More on Michelle Carter

Many media outlets have reached out to me for further comment on Michelle Carter’s verdict and sentencing in response to my op-ed published in the L.A. Times . I have declined these invitations, because I do not want to make this about me, but I do think it is worthwhile to respond to some of the critical commentary I’ve received, particularly on Twitter. This commentary can be roughly divided into six types:

1. Michelle Carter doesn’t deserve our sympathy. If she had been black, she would have received a harsher sentence.

It’s true that black people very often receive harsher sentences than white people for the same crimes. This incredible injustice is also reflected in wrongful convictions. The majority of wrongfully convicted people in this country are black men.

But you don’t solve injustice by replicating it. The proper response is to bring the downtrodden up, not to push the privileged down. Advocating a harsh sentence for Michelle Carter does nothing to alleviate the harsh sentences handed down to black people.

2. Michelle Carter doesn’t deserve our sympathy. Conrad Roy III would be alive today were it not for her. Her words killed him. She is a criminal and deserved to receive a harsher sentence.

I agree that what Carter did was wrong. I do not dismiss or condone her actions. However, I do caution against conflating wrongdoing with criminal wrongdoing. One is a moral concern, the other is a legal concern. The ACLU argues that finding Carter guilty of manslaughter sets a dangerous legal precedent threatening our freedom of speech. Carter’s influence may have aggravated Roy’s mental illness, but her words did not literally kill him. The only thing that literally killed Roy were his own actions. He was sick, he was vulnerable, but he was never without agency.

3. Michelle Carter is evil. Fuck her and her eyebrows.

What first caught my attention about Carter’s case was the fact that the prosecution, media, and public were portraying her as a selfish, attention-seeking femme fatale who used her Circe-like powers to force her male companion to commit a terrible act he otherwise wouldn’t have committed. Having been wrongly accused of the very same thing, alarm bells went off.

Evil is the easiest scapegoat. It’s also not real. If we hope to understand Carter (and Roy’s) motivations, we need to refrain from boxing them into unreal, subhuman stereotypes (mind controller and mental slave). And even if Carter were as two-dimensionally “evil” as they say, we, as decent, civilized people, should check ourselves when we find that we are mobbing and crying out for blood. It’s in this spirit that wrongful convictions are born.

And one more thing: the many throw-away, tongue-in-cheeks remarks trolling Carter for aspects of her appearance (“She deserves another two years just for her eyebrows!”) do nothing but perpetuate the idea that a woman’s worth is in what she looks like. Wanting to punish Carter doesn’t give you permission to be a misogynist.

4. What Michelle Carter did was wrong. Even if she shouldn’t have been found legally culpable, she deserves punishment.

I’m going to go out on a limb now, but…maybe nobody deserves punishment. Not even the worst criminals. Everyone in society deserves to be safe from wrongdoing. Victims deserve to have their wounds cared for and acknowledged.

What do criminals deserve? As broken members of society, maybe they deserve our help. As the criminal justice and anti-death penalty advocate Bryan Stevenson says, “Each one of us is more than the worst thing we’ve ever done.” Help may require custody, supervision, or even incarceration—all things that impinge upon a person’s individual freedom—but punishment beyond these measures may not be necessary.

Punishing a criminal doesn’t undo the crime. And if the standard forms of punishment in the U.S. do a poor job of rehabilitation (and there’s good reason to think that’s true), and if the severity of a punishment does little to deter crime , then the only reason to punish is vengeance. And vengeance makes us barbaric. I bet most of the people crying out, “Lock her up!” have never actually been to prison and have no idea what it does to you.

In an ideal society, we wouldn’t use punishment to alleviate our outrage and pain. These are legitimate feelings, and addressing them is a legitimate social task, but there are healthier ways to deal with pain than inflicting pain on others.

5. I thought you were innocent, but now I believe you are guilty.

Thinking that my moral and legal position on Michelle Carter’s case has any bearing whatsoever on the objective evidence which determined my exoneration is exactly the kind of thinking that leads to wrongful convictions. Your gut reactions to another person have no bearing on the factual evidence that determines that person’s guilt or innocence. Gut reactions do provide useful information, but only about yourself.

6. This whole story is sad and confusing. We have to draw a line somewhere, but where? I feel bad for everyone involved and don’t know what to think. Can I feel sympathy for Carter and Roy (and Roy’s family) at the same time?

Believe it or not, yes.

From my own experience, I find that people often succumb to the single-victim fallacy—the idea that, in tragic situations like these, there are good guys and bad guys on opposite sides, and no crossover, nothing in between. People convinced by this fallacy argue that any acknowledgement of my victimization necessarily diminishes the acknowledgement of Meredith Kercher’s. And people convinced by this fallacy argue that any compassion for Carter’s flawed humanity necessarily diminishes the gravity of her actions and the tragedy of Roy’s death.

But they are wrong.

My goal in writing the op-ed was to point out that there is another valid response to tragedy: compassion. I’ve had to work hard through my own outrage over the injustice I suffered in order to empathize with my prosecutor, the Perugian police, and all those who spew hatred at me daily. I worked hard because I didn’t just want to feel righteous anger, I wanted to understand. And I’ve discovered that the key to my understanding is compassion. Compassion is practical—it makes us more effective, clear-eyed truth-seekers. Compassion is empowering—it opens the doors to reconciliation. And compassion is just—we only compound injustice when the worst of someone else brings out the worst in us.

Published by the Westside Seattle 08/05/17.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

56 Responses to More on Michelle Carter

  1. just saying says:

    “It’s true that black people very often receive harsher sentences than white people for the same crimes. This incredible injustice is also reflected in wrongful convictions. The majority of wrongfully convicted people in this country are black men.

    Black male between the age of 14 and 35 run into the law than Euros or Asians. Inner city for example Chicago is the capital murder in the Nation and police unable to restore law and order.1. No snitch rule.2.Wrongfull convictions are usually gang members and the perpetrator is never caught.The Inner city gun violence on average 80 thousands outstanding warrants with 40 percent apprehended.

    • Tom Zupancic says:

      Just saying,

      Are you just saying that there are unrecognized flaws in the American Justice System?

      OMG … ! (Actually, I agree.)

      I would go further and offer that the flaws in the American Justice System are not unrecognized. Rather, they are being purposefully ignored. Why? There is no political upside for those in positions of power to make a difference to address such injustice. People prefer to mindlessly believe that America is amazingly wonderful.

