It's definitely worth a read (my complaints of dryness aside; that might be my own finickiness, though) if you've got an interest in the case.
She talks in the book (I'll try not to blather on too much more and spoil it), about how she and Kercher were BOTH serious students and BOTH had casual sex, concepts that apparently the prosecution (and a large portion of the public) couldn't wrap their heads around, which was... intensely troubling. I mean, I'm reading some of this shit where it goes into the "luridness" of her sex life like it's dropping some kinda smoking gun about the murder. I kinda felt the same way watching Paradise Lost all those years ago, when somehow the number of black t-shirts the guys owned was apparently as good as DNA evidence.
It's just this sex-shaming (I'm not overly fond of the term slut-shaming as I think sex-shaming is much more accurate and cuts closer) that seems to take place at every murder trial (or murder coverage) where the defendant is a woman. Like it's inconceivable that a woman could be promiscuous (which neither Knox nor Kercher really were) without being a murderer as well. I mean, it's one of those things that just kinda creeps up on you how intensely fucked up it is.
Sorry to rant on (and I'm sure this is all shit you already know/knew/what have you); I just woke up, bah.
I'm interested since both Knox and her former boyfriend have now wrote books about their experiences (I haven't read his, obviously, but I'm guessing it's similar to hers in that they didn't do it, they got railroaded, et cetera) how that's going to impact the retrial. I mean, they can't exactly hold up a passage of the book as some kind of evidence, presumably.
She talks in the book (I'll try not to blather on too much more and spoil it), about how she and Kercher were BOTH serious students and BOTH had casual sex, concepts that apparently the prosecution (and a large portion of the public) couldn't wrap their heads around, which was... intensely troubling. I mean, I'm reading some of this shit where it goes into the "luridness" of her sex life like it's dropping some kinda smoking gun about the murder. I kinda felt the same way watching Paradise Lost all those years ago, when somehow the number of black t-shirts the guys owned was apparently as good as DNA evidence.
It's just this sex-shaming (I'm not overly fond of the term slut-shaming as I think sex-shaming is much more accurate and cuts closer) that seems to take place at every murder trial (or murder coverage) where the defendant is a woman. Like it's inconceivable that a woman could be promiscuous (which neither Knox nor Kercher really were) without being a murderer as well. I mean, it's one of those things that just kinda creeps up on you how intensely fucked up it is.
Sorry to rant on (and I'm sure this is all shit you already know/knew/what have you); I just woke up, bah.
I'm interested since both Knox and her former boyfriend have now wrote books about their experiences (I haven't read his, obviously, but I'm guessing it's similar to hers in that they didn't do it, they got railroaded, et cetera) how that's going to impact the retrial. I mean, they can't exactly hold up a passage of the book as some kind of evidence, presumably.
Reply
Leave a comment