to begin with.

So technically, Mr. Follain's video teaser is quite correct - judicially, the Italian courts owe the Kercher family a better description of how their daughter died. I know I would be demanding to know if this were my family.

I only wish that Mr. Follain had kept this "technical precision" in the book itself. He leaves the reader feeling that there just may be something to Meredith's British friend's continuing character assassination of Amanda Knox. He leaves the reader feeling that Knox actually might know something she is not telling.

In actual fact, there is no way anyone but Rudy Guede knows anything now unknown, and he's not talking. Why would he? By changing his first story (that Knox was not involved) to one which included the two students, he got his 30 years reduced to 16.

Given Mr. Follain's unique inside knowledge of the prosecutors, and almost unique access to them why does this point alone not command more print in the book? Is it because you do not bite the hand which feeds you?

When I say that Mr. Follain, "seems to prefer the story told only by one side of the case," I am not buying into the PR conspiracy theory from Seattle either. What is incredible is that it was Mr. Follain's own interview with Kurt Knox and Edda Mellas, published in a U.K. newspaper, which got Mr. Knox and Ms. Mellas charged with slandering the Perugian prosecutor who Mr. Follain himself is so beholden to for information.

What is incredible is that neither Mr. Follain nor the news outlet were similarly charged which published this so called "libel". How does that work? This alone should caution the reader how "playing ball" with the prosecution spares one from all sorts of things, and should cause a discerning reader extreme caution in assessing Mr. Follain's commitment to balance, and in interpreting any of Mr. Follain's material.

Read Mr. Graham's review upthread, and buy this book with caution. Unfortunately there are precious few books which go into the detail that Mr. Follain does - surpassed perhaps by Ms. Dempsey's more balanced book - so there are few options really to understanding what went on in Perugia in November 2007.