  2. Tom Zupancic says:

    In our insane world, simple, honest, human actions… like healing… are now misunderstood and distorted. Kindness, empathy, sincerity… are questioned.


    A simmering anger, a need to lash out? Why?

    It is not clear.

  3. justme says:

    Hi, Amanda. I saw a news item that said you were planning a visit to Perugia. Please don’t. I understand you feel a need for closure. It’s a brave choice. And the freedom to do this may be as close to an acknowledgement as you are likely to get from Italy that what happened to you was wrong. Obviously, you’ve thought this out, and I trust you know what’s best for you. But I would urgently suggest that you have time to wait until the ECHR case is resolved, or the tabloids, prosecutors, and judges have moved out of these jobs. Anyway, that’s just my 2 cents.

    • just a parent says:

      And here’s two more. Maybe Italy is something you must do. Whatever anxiety your choices may cause those who feel invested in you it is your life and you must follow your own star in dealing with this aftermath. But for the Kerchers, DO NOT be there on the anniversary. Without distraction those two or three days must be for them, on their terms solely. I realize you probably already know this acutely and resent being told, and I apologize in advance if you are angered, but to speak this counsel against the backlash you would provoke and suffer is a compulsion I cannot resist.

  4. Sir oldwisdom lowrisk III says:

    I think the first thought is Rev Jim Jones and how some humans have some ability to control and convince other humans to do unimaginable things, like taking their life. For stronger people this seems impossible but the fact it happens shows not everyone is strong enough to avoid an instigators words. Freedom of Speech used in a sad and pathetic way is no different than Freedom itself used in a sad and pathetic way.

    As for going back to Perugia, I’d vote “no” due to risks and putting oneself in harm’s way. Taking risks is for the young. Look at Steven Avery when he returned home after a release. There’s an old saying “error on the safe side”. If something unimaginable happened in Perugia, a polizia encounter, who could go through that all again? The sisters, family, Dad and Mom, the friends all returning to Perugia to support you,,..again. Unimaginable. Its such a unique trial and case and global whose to say something out of the normal couldnt happen? Another frame job and whisked away again into the Italy abyss, the fiction is no more impossible than last time is it?
    A Perugia opportunity for the local Polizia to file some unexpected charge for jay-walking or plant drugs in a suit case in the hotel…why risk it.? the Nightmare returns…

    While just being safe seems plenty of blessings (Im your Dads age, so I have trouble wondering why would anyone go back there? The older we get the less risk one takes per Behavioral Brain Science some might call it wisdom.) If I were arrested in some backhills county in Oklahoma and the inbred police and judges framed me and locked me up and after grueling life events I was freed by the Supreme Court, why go back? why risk it?

    Move on, Move forward……

  5. Douglas Gray says:

    Hi Amanda,

    On a completely different subject, are you interested in helping someone who was about your age when he got arrested, who is in prison, facing the death penalty, and completely innocent?

    Let me explain. Ahmad-Al-Shamri is twenty years old and lives in Saudi Arabia. On social media, he renounced Islam for atheism, he was arrested, sentenced to death for apostasy, and is now languishing in prison. He has committed no other crime. I hope that as a person who is still at least somewhat of a “celebrity” you could contact the Innocence Project and see if they could put pressure on the Saudi Arabian Government to have him released.


    Douglas Gray
    my e-mail is aspendougy at gmail dot com

  6. Jesse Levine says:

    You guys are only supporting Amanda Knox’s opinion simply because she is Amanda Knox!

    • just-a-guy-out-for-a-walk says:

      As I read through these comment I don’t see the evidence of full throat-ed support that you do.

    • Stephane G says:

      I don’t think I understand this assertion. As far as I’m concerned, I sometimes come with slightly different analysis or further conclusions, and then mention it, but I simply happen to share most of Amanda’s views, her understanding of the world, of communication, and of the way people interact, and find many of her writings thought-provoking and therefore stimulating. And we simply share common values and concerns. That her blog is frequented by users who agree with these opinions is not surprising in itself.

      Do you suggest another explanation ? Why, in your opinion, would someone agree with Amanda « because she’s Amanda Knox » ?

    • Tom Zupancic says:

      Jesse Levine, that is quite a presumptuous comment. Just curious, but how do you know what I think?

      Obviously, you don’t know. You don’t know me just like you don’t know Michelle Carter. But, somehow, you think you know that you are right… absolutely.


      I’m not buying it.

      You have your opinion, others have theirs. You have your understanding, others have theirs. The truth of this case is complex and none of the above.

      The issue is justice. The issue is what that concept means.

  7. Jesse Levine says:

    No one deserves punishment? I was raised taught to understand that actions have consequences. If someone breaks a law they should suffer the consequence, no one should be allowed to hurt people without facing somekind of consequence. God forbid, Nazi’s should murder and kill without being punished!

    • just a parent says:


      While I enjoy reading them I normally do not respond to comments on my posts, favorable or not, but this particular post of yours has been nagging at me and I think I’ve figured out why, in this aftermath of Charlottesville.

      Your complaint seems to derive from my em dashed concurrence with Amanda’s assessment of Michelle Carter stated in the first sentence of my fourth paragraph, for which I offer no repentance, though I suppose that concurrence should have appeared parenthetically, as the sentence’s principal concern is the shabbiness of misogynistic resort in a legal proceeding and not Carter’s state of mind or soul. While fully entitled to free speech protection in any other setting, in matters before a court of law the tactic is always a cheap shot injurious to due process and should be barred no less entirely than race-baiting. Parentheses, however, is my least favorite form of punctuation and I try mightily to avoid it, even perhaps to syntactic error.

      By your surname and reference to Nazis hard on the heels of last Saturday I understand that you may have an especially well-formed sensitivity to any apparent weakening of certain fundamentals in this country. If you haven’t already, see (and I do mean SEE, not merely read) Thursday’s rebuke of the President by our Tennessee Senator Bob Corker. It was a cannonball close past the wheelhouse, carefully chosen words spoken very deliberatively by a congressional leader of the majority party. Never mind all the clamor; just two men – named Ryan and McConnell – hold the balance, and they are fast getting fed-up, with someone much more to their liking in the wings. Perhaps you will take further reassurance from the following passage in an ordinary citizen’s note to his child not long ago: “. . . if we do not expose and repel [these Russian forays] we may expect more provocation from such as the torch-bearing bigots who assembled in Charlottesville a few weeks back, chanting from the flaring shadows ‘Russia is our friend.’ Few images have ever so chilled me, not in fear, but with a resolve likely akin to what Tecumseh Sherman felt when he set out for Savannah.”

