Last night my wife and I attended a gathering of writers who are presumably trying to improve their craft by engaging with other writers. The featured reader of the evening was an infuriating author of a book about Amanda Knox, the girl who went to Italy for a year to study and is now in jail after being convicted, with her boyfriend the supposed accomplice, of murder. The lurid details of this case were an international media obsession until recently. Author Mark Waterbury is probably correct that the interest of the media and publishers slackened after a raft of books about Amanda Knox flopped.
Waterbury has written his book, The Monster of Perugia: The Framing of Amanda Knox, because he passionately believes the Italian justice system misfired in this case and is generally corrupt. I have not read the book and don't intend to read it because, based on his presentation last night, he is inept as an advocate for this girl. The readings from his book seemed maladroit attempts at literary effect instead of presentation of any of the evidence for or against Amanda Knox and her boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito.
It took me an hour to calm down after telling Waterbury that his quotes from Jonathan Swift and Shirley Jackson, along with stereotypical prejudices against Italians and Catholics, and calling the whole thing a witch hunt, were little more than ignorant bluster in view of the seriousness of his accusations. Beyond asking an ego-involved advocate to justify his indignation, what could I say? He gave me no reason to read his book.
I might have dismissed the ordeal as an evening wasted, but when I got home, I did a search online and found a blog with some of Waterbury's posts. Given my opinion of his presentational and literary ability, I was surprised to find that this case is convincing in absence of Waterbury in person. The blog, http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/index.html , is an analysis of the investigation of the murder of Meredith Kercher, the interrogation of Amanda Knox, and reasons to think the evidence and trial were contrived or corrupted. Anybody who cares about injustice should read this material but probably should ignore Waterbury's book.
Michael - I recommend reading, in this order
ReplyDelete1) "Monster of Florence" by Douglas Preston. It will give you an idea of how police investigations were run in the Florence area before Amanda Knox landed in Italy.
2) "Murder in Italy: The Shocking Slaying of a British Student, the Accused American Girl, and an International Scandal" by Candace Dempsey. It gives a great background on all the players.
You may understand then why Dr. Waterbury chose his writing style. The case is that bizarre.
Injustice in Perugia was not created by Mark Waterbury but some of his work has been posted on the site: http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/MarkWaterbury.html
ReplyDeleteThanks, Anonyymous 1 & 2. These comments explain why the answers I couldn't get from Waterbury were forthcoming after some research. I've corrected my reference to the blog: Injustice in Perugia. I suppose I should credit Waterbury for his evident compassion. If he can do scientific research, he should do it. His Phd. in whatever it is doesn't make him a writer.
ReplyDeleteMark Waterbury has written a lot about the forensic evidence in the case. His book goes into quite a bit of detail. His blog 'Science Spheres' also includes information: http://www.sciencespheres.com/2009/10/canary-in-lcn-dna-mine-part-i.html.
ReplyDeleteI do understand his literary non-fiction style will not appeal to everyone. He is qualified to write about the forensics involved though.
It was kind of fun hearing your story of becoming angry at the guy. He's more right than wrong about the case though. One thing about the Amanda Knox case is the more you learn the more unjust the case is. Despite your anger, I agree the case was a witch hunt and the police completely botched things.
Injustice in Perugia has a Forum you could join to discuss the case.
I have read Dr. Waterbury's book. I'm interested in crime solution and have read extensively about DNA analysis, Wambaugh's The Blooding, Ressler's Whoever Fights Monsters, Kepple's The Riverman, all of John Douglas's books, Roy Hazelwood's books, etc. I can tell you without question that Dr. Waterbury's book, The Monster of Perugia, taught me more about how DNA testing works, what it can do and what it can't do, than any other book I've ever read. I have not had the privilege of meeting Dr. Waterbury or hearing him speak in person. But I can, with some authority, unequivocally recommend The Monster of Perugia to anyone interested in the scientific process that has changed the way crime analysis is performed.
ReplyDeleteThe characterization of this case as a witch hunt is erroneous in the salient detail that witches do not exist and hunting them is inherently irrational. An investigation of a murder in the attempt to find the murderer is entirely rational and justifiable.
ReplyDeleteWhatever this blogger's opinion of my writing talents, one can see how he expressed his disapproval in this video, captured by the same camera that recorded my talk. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlfYlAAH5gw
ReplyDeleteWhat Mr. Waterbury neglects in this report is that his only answer to my objections was to tell me to, "Go to hell".
ReplyDeleteI tried again later to reason with him. I said, "If you care about this thing, give us reasons to believe you."
He replied, "I'm sorry I didn't give the talk you wanted to hear."
After listening to him for about twice as long as he was scheduled to speak, I wanted to hear some justification for his borrowed rhetoric.
I won't waste more time on this person. The video shows Michael approaching with extreme aggression, making slashing motions with his hands from the very beginning, shouting at me (which can be heard in the video) after I tried to speak. That was when I told him, simply, to go to hell because dialogue was not on his agenda, but only a shouting attack. This is anything but amusing, and I regard this verbal assault as a threat. I have a right to freedom of speech, and do not owe this clueless, arrogant fool any explanations whatsoever.
ReplyDeleteThe video shows me standing and listening for a long interval before I said anything. Using a phrase like "Approaching with extreme aggression" about my objections is characteristic of the purple rhetoric that seemed out of line that evening.
ReplyDeleteMr. Waterbury evidently can dish it out but can't take it. He has deleted my comments from the You-Tube site and disabled further discussion.
ReplyDelete