      Ms. Knox is processing a trauma, endeavoring from a place of lonely knowledge and remembered fear we cannot imagine to fold it all into a comprehension she can live with. Let’s give her that space.

  8. Jesse Levine says:

    Hi Amanda I am shocked and dismayed to see you advocating for a sociopath and someone who manipulated someone into killing themselves. I always believed you were innocent and I still do, but shame on you for rushing to defend someone who is NOT like you.

    • Tom Zupancic says:


      Are you aware that Michelle Carter was 17 years old when all of this happened? (I’m sure, no doubt, you were the epitome of rationality when you were 17). But nevertheless, is it possible to consider the possibility that you do not know everything?

      • Matthew McKenna says:

        Tom, I agree with your point of view. I seen on the news, the Prosecutor stated that Miss Carter, “Ordered that boy back into the truck”. Maybe that is what Teachers can use as an excuse when they are in uncompromising situations with students. The girl was a minor and on mind altering medications. What she did was Wrong, but not Criminal. That is getting overturned at some point.

        ———————————————————————————————————————Now, I have read that Miss Knox wants to go back to Italy. Despite her desires and her understandable reasons, she throws herself at the Mercy of the Italian citizenry, there are People there who are Convinced, that you are Guilty, even though “Common sense” shows you are INNOCENT. ……. My belief is if you go, your life will get altered. Some have real HATE for you and someone will want to make a name for themselves. For your Sake and Safety do not go. Just think about it carefully. You can CONTROL you there, but you cannot control others. There is a big world to explore. Do the Ancestry DNA test, whatever comes up as your Ethnicity and Countries of origin, Travel there….. Be Safe.

  9. just a parent says:


    I am dismayed that you continue to receive hate mail, and after some deliberation I have a notion what may be the reason. Maybe it’s all wrong, but here’s what I think until someone persuasively refutes me or posits a better explanation:

    I believe your venomous correspondents must nearly all be male, if not entirely male, and that crime and justice, culpability and truth are no concern whatever to them in matters of this sort. Rather, I think what impels them is the sexual supremacy of woman, which perhaps derives from the anatomical fact that women are better equipped to attract men than men are equipped to attract women. For some men this makes a rage of what for most of us is but an occasional aggravation.

    My mind cannot plough deep enough to comprehend how this rage forms itself into misogyny, but I believe it does, and that it is the source of harassments intended to intimidate or shame or at least veil the spirit of woman. Indeed, it is by their resort to such conduct that misogynists most surely may be identified. They employ a vernacular no less well-worn and easily understood than that of racism, and the femme fatale portrayal is certainly a prominent usage, among many others. It is not necessary that a woman provoke these men in some way to become their target, only that she post herself at the wrong place and time, however unwittingly, which is what happened to you ten years ago in October when certain law enforcers sought to obscure their inept interactions with a known knife-wielder. Once the accusation against you was made with full resort to every tactic of prejudicial spin those authorities could devise the misogynists could not help but become invested in your destruction, and in denying them that outcome – thus far, at least, for they still seek it – you acquired their everlasting antipathy. For them no gentleness or compassion or nobility of character in a woman can ever excuse a backbone of steel. Not to overdraw the analogy, but to misogynists you are a bit as Whitaker Chambers was to the communists sixty years ago, whose reputation after all this time must still endure their smears. Some impulses by others are forever an enmity that will not be placated by anything less than abject surrender, and to treat with them is folly.

    Regardless one’s take on Michelle Carter – and my own outlook is not far from yours – you are right to defend her against usages that are essentially an oppression of woman. That oppression drives a great deal of mischief across the world, except “mischief” is probably the wrong word – “savagery” may be more like it. Just ask Malala Yousafzai. It is an undercurrent that makes your experience about more than wrongful conviction, holds you prominent in the public’s awareness, and folds you into a far bigger tribe than perhaps you heretofore have realized.

    One last thing. There is a whisper I have heard more than once – at gazing upon our star wading enormous into Pamlico Sound; while trekking along an Appalachian Trail ridge through a chill early morning fog blowing up the wooded slope like an infiltrating ghost army; when paused in Medicine Bow for a melodic mystery that was aspens in the wind; in craving for the earth’s rotation to halt between a purple-pink sunset and an incandescent cosmos over the Sierras; upon mounting a revetment at La Push before a riot of color laying over the sea as though from a submerged sun to a prism sky – “be still, and know that I am God.” Perhaps somewhere in your peregrinations through philosophy and morality and wrong and evil you may hear it too.

    Keep your chin up, kiddo, and never bend to the bullies.

    • Tom Zupancic says:

      Just a parent,

      Great post.

      I’m not sure about Amanda, but in my own peregrinations through philosophy and morality and wrong and evil I have heard a whisper too. Much like you, actually.

      Whatever. I just can’t articulate it like you.

      In case people missed it, you wrote;

      “One last thing. There is a whisper I have heard more than once – at gazing upon our star wading enormous into Pamlico Sound; while trekking along an Appalachian Trail ridge through a chill early morning fog blowing up the wooded slope like an infiltrating ghost army; when paused in Medicine Bow for a melodic mystery that was aspens in the wind; in craving for the earth’s rotation to halt between a purple-pink sunset and an incandescent cosmos over the Sierras; upon mounting a revetment at La Push before a riot of color laying over the sea as though from a submerged sun to a prism sky – “be still, and know that I am God.” Perhaps somewhere in your peregrinations through philosophy and morality and wrong and evil you may hear it too.”

    • Jesse Levine says:

      You defend michelle because you think it has to do with oppressing woman. The woman is a murderer, enough said.

    • Jesse Levine says:

      Seriously you are making this about some kind of feminist cause? I don’t have a problem with women, I do have a problem with a women or a man who manipulates someone into killing themselves.

    • jerry pdx says:

      Just a parent
      You are flat out wrong to state that Amanda haters are nearly all male. I suggest you explore some of the Amanda Knox forums online and also Youtube comments. Many posters are anonymous and you don’t know the gender, though at times they might reveal it. However, of the ones that do specify gender it is clearly not “nearly all men”. While I might agree there is a somewhat higher percentage of male haters than female, there are still plenty of female ones, and some of them are the most unreasoning, venomous and unrelentingly vicious ones. I also think there may be a slightly higher percentage of male defenders of Amanda, so trying to turn it into a gender issue that way is wrong. Not that there isn’t an element of misogyny, because clearly there is but it’s not just men that express it.

      • just a parent says:


        You impel me to an unpleasant recollection, Ann Coulter a few years back, whose rhetorical masturbation in support of Amanda’s accusers was an antipathy to liberal Seattle having nothing to do with the actual case and no regard for the human being whose life was on the line. Her aside, given your other posts here I will take your word for it about those forums and comments and stand chastened. You may not depart the field triumphant, however, until you have plausibly postulated a reason for the “unreasoning, venomous and unrelentingly vicious” attitude of some other woman toward Amanda in the teeth of her indisputable innocence. Is there some element of victimization defeated that provokes them maybe? It’s a complete puzzlement to me. What are your thoughts? Let’s explore this.

        • jerry pdx says:

          Good that you mention Ann Coulter, when it comes to female unreasoning hatred and venom toward Amanda, she’s exhibit A. I don’t think I want to tackle the subject of “why some women hate Amanda”, a subject that could probably fill volumes. I don’t know why some women feel that way, I just know they exist.
          Why ask me anyways? Just look up some Amanda Knox hate sites or go to Youtube and look at the comments fields. You’ll see haters of both genders posting their bizarre assertions and you can pose any question to them you like.

          • just a parent says:


            For the second time you urge that I visit an internet hate zone, which has prompted me to review our exchange and realize that while my original post of August 13 (in the very first line) was specifically to “hate mail,” your response of August 21 (also in the very first line) was to “Amanda haters” in general. There is a difference; both “spew hatred” in Amanda’s words, yes, but only the former entails the sort of direct harassment to which I was speaking. Belatedly realizing this I recant my concession of August 21 and return to my original rebuttable premise that the source of Amanda’s hate mail “must be nearly all male, if not entirely male.”

            Still, you have provoked my thinking to a new question, which I don’t fault you in the least for declining to engage and which I’m coming to realize is far more extensive than I first conceived it to be. Maybe it interstitches with the last paragraph of my original post. In any case I’ll keep probing, but if the answer is not to be uncovered except where you suggest looking then I’ll never find it.

        • jerry says:

          OK, if you’re just referring to commenters you’ve seen here on Amanda’s blog, fair enough. It does seem to be only male guilters here but there only seems to be a very few of them posting on here anyways, it’s not indicative of the gender ratio of guilters in general, just that the few that do post here are men. Maybe the female guilters haven’t found it yet. If you do visit those Amanda forums or go on Youtube you will see them, in all their glory and plenty of both genders. Considering how many of them are out there and how active they can be I find it interesting that so few comment on her actual blog.

      • Tom Mininger says:

        As pathetic as this venom is, at least we can use it as a case study in addressing the historic transition of human hate onto the internet, where traditional mob anonymity is magnified online, and there is 24/7 access to mobs in virtual space.

  10. jkly says:

    I think you’re very smart Amanda, and once I researched your case and understood all the facts, I never believed you were a murderer.

    I also found myself agreeing with most of your article and I agree it can be argued that this sets a dangerous precedent against Freedom of Speech. At the same time it could also be argued that, cyberbullying is freedom of Speech, harassment could be considered Freedom of Speech. I probably don’t even need to be saying this to you, I’m sure you’ve had more than your fair share of that, but some people aren’t as tough as you are.

    But the main part I have a problem with is this quote from you:

    “I’m going to go out on a limb now, but…maybe nobody deserves punishment. Not even the worst criminals. Everyone in society deserves to be safe from wrongdoing. Victims deserve to have their wounds cared for and acknowledged.”

    It’s the use of the word “nobody” that really bugs me.

    You don’t believe that Rudy Guede is deserving of punishment and needs more understanding from people? He’s done nothing but lie and fail to take responsibility for what the evidence indicates that he did and he’ll probably continue to lie and point the finger at you and Raffaele until the day he dies. From what I’ve seen from him as of yet, trying to be understanding towards him equates making yourself vulnerable to further manipulation. He doesn’t appear to care about what he did to you and Raffaele or about what he did to Meredith.

    From what I can tell he only cares about what benefits him. Some people are wired differently.

    As to how this ties in to Michelle Carter, while I agree that she isn’t 100% responsible for her boyfriend committing suicide, I disagree that “understanding” is what she deserves. Understanding was probably what her boyfriend deserved, but she continued to egg him on to commit suicide.

    What’s far more disturbing about this is that she was on the phone with him while she knew he was trying to do harm to himself and she did nothing to stop it. What’s more, when he got out of the car, she told him to get back in it. That to me demonstrates a special and alarming type of callousness.

    Helping someone commit suicide is illegal in many jurisdictions. She just got lucky that it wasn’t in hers.

    Either way, I don’t think she’s deserving of sympathy. You’d be giving her exactly she wants, since it appears to be what motivated her actions in the first place.

    • jkly says:

      I guess what I’m trying to say is that punishing a criminal does not undo the crime, but not punishing a criminal enables them to commit further crimes.

      Not everyone responds to compassion, sympathy and kindness the same way you do. Some people see it as a weakness and all they are interested in is finding a way to take advantage of it.

    • Tom Mininger says:

      Your line “…I’m sure you’ve had more than your fair share of that, but some people aren’t as tough as you are.” really has me thinking about Amanda’s perspective on this case. No one has been harassed more than she has in the 21st century, yet she still feels that Roy was never without agency and is responsible for his own actions. She has personal experience with prison and doesn’t want Carter sent there, and she is a spokeswoman against misogyny.

      I feel like Amanda may be too emotionally close to a case like this, yet at the same time offers unique observations. The concept of restorative justice clashing with the reality that some percentage of offenders are not wired to feel empathy and never will. Where does Carter fit in? We may all have suspicions as to her future behavior, but imo 17 was too young to draw a conclusion.

  11. William says:

    I read Amanda’s article that appeared in the L.A. Slimes. The tone accused the court of wrongfully convicting Michelle Carter. Nope. Amanda proposed that instead of jail the Judge should have prescribed therapy for Michelle. This is presumptuous. The Judge clearly explained the reasons he convicted Carter. His decision turned primarily on Michelle’s insistence that Conrad get back into the truck, an environment she knew was toxic to human life. He had many other factors as well.

    Michelle was only 17, but a normal girl of that age would have demanded that Conrad stop his bullshit, shut down the generator, and stay out of the truck while she called for help. Michelle had complete control of him and she enjoyed that feeling of power. She needs therapy for sure. Should the sentence have been longer? Probably, but the judge cut her some slack due to her age at the time of the crime.

    I can’t figure Conrad Roy. He must have indeed been clinically depressed. Michelle is a fine looking hide and a normal young man Conrade’s age would have been shaggin’ her at every opportunity. I don’t think he ever did, a pity. If you can’t tempt a young fellow with a willing pretty girl, something is wrong.

    In the above article Amanda wrote: “It’s true that black people very often receive harsher sentences than white people for the same crimes. This incredible injustice is also reflected in wrongful convictions. The majority of wrongfully convicted people in this country are black men.”

    This is a trope cited often. Slicing and dicing the stats will show the reason blacks receive harsh sentences; they are simply the most violent criminal group in America followed by Hispanics, (see the FBI crime stats). Whites are the third most violent followed last by Asians. American Injuns fit in there somewhere but they are on reservations so who cares. I learned in Alaska you never turn your back on an Eskimo. Just give them a bottle of whiskey and they’re fine for a few hours. You can protect yourself from a huge Alaskan bear by carrying a .50 Desert Eagle. From Eskimos, well, you have the law.

    More blacks are wrongly convicted. Maybe that’s because for this inherently violent group cops cast a wide net, and percentage wise this results in more false convictions. Adjusting the arrest figures to a per capita basis, I doubt there are statistically significant differences between white and black wrongful convictions.

    In Amanda’s home town, Seattle, blacks are only 8 percent of the population, yet they commit half of the murders. Recently, in Seattle, one of O’bummer’s ‘dreamers’ let loose on the street by the King County sheriff raped and nearly killed a young woman at her apartment gym. Had the suck-up sheriff turned this cretin over to ICE, the girl would be happily pursuing her life. As it is she’ll never again develop normal trusting relationships, especially with men who may indeed really care for her.

    John Urquhart, sheriff of King County is a real dipshit. He was never a street cop and served most of his time in uniform as a reserve deputy and later office boy. Had he carried a badge and gun and worked the mean streets of Seattle year in and year out, confronting the underbelly of society, his attitude would be different. Some soft headed fool named Ron interviewed the ole sheriff
    and asked him if black lives mattered. John Urquhart’s answer went something like: “Of course black lives matter. I’ve made it a priority that as sheriff to kiss every black ass in the county, and some of those at least twice.” He went on to explain he would not cooperate with ICE, hence the aforementioned illegal Mexican was allowed on the streets resulting in the rape and near murder of a promising young woman.

    Here’s an observation posted on another website about Seattle by someone living there. It describes the situation around the King County courthouse permitted to exist by the pretend sheriff.

    “White Seattle libtards voted to change the namesake of King County from Senator Rufus King to Martin Luther King, Jr. The official King County logo is now a dumb black and white designey picture of MLK’s face. The interior walls of the courthouse lobby are covered in the most embarrassingly libtarded “progressive” mural-vomit canonizing MLK and blacks that I have ever seen in my entire life. Meanwhile, black crackhead drug-dealing rapists sell their illegal wares 6 FEET OUTSIDE THE COURTHOUSE FRONT DOOR (which is glass), in full view of the various law enforcement personnel who are there, who don’t seem to care. NO SHIT. I’m not making any of this up or exaggerating it at all. I have seen it all with my own eyes.”


    I watched video of your presentation to the law-yah’s group in LA. You have turned out to be a good speaker and in this presentation you let a little of your human warmth show, finally, and that’s a good thing. Too often you come across guarded and cold.

    The following recent audio is an interview with Michelle Malkin, a conservative writer and author who lives in the Seattle area I think. In the interview you are mentioned in a positive way by Michelle. She discusses several wrongful convictions and the misuse of forensic science by detectives and prosecutors. She mentions the various innocence movements and gives them kudos for their important work. Your efforts for those wrongfully convicted is God’s work indeed. However, a word of caution. Since there are big dollars involved in overturned convictions, scam artist have quickly moved in. There’s a danger these will become simply extortion efforts much like the scams and rackets run by the discredited $PLC ($outhern Poverty Liars Center).

    BTW I perused your instagram photos. One caught my attention. That was titled, “A gas chamber at Dachau Concentration Camp”. There were no homicidal gas chambers at Dachau. Indeed there were no such gas chambers in the whole of Germany or the territory occupied by Germany during WWII. At that time the only homicidal gas chambers in operation in the entire world were those in California, Arizona, Misssissippi, and perhaps New Mexico for the purpose of criminal executions.

    Here’s the link mentioned above. It’s long but worthwhile.

    • jerry pdx says:

      It’s not an established fact that blacks receive harsher sentences, you have to consider a number of factors, number one of which is that blacks simply commit far more crime than any other racial or ethnic group, which means you are going to receive longer sentencing due to multiple offenses. A good place to start in order to understand the subject of race and crime in America, go here:
      Keep in mind that the FBI tables inflate white stats dramatically by lumping hispanics/latino in with the white numbers. The reasoning for this is that hispanic/latino is not a race but an ethnicity or culture. You can be any race and be hispanic or latino but the FBI doesn’t account for the fact that most hispanic/latino people in the US are of asian origin, yes some are whites from the Iberian peninsula but most are of asian origin or mixed with white or even black. Astoundingly, you could be black (going by the one drop rule), have a hispanic surname and be counted as white. Note that in nearly virtually every crime category blacks are arrested at 2-3 times the rates of whites, per capita. They are particularly overrepresented in violent crimes, especially murder and sexual offenses. Some people might claim it’s only because police target blacks more but if you check out the column with “crimes against children and families”, blacks are still arrested at twice the rate of whites, and that’s a kind of crime in which people have to ask the police to take action, not something police are going to target people for. Also, note that blacks are arrested for DUI at exactly the same rate as whites, one of the few categories where they offend at the same level, which is interesting because according to black america and liberal ideology blacks are being harassed by cops everytime they get behind the wheel. If that was true, one would think that DUI arrest rates would be through the stratosphere. Clearly that is not the case. How many other assumptions about black persecution are actually false?

    • Klaus, Germany, Stuttgart area says:

      Gas chambers in Nazi concentration camps in WWII could be found in
      Auschwitz (PL),
      Belzec (PL),
      Treblinka (PL) where mostly the gas of hydrocyanic acid (Zyklon B) was used
      to kill several millions of Jews, political opponents and gypsies.
      The memorial site in Auschwitz bears witness to that,
      by piles of shoes, suitcases, hairs and ashes of burnt bodies and the gas chambers that looked like
      windowless shower rooms.
      Dachau is a special case since there is a gas chamber that was inaugurated in 1944
      and only few people where killed by gas experiments of different gas that was only lethal
      to a part of people, based on one testimony.
      So the official reading is that the Dachau gas chamber could not be proven to have been used for mass executions.
      Another special case is the 20 cubic meter gas chamber in Natzweiler-Struthof where experiments with
      carbonyl chloride was used in addition to other experiments with different kind of gases.
      I am kind of speechless that there exist still people claiming that there were no gas chambers that were heavily used in the German WWII occupied area.

  12. Stephane G says:

    I read about this case some time ago, but do not know enough to discuss it in details. Anyway it seems to me that your two last articles raise 3 important issues.

    Firstly there is the problem of criminal liability for participation in a suicide and the negation of suicide as a deliberate act of free will from the perpetuator / victim. Not to mention the surprising legal qualification of the facts in this case. I share the insightful analysis you gave in your op ed and the interesting points made by some commentators here.

    Secondly, I believe an important distinction must be made between morality and legality. Thomas Aquinas once wrote: « laws imposed on men should also be in keeping with their condition. (…) human law is framed for a number of human beings, the majority of whom are not perfect in virtue… ». Let me add that legal certainty and equality before the law are two fundamental requirements of the rule of law. In my opinion, morality is vague, unwritten, in constant evolution, heavily relies on cultural, religious, political or local considerations, and therefore fails to meet such principles. A legal system solely based on morality would then probably be quite unfair.

    Finally, you raised the question of the justifications for punishment in a society. I’ll set restorative justice aside this time, and will focus on traditional penal responses that are still widely in use. As you have rightly pointed out, the efficiency of legal punishment as a mean of deterrence and rehabilitation is disputable as we can deduct it from statistics and observation, and incapacitation is not only limited in time (except when the sentence is death) but in many cases, it is also meaningless (when, for example, the crime has been committed with a very specific goal and there would be no apparent reason for the criminal to strike again). So the main justification we are left with, and that stands in almost all cases, is retribution.

    For many years, I also rejected vengeance and considered it a barbaric solution and I still do. But retribution is not exactly vengeance. It is a punishment that requires an acceptable and accepted authority that is expected to respect equality and pronounce a sentence proportionate to the offense, and is only aimed at the perpetuator. Unlike vengeance, the victim or its represntatives are not supposed nor allowed to take justice into their own hands. Which also brings us to this explanation and justification for retribution itself: it has been argued that it was a mean to avoid mob justice, vendettas, self-appointed avengers, and all kinds of reactions that indeed are often far more barbaric solutions. I may seem to surrender to human nature but, being what it is, I sadly came to think that, when considered on a wide scale, an institutionalized form of revenge is possibly the most civilized answer a society can give to a criminal offense.

    In any case, and like Tom said, I once again tip my hat to the courage of your convictions.

  13. Jacqueline Rodriguez says:

    You’ve given me a lot to think about about Carter. I believed her to be absolutely guilty, but having read your piece, I’m re-evaluating that. So glad to have found your blog.

  14. Whitney says:

    I suffer from mental illness. Does that make me unaccountable for my actions? My free will choices? Do I deserve a “get out of jail free card?”
    We who suffer from these “unseen” illnesses must learn coping skills particular to our own problems.
    Those of us with depression learn the importance proper nutrition plays. We must watch our vitamin D and B complex levels. The role magnesium plays. How important getting out into nature is. Figuring out what soothes us and what triggers us. Coming to understand that as our biology cycles so does our depression. Good days, bad days, debilitating days. Days of peace.
    What does not change is our innate sense of right and wrong. That is separate from our illness.
    I know to kill a helpless animal is wrong now matter how deep I am into my depression. No one has to tell me that. I know stealing what is not mine is wrong. I know that debasing another human being because I am in the pit of despair is not right.
    Michelle Carter’s free will choices are separate from her mental health issues. She choice to act in a callous, abhorrent and appalling manner. To use mental illness as an excuse for her actions is unthinkable to many of us who manage to keep our illness separate from societal obligations of decency.
    I 100% support the innocence of both you and Raffaele.
    But I am adamant in my opposition to your views on Michelle Carter. She was a direct catalyst as to why Conrad died that day. Would he have killed himself another day? Perhaps. But that has no weight in this discussion. On THAT day Michelle bares responsibility for his death. In my opinion she deserves a longer sentence. Does she need mental health help as well? Yes, but that fact does not release her from her inhuman, horrible disgusting choices that resulted in Conrad’s death.
    There was another article on Facebook recently. Two people sat by and recorded a man drowning. After he died while they mocked his pleas for help, they posted the video of his death. Are those two mentally ill? Of course they are, no mentally healthy human being would be involved in such a heinous situation.
    Are you saying they would be “wrongfully convicted” as well if they are held accountable for their free will choice to watch that poor man drown without even attempting to save his life?
    If you are, then shame on you! Choices have consequences, no matter who you are. Living in a free society means adhering to a certain set of guidelines. Both Michelle Carter and these two crossed the line. They deserve punishment for that.
    I suspect many of your supporters and fellow exonerees will disagree with your stance here. At least I hope so.

    • Peter Henderson says:

      The concept of mental illness is obviously difficult to sort out. I used to hold your view that anyone who murdered or helped cause the death of an innocent person must be insane. I expressed this view to a man who was a prominent psychiatrist with the New York State Dept. of Mental Health. He sharply disagreed. He said most murderers are as sane as you or me. Their problem is not some malfunction in their brains but rather that their brains are fine with bad stuff. You can call that a malfunction, but then anything anyone does that you disapprove becomes a fruit of mental illness for which they cannot be blamed. And once we remove “the blame game” we remove the basis for freedom. If nobody can be held accountable for their actions, why allow them the freedom to act as they choose?

  15. Dennis says:

    Amanda, in the interests of seeking truth, why, in your Westside Bar Association speech, did you accuse Giuliano Mignini of narrow mindedness but didn’t disclose why he actually might have had perfectly good reasons to suspect you. For example, Sollecito said that nothing had been stolen, you saw a bloodied bathmat and unflushed toilet and didn’t knock on Meredith’s door,
    you and Sollecito’s changing alibis.
    Meredith lost her life. Surely you want to tell the truth?

    • Tom Zupancic says:

      Huh? What? This tangential comment by Dennis is both irrelevant and confusing.

      “Michelle Carter deserves sympathy and help”, is about a tragic and complex suicide case. It is about the fundamental purposes and processes of the legal system that affected in this case and how they could be improved.

      • Dennis says:

        If people are going to comment about a tragic and COMPLEX case then they should start by setting a good example themselves.
        She spoke for 45 minutes and when it came to why she was accused she said it was because the prosecutor had tunnel vision.
        To leave out the reasons the prosecutor was rightly justified to suspect both her and Sollecito is deceiving, (in my book).

    • Peter Henderson says:

      Amanda and her supporters have insisted all along that there was no evidence against her, but whether or not she did the crime there was certainly evidence. The Italian justice system was not designed by Josef Stalin.

      • Tom Mininger says:

        Italy suffers through railroad jobs just like the US and every other justice system in the world. Premature conclusions before evidence has been analyzed, coerced confessions, reputations on the line, confirmation bias, tunnel vision, creation, destruction, withholding, and misrepresentation of evidence. Some cases fall down the rabbit hole.

        CSI Patrizia Stefanoni committed multiple counts of perjury. CSIs around he world face pressure to support the prosecution.

      • jerry pdx says:

        Peter, you’re comment is too simplistic to be credible. Of course there was “evidence” against Amanda and Raffaele, the question is: Was it legitimate evidence? Prosecutors are skilled in building cases against people, whether they are guilty or not. Have you looked into the legitimacy of the “evidence” in the case against Amanda and Raffaele? See my other comment re the forensic evidence. Considering the content of your comment, it’s highly doubtful you have considered anything like that. Many people have been exonerated due to modern dna testing, in some of them there was a great deal of so called “evidence” but the cases collapsed like the houses of cards they were in the face of dna evidence. Look some of them up and learn something:

        Keep in mind, that does not mean that dna proves someone is completely innocent every time. Sometimes it just casts reasonable doubt when there was none before, sometimes it just illuminates what actually occurred more clearly. Sometimes a guilty party is even more guilty. Wayne Williams is an example. The notorious serial killer’s defense pushed for testing on hairs found on one of the victims and lo and behold: It was a match for Williams. A lot of people have advocated for his innocence but if there was any doubt about his guilt before, there is none now.

    • jerry pdx says:

      Dennis, you need to research the case a little more, don’t just surface skim some lurid stories and form an opinion based on your own prejudices. When virtually no evidence was found in the murder room tying either Amanda or Raffaele to the crime, then Mignini should have ceased having any suspicions about A&R. Instead, he decided to build a case against them based on highly subjective behavioral evidence and “expert” theories about faked break in’s and multiple attackers. As is clearly and definitively pointed out in the ISC final report, it would have been “impossible” for Amanda and Raffaele to have participated in the murder of Meredith without leaving, or taking away, evidence of their involvement. Also, impossible would have been a selective cleanup. Forensic evidence is vital in a case like that in order for there to be a legitimate case. The only legitimate forensic evidence left behind was by Rudy Guede, who left a plethora of physical evidence at the scene, he is the forgotten killer guilters hate to mention and he acted alone in the killing of Meredith Kercher. Check out his latest story on Youtube, just search for Rudy Guede and they pop right up, he now claims to have been on the pot with his iPhone on when A&R snuck in the did the deed, it’s a staggeringly stupid story with holes you could drive a truck through, but there are people that believe his every word. Why do you think that is?

      • Dennis says:

        Jerry pdx,
        I think you are the prejudice one and need to research the case more.
        It is at the very least disingenuous to accuse Mignini of tunnel vision considering the open front door, bloodied bathmat (which Amanda knox claimed to use to shimmy to her bedroom but then picked up and put back in the bathroom), unflushed toilet, blood in the sink, then spent an hour in the cottage without knocking on Meredith’s door, (Amanda knox, correct me if I’m wrong), staged burglary, changing alibis, accusing Lumumba.
        It is not Mignini but Amanda Knox’s supporters who have tunnel vision and prejudice.

        • jerry pdx says:

          OK, you’re a typical guilter, posing a series of assertions with no supporting evidence, I’m not going to sit here and write a lengthy column pointing out how wrong you are on all those statements but I’ll address a few things. So somebody not flushing means a murder occurred? Guilter illogic on full display folks. As for the “blood in the sink” Are you going by the lurid photos when the bathroom was sprayed with luminol which made it look like a bloodbath or the real ones where there was only a couple of faint streaks? Please explain. Yes, she accused Lumumba, though I believe that she was under tremendous pressure to do so, I have read her book and she owns what she did. It was a wrong thing to do and maybe there is a legit case for libel of some kind but it doesn’t mean she killed anybody.

          The reason why you posted all that was because you simply have no answer to the forensics. It’s the achilles heel of the guilter movement. As pointed out by the ISC in the final decision, it would have been impossible for A&R to have been involved in the murder and left no evidence behind or taken any evidence with them. As it was the only forensic evidence left behind was by Rudy Guede, the real killer who acted alone. I have debated with guilters and they invariably start changing the subject or become evasive when I challenge them with the forensics. The “evidence” you cited was the prosecution constructing a case with fragmented evidence, it was designed to steer attention away from the forensics, which proved A&R could not have been involved in the murder.

          If you do respond then explain how it is possible for Amanda to have been involved in the murder and left virtually no physical evidence behind. Don’t try to deflect.

          • Dennis says:

            Jerry pdx,
            One thing I do know is I don’t know what happened that night. And neither should Amanda knox if she truly wasn’t there.

            The bloodied bathmat did not have luminol sprayed on it.
            Would you use such a bathmat to shimmy to your bedroom and then put it back still having no concern for Meredith? Please don’t deflect.

            There was DNA and you would know that if you read more than Knox’s book.
            In his prison diary Sollecito said he pricked Meredith’s hand whilst cooking and that was the reason her DNA was found on one of his kitchen knives, (but Meredith had never been to his flat, so why make this excuse??).

        • Tom Mininger says:

          Mignini, the police, and the justice system have never “owned” to the illegal interrogations, their inability or unwillingness to provide recordings of these Amanda, Raffaele and Patrick interrogations, their conflicting testimony about how Amanda was treated that night, their misinterpretation of Amanda’s text msg to Patrick on murder night which triggered their final coup d etat assault on a wasted 20 year old, their assertion that a police interpreter was a “mediator”, Mignini’s denial of legal access to his 3 suspects for days as only he prepared for the first court hearing…

          This is why Amanda’s application against her slander conviction will be heard in the European Court of Human Rights, where hopefully the priority will be justice, not protecting the reputation of players in the Italian justice system.

          Hopefully, this high profile case sparks interest in learning more about interrogation after a decision of guilt has already been made. DNA exonerations have exposed an epidemic of coerced “confession” cases in the US. The UK is actually in the forefront of improving interrogation methods.

        • jerry says:

          Dennis, you didn’t answer my question. You did exactly what I asked you not to. you deflected. BTW Please don’t copy my words, come up with your own. Also, if you make claims about “shimmying mats” or what “Raffaele wrote in prison”, send a link to legitimate sources for this information. I’m sending links to sources of my information, plus an actual quote from the ISC.

          Now answer the question: How could Amanda and Raffaele have committed such a physically intimate rape, torture and murder but leave virtually no physical evidence? Take no physical evidence with them?

          Why was there only evidence of one murderer? Rudy Guede, the true killer who acted alone. The so called murder knife was a knife pulled randomly, yes randomly among other cutlery, from a kitchen drawer and magically it yielded a bit of dna the prosecution claimed was Meredith’s. However, it was proven to be rye starch, not Meredith’s dna. Steve Moore, former FBI agent demolished the case against Amanda. You can see it here:

          The Italian Supreme Court exonerated A&R in their final decision pointing out that it would have been impossible for them to have been involved in the murder. I posted the relevant section below. Everything else is simply a prosecution construction.

          From the Marasca-Bruno motivations report:

          Section 9.4.

          However, a matter of undoubted significance in favour of the appellants, in
          the sense that it excludes their material participation in the murder, even if it is hypothesised that they were present in the house on via della Pergola, consists of the absolute lack of biological traces attributable to them (except the clasp which will be dealt with further on) in the murder room or on the victim’s body, where instead numerous traces attributable to Guede were found.It is indisputably impossible that traces attributable to the appellants would not have been found at the crime scene had they taken part in Kercher’s murder (the
          room was of small dimensions: 2.91 x 3.36m, as shown in the plan reproduced in f:
          No trace belonging to them was found in particular on the sweater that the victim
          was wearing at the time she was attacked nor on her shirt underneath,
          which would have been the case if they had participated in the murder (instead, traces of Guede were found on a sleeve of the aforementioned sweater: ff, 179

          This aforementioned negative circumstance accords with the fact, already highlighted, of the absolute impracticability of the posthumous clean-up hypothesis, removing some biological traces while leaving others.

  16. Lee Pahdi says:

    Yes’m, you is tight right! This here legal system is twisted like a typhooned pretzel. From “Take a long walk off a short pier” to “I hope you die” are common everyday insults in our tidy whitey socio-political melange of cultures. How did the sophomoric slag get to be so sensitive? Everything from “cyber-bullying to “hate speech” are catch phrases to label “others’ who don’t agree with you. Regarding the case you commented on: Depending on which side of the stamp you lick, this lady confidant could have been trying reverse psychology to shock this depressed deranged dude back to any senses he may have had left. In that case her efforts could be construed as “heroic”. Another point the defense counsel may have missed: Oftentimes, when we hear others cry wolf ad absurdum, after awhile we say okay “do it” ( already). It should never have gone to trial.

  17. Tom Mininger says:

    I recommend watching the segment of this 48 Hours where adolescent psychiatrist Dr. Harold Koplewicz discusses this case as a neutral observer (not a prosecution or defense witness). He debunks the defense’s SSRI hallucination theory and describes the virtual presence of texting. Its dangerous mix of being instantaneous but impairing the sense of responsibility. And he reminds that adolescents are the most susceptible to peer pressure.

    I can’t imagine the reaction you must of had to irresponsible media portrayals of Carter after what you went through. But from what I’ve read and watched so far, I think the prosecution behaved responsibly in this case, unlike the reckless fantasizing by the state in your case. And I think this Massachusetts judge tried hard to do the right thing.

    I can’t see Michelle Carter as a victim in this case. Nor can I find sympathy for her at the moment. She will be defined in large part by her 2 weeks of goading Roy into suicide. But I can struggle for compassion and to think beyond blame as to how can we use this tragedy to help teens deal with depression, including Carter. When I watch human beings in adult bodies waiting outside the courthouse for their big chance to hurl insults at Carter… I say to myself “I don’t want to be like them.” Being part of a mob impairs the sense of responsibility. Let’s us off the hook. I want to use higher brain function to work for solutions.

  18. Vicki says:

    I agree that it is a dangerous precedent. However, we have already held people criminally responsible for persuading others to commit suicide or murder. Charles Manson being a prime example. While I agree that just labeling someone as evil is unfair and unjust, the fact is that there are people who have no empathy, no sense of feeling shame for their actions. You must have met people like this in prison, although they are everywhere. I’ve heard one in 25, although some insist on a much higher percentage. In short, I will agree to disagree with your views on Carter. However, I am glad you present them and are able to have a platform for your views. I hope you haven’t had to deal with too much vitriol from others.

    • William says:

      Vicki, strange you mentioned Charles Manson during these first days of August.

      On August 8-10 forty eight years ago under a dark moon, in silence, and with no breeze to carry sounds, Manson sent his army, dressed in black, into Los Angeles to kill and spread terror. The raid on Cielo Drive began at approximately 12:15 am on 9 August and ended some thirty minutes later leaving five people dead including Sharon Tate and her unborn baby, which makes the count really six. The kill team, which didn’t include Manson, left no usable evidence or witnesses. The next night Manson did go with his soldiers. He entered the LaBianca house and tied up the two victims. He took off, leaving Tex and two girls to do the killings.

      The jury convicted Manson on conspiracy to commit murder claiming he set up both the Tate and LaBianca hits. The prosecutor had almost no evidence against any of the suspects, especially Manson. Vincent Bugliosi sold the ranch to get the convictions by giving total immunity to one of the killers for her testimony. He invented a bogus race war to frighten the jury and inflame the emotions of the city.

      All the killings were sad, but the saddest for me was that of gentle, caring, Abigail Folger at Cielo. Stabbed and bleeding, she had run from the house pursued by one Patricia Krenwinkel with knife in hand. Abigail fell onto the ground on her back gasping blood from her mouth, looking up at Pat and Tex begging, “Please stop stabbing me, I’m already dead”.

      Sharon’s last words were, “Oh mother, oh mother.” Actress Sharon Tate defined female beauty in the 1960s.

      I wonder what Meredith’s last words were. Guede hasn’t had the courage to tell us yet.

      The following lines are for Meredith.

      “As the flowers are all made sweeter by the sunshine and the dew,
      so this old world is made brighter by the lives of folks like you.”

      (by Bonnie Parker, 1910-1934)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *