Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Kaosium]

_______________________

Rose,

Even stronger words in another Italian Editorial: The Printing of Trash, HERE. This writer don't approve of the Kerchers, the Mayor of Perugia, press coverage of the case,.....and don't think the case against the lovebirds should have ever been brought to trial.

///

Thanks! This is a good article.

Involved in the murder of an innocent man his English friend Meredith Kercher, Amanda Knox has spent four years in prison.

Since the beginning of the investigation the evidence against her and against her alleged 'party', Raffaele Sollecito, appeared fragile and confused. The two defendants should not have even come to trial, but instead the car of Italian justice has not only set in motion, but also issued a harsh sentence at first instance and he put us forever to get to the acquittal granted of the two alleged perpetrators. Raffaele and Amanda accusing the theorem (based on certainties, then demolished on appeal) has stolen more than a thousand days of precious youth.

With the declaration of innocence for not having committed the crime was thought that the dannofosse been repaired. But instead of pathological attention of the media continues to grind nonsense.

For Halloween Amanda was dressed as a thief and so new controversy erupted. He scitto an Italian newspaper: "The American student is back in the headlines," as if millions of young people do what they do in the middle of the night world of the spectra is a transgression worthy of note. Sure, some say an inmate unfairly groped for 4 years can not spend an evening of fun, but must stay home to repent of what you do not know.

Intolerable statements Kercher family, that does not seem at all interested in knowing who killed Meredith in the tragic night in Via della Pergola, but that runs after the Knox and Sollecito colpevoezza as a dogma, a fundamental principle that needs no investigation or of explanations.

John Kercher said the British tabloid Daily Mirror tabloid to believe "not appropriate" behavior of Amanda, "especially considering that it is the fourth anniversary of the death (of his daughter, ed)." "The anniversary - he added - is obviously a very difficult time for our family, and images like this do not help." In short, the Kercher does not recognize the ruling of the Court of Assizes of Perugia and appeal and did not make it in this way to despise the Italian legal gaming.

Perhaps the poor father of murdered British student is convinced that someone who has spent four years in jail unjustly should not be able to return to a normal life.

Equally serious are the words of the mayor of Perugia, Wladimiro Pitcher, a member of the center-left who perhaps aware of the importance of civil rights.

The first citizen of Perugia remembering the poor victim has argued: "Mez is part of the shared memory" of our city. "Every birthday - he added - once again intensified the memory of this girl and rekindles the pain of his death, that time is not moderated. Today our thoughts go first of all to her, then his family, to all persons who have suffered more closely to its end. "

No reference to the long deprivation of liberty which have undergone two other young men, victims of a proceeding entirely circumstantial and fed the multitudes by processes farcical television without the least respect for their identity as citizens.

The terrible story of Perugia seems to have learned nothing from reporters, Italian, British and Americans, who continue to invent non-existent information and to feed the morbid curiosity of the readers in order to sell an extra copy.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Thanks! This is a good article.

How can you tell? The translation to English is so butchered it belongs in a deli.

"Involved in the murder of an innocent man his English friend Meredith Kercher, Amanda Knox has spent four years in prison."

 

[RoseMontague]

How can you tell? The translation to English is so butchered it belongs in a deli.

"Involved in the murder of an innocent man his English friend Meredith Kercher, Amanda Knox has spent four years in prison."

Having read literally thousands of Google translated pages regarding this case, I can tell you with confidence that this is an easy one.

 

[RoseMontague]

Quote from the dotorg PMF

An independent audiometric test could have been authored by the defence any time it chose. They didn't need the judge to approve it. They raised it as a standard request and probably knew it would be dismissed as a fishing expedition.

Nope. The defense cannot order independent testing.

 

[Rolfe]

It's only a problem with the genders of the nouns. Ignore that and it's quite clear. It is an excellent article. Nice to see some journalists getting it.

Rolfe.

 

[Kaosium]

How can you tell? The translation to English is so butchered it belongs in a deli.

"Involved in the murder of an innocent man his English friend Meredith Kercher, Amanda Knox has spent four years in prison."

I suppose comprehending google-translated Italian is an acquired skill, I often get a headache from trying to puzzle some pieces out, akin to having a railroad spike blasted through my skull. This one I didn't even scratch my head, I guess I just moved the words around and reversed the gender pronouns automatically, and by context added back in the negatives, charming features of google-translated Italian. I tell you it can be awfully confusing if Raffaele and Amanda are mentioned in the same paragraph and you can't tell for sure if the writer has them doing something or not doing something!

 

[smkovalinksy]

Can you explain "Son of Sam" for someone not from the US?

A Son of Sam Law is any American law designed to keep criminals from profiting from the publicity of their crimes, often by selling their stories to publishers. However, this is not in the same manner of asset forfeiture, which is intended to seize assets acquired directly as a result of criminal activity. Where asset forfeiture looks to remove the profitability of crimes by taking away money and assets gained from the crime, Son of Sam laws are designed so that criminals are unable to take advantage of the notoriety of their crimes. Such laws often authorize the state to seize money earned from deals such as book/movie biographies and paid interviews and use it to compensate the criminal's victims. The term "Son of Sam" refers to the nickname of serial killer David Berkowitz, the subject of a notorious murder case in 1978.

In certain cases a Son of Sam law can be extended beyond the criminals themselves to include friends, neighbors, and family members of the lawbreaker who seek to profit by telling publishers and filmmakers of their relation to the criminal. In other cases, a person may not financially benefit from the sale of a story or any other mementos pertaining to the crime—if the criminal was convicted after the date lawmakers passed the law in the states where the crime was committed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_Sam_lawObviously does not apply to the acquitted Amanda nor her family - who will make money from the story of wrongful conviction, false imprisonment, and acquittal. Ka-ching is right!!!$$$$$$$

 

[davefoc]

It might be that circumstances here are a bit different which could impact on this issue. This link from somewhere you might be familiar with suggests just why it's not simply automatic, and just like Leahy it appears they also think it important.

Just a comparison here, Italy's police are national, there's about a dozen different departments as opposed to the 19k in the United States. It ought also be noted that despite all the arrests, the percentage of foreign-born in American prisons is quite a bit below the rate for natural-born, so either we're really easy on them or they're 'introduced' to their consular representative.

Italy's foreign-born prison population is 30%, in the United States it's about half that of natural-born as a percentage of the population, about 6%. So perhaps the reason the Vienna Convention is not as widely disseminated in the US is because of the absolute unwieldiness of all our state, local and federal law enforcement agencies and because other laws allow the ability of the accused to contact their consulate if they want to, and in some cases the authorities will be contacting their consulate whether they like it or not!

I think your link put forth a bit of a confused and perhaps wrong description on the issue of consular notification. The state department document, Consular Notification and Access, makes it clear that notification of the right to consular assistance is required when a foreign national is arrested in the US. There are 57 countries that require consular notification even when the defendant doesn't want it. The state department states that the arresting agent should comply with that requirement for the 57 listed countries. The 57 countries that require notification are listed in the CNA document. The document is here: http://travel.state.gov/pdf/cna/CNA_Manual_3d_Edition.pdf

Currently although there are US regulations requiring notice of the right to consular assistance for foreign detainees the rule is not always followed and not following it is not necessarily an error that automatically results in having a conviction overturned.

However, as a practical matter, the fact that a suspect must be informed of his right to counsel before his statements can be used against him in the US would help a bit in this regard. Assuming a suspect invokes his right to counsel presumably his lawyer would tell him about his right to consular assistance. Not overturning convictions automatically because of a failure to notify a defendant of his right to consular assistance seems right to me. However, I also would not allow any statement to be used against a suspect that he made before he was informed of his right to consular assistance. And whether that is in fact the rule or not I'm not sure. I couldn't find an opinion on that specific issue.

As an aside, Italy, is not a must notify country, so that an Italian arrested in the US could opt to not have his consul informed. The situation with Mexico is interesting. Mexico requests that it always be informed of the arrest of juveniles, pregnant women and people with mental problems. The state department recommends that the arresting agency comply with this if it can be done without violating local privacy laws.

One thing that interested me because of the discussions here is the timing of the right to consular notification. Can a suspect be interrogated before it is given in the US. The document that I reference above has this to say about that:

If the identity and foreign nationality of a person are confirmed during a custodial interrogation that precedes booking, consular information should be provided at that time. (Note, however, that there is no requirement to stop the interrogation if the foreign national requests that consular officers be notified of the detention, but nevertheless agrees to provide a statement voluntarily.)

The issue, related to this thread, is what the governing policies are in Italy and not the US. My assumption is that they would be similar and based on that Knox should have been notified that she had a right to consular notification at the beginning of her custodial interrogation. However, the issue may be complicated. Apparently there are a lot of bilateral agreements with regard to this issue and those bilateral agreements between the US and Italy on this that could modify that requirement.

 

[pilot padron]

Just to keep it accurate and unbiased

It's a law passed to prevent criminals from profiting from their crimes. Named after the "Son of Sam" killer David Berkewitz.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_Sam_law


Of course, since Amanda wasn't convicted of a crime, she's not subject to said law and will make a mint off her story. I just read in TV Guide that she's shopping her first televised interview and sh'es going to get paid.

Ka-ching! $$$$

Notwithstanding applicability of Son of Sam laws in US.
You are entitled to your *opinion* on that matter, as well as whether she will be paid.

However, you are not entitled to erroneously state that Knox was not convicted of a crime.

So far she has been "convicted" in 2 of the 3 Italian courts of the crime of accusing an innocent man of murder.
That is why 3 of the 4 years she was incarcerated were 100% deserved, appropriate and not subject to Marriott managed PR talking point whines about her being "unjustly" imprisoned.
In the US she is "convicted" as of now, and must so state on all US Applications requesting that information.

(Please spare us the usual chorus about all 3 *Italian Courts* need rule to be 'guilty' *in Italy*.
We all know that long in tooth verse very well by now.)

Additionally, Knox has been unanimously "convicted" in the first Italian Court of senselessly murdering Meredith Kercher.
The not guilty due to 'lack of evidence' decision of the second Court must still be upheld by the definitely requested and definitely still to be heard future Court of Cassation ruling

Therefore your.... "Of course, since Amanda wasn't convicted of a crime" is not by any stretch of imagination a valid.... "of course".
In fact your statement is premature at best and more probably downright incorrect at any standard.

But your "Ka-Ching" was indeed a welcome and appreciated touch of clever visual levity.
Despite the fact that "ker-flop" might well be proven to be more appropriate

 

[daydreamer]

Originally Posted by Rolfe
It's also likely with the Kerchers that close examination of the evidence is too painful for them, dealing as it does with the bloody death of their daughter and sister. So they take what Maresca and Mignini tell them at face value. It's just a pity that John Kercher in particular has chosen to use his tabloid newspaper contacts to attack Knox and even pursue her across the Atlantic in an attempt to make her liberty as confined and miserable as her captivity.

If I remember correctly, John Kercher wrote in an article that he has read the massai-report about ten times, he knows all the evidence …

Hopefully Mr. Kercher will read the Hellmann report ten times and get a better picture of what really happened. Maybe then they can have some closure. Pursuing the SC appeal will just prolong the process and cost them more legal fees.

 

[smkovalinksy]

OK, I have got to stop looking over at pmf. I cannot believe at this late date, post-acquittal, that they trot out the same old, tired speculations full of bigotry and supposition and black and white thinking. Insofar as the Norwood case goes, it is so vastly different from the Knox case, and they must be dreaming to think that any serious thinkers would believe an innocence campaign should be started. Ugh. Just yuck.....such self-indulgent clap-trap on a mutual-admiration society. ugh...

After reading the John Follain book I was left with the impression that AK at first been somewhat attracted to Giacomo Silenzi - the guitar playing, beatles loving, weed smoking young man who lived downstairs. And that she made remarks to Meredith along the lines of, "well you can have him, but you should know he was crazy about me", once it became clear that Meredith and he were close to embarking on a relationship.

There were also some quotes from Meredith's friends, I think it was from Amy, stating that AK was quite aggressive and competitive when it came to men.

Could something in Knox have snapped as she felt that Meredith - through her relaxed, normal, friendly manner, her ease at winning friends, at learning Italian, at not sleeping around, at being a tidy housemate - was in someway bringing in to focus all of Knox's own faults.

In short do we have any information about violence being a part of AK's past ?

Duh, nooooo........

The more I hear about the Norwood case, the more I'm convinced that the JLOL people who read here need to start a Free Brittany campaign directly.

uh huh. Well lied, lion.

 

[TruthCalls]

Pilot,

My guess is if the police beat you around the head and coerced a statement out of you implicating someone else, and then if that individual was arrested and thrown in jail without so much as a simple check to see if he had an alibi, you wouldn't be so excited about being found guilty of calunnia. However, the point is moot as I do not believe she would be making money retelling this part of the case.

I also believe that as of right now her status is "acquitted", unless there is a Court of Cassation ruling that changes this, something most legal analysts don't think stands much of a chance. In fact, I believe there are greater odds of the calunnia charge being reversed than there is sending the other charges back down to the lower courts to be retried. But I'm glad you've got something to hold on to...

 

[smkovalinksy]

Manipulation in the name of a murdered girl

The murdered girl is of course Meredith Kercher, her flatmate American Amanda Knox, the erstwhile boyfriend Italian Raffaele Sollecito; and the Ivorian, Rudy Guede. And in case you have missed it, as the result of an unprecedented and detailed Appeal, Amanda and Raffaele one month ago were pronounced by the Court NOT GUILTY BECAUSE THEY ARE INNOCENT OF THE CRIME. That means not guilty because they did not do it! This conclusion has been made after a painstaking review of the evidence, by an independent Court that restudied evidence deemed crucial in the first trial, after the two had been locked up for four years.



Now to hypocrisy and manipulation. This murder took place on the night AFTER Hallow’een in 2007. Meredith herself that year had gone to a Hallow’een party dressed as a gory Count Dracula, fake blood and all, as a piece of innocent fun. Unfortunately the following night, in a burglary that went wrong, she was murdered by Rudy Guede, who is now the only person convicted of the crime, and of whom evidence was literally all over the crime scene. Very sad, for the girl whose life was cut short, and of course for family and friends, but under normal circumstances four years later the family might be over the worst of their grief and shock.



http://www.groundreport.com/Opinion/Manipulation-in-the-name-of-a-murdered-girl/2942385

 

[Diocletus]

Notwithstanding applicability of Son of Sam laws in US.
You are entitled to your *opinion* on that matter, as well as whether she will be paid.

However, you are not entitled to erroneously state that Knox was not convicted of a crime.

So far she has been "convicted" in 2 of the 3 Italian courts of the crime of accusing an innocent man of murder.
That is why 3 of the 4 years she was incarcerated were 100% deserved, appropriate and not subject to Marriott managed PR talking point whines about her being "unjustly" imprisoned.
In the US she is "convicted" as of now, and must so state on all US Applications requesting that information.

(Please spare us the usual chorus about all 3 *Italian Courts* need rule to be 'guilty' *in Italy*.
We all know that long in tooth verse very well by now.)

Additionally, Knox has been unanimously "convicted" in the first Italian Court of senselessly murdering Meredith Kercher.
The not guilty due to 'lack of evidence' decision of the second Court must still be upheld by the definitely requested and definitely still to be heard future Court of Cassation ruling

Therefore your.... "Of course, since Amanda wasn't convicted of a crime" is not by any stretch of imagination a valid.... "of course".
In fact your statement is premature at best and more probably downright incorrect at any standard.

But your "Ka-Ching" was indeed a welcome and appreciated touch of clever visual levity.
Despite the fact that "ker-flop" might well be proven to be more appropriate

Didn't Hellmann say she was not convicted of murder 'cause she didn't do it?!?

Is calunnia even a real crime in the US? Or is this just some made-up Eye-talian thang? I've never heard of somebody being a convicted calunniaist, or having committed a brutal calunnia.

 

[Diocletus]

It's said to be from his Nov. 4 interrogation.

"Just then, Amanda went into the big bathroom and came out looking scared. She clung to me and said that when she was showering earlier, there had been stools in the lavatory bowl but now it was clean. I wondered what was going on and went out to see if I could climb up to Meredith’s window. I tried to force the door but I couldn’t open it. Then I decided to call my sister for advice because she is a lieutenant in the carabinieri. She told me to call 112 but by this time the postal police had arrived. In my earlier statement, I told you a whole lot of rubbish because Amanda convinced me about her version and I didn’t think about the contradictions.”

"I’ve known Amanda for a fortnight. She’s been sleeping at my flat since the evening we met. On 1 November, I woke up at about 11 am. I had breakfast with Amanda and then she left. I went back to bed. I got to her place at 1 or 2 pm. Meredith was there but she left in a hurry about 4 pm without saying where she was going. Amanda and I went into town at 6 pm or so but I can’t remember what we did. We were in the town centre until 8.30 or 9 pm. At 9 pm, I went home on my own while Amanda said she was going to Le Chic because she wanted to see some friends. That’s when we said goodbye. I went home, smoked a joint and had dinner but I can’t remember what I ate. At about 11 pm, my dad called on the landline. I remember that Amanda hadn’t come back yet. I surfed the net for another two hours after dad called and only stopped when Amanda got back, at about 1 am, I suppose. I can’t remember what she was wearing or if she was wearing the same clothes she had on when she said goodbye before dinner. I can’t remember if we had sex that night. The following morning, we got up at about 10 am and she told me she wanted to go home, have a shower and change. She left at around 10.30 and I went back to sleep. When Amanda left, she took an empty carrier bag, saying she needed it for her dirty washing. She came back about 11.30 and I remember she had changed her clothes. She had her usual bag with her”.

I've seen this quote before. But I've never seen it as a document signed by Sollecito. All I see are these words, which appear to me to be the words that the police are claiming Sollecito said. Since the cops are proven to be liars, and don't have a tape, I don't trust them to have accurately written exactly what Sollecito said. In fact, the quotation appears to me to likely confound (negligently or intentionally) the happenings of two separate days, so it's unreliable on its face.

 

[Diocletus]

But I think that the problem is that the structure of Italy's criminal procedure rules, as you describe them, seems not to map well onto the language of the treaty.

This is definitely a problem. Under Italian law, as Machiavelli would have us believe, no "rights" (i.e., right to counsel, consul, and silence) attach until a magistrate has declared that the person is a criminal suspect.

One of the problems with this, is that the police have figured out how to cheat the system, so that they can delay the magistrate's decision, and thus allow the police a period of time, to detain a person they know or suspect committed a crime and subject them without oversight or help to harsh interrogation methods.

Contrast this with Italy's international obligations. These obligations do not depend on formal "arrest" to be triggered, but rather, look to "detention" and the status of the interogee as a person suspected of a crime. These statuses can obviously exist independent of a magistrate's decision. For example, Knox was objectively "detained" before 1:45 on 11/6 and was obviously a suspect before her interrogation even began (as evidenced by prior wiretapping, alleged contradiction of her alibi, and suspect-centric questions).

So Italy unfortunately has an interrogation/arrest procedure that can very easily be manipulated by the police and magistrate to apply in a way that violates international law. And that's just what happened in this case.

She should have had counsel and consul before her interrogation even started on the 5th.

 

[Machiavelli]

And speaking of silly lets examine the above "logic".

Mach says..…“The “absolute” right to remain silent in fact does not exist at all for normal citizens in Italy, there is not even the slightest right to remain silent,"

Funny how just yesterday he argued that Quintinvale the shop keeper decided to remain silent when he was questioned by police shortly after the murder. (snip ....) SO WHY?

This is not "logic", this is facts. Your problem with believing is an issue of ignorant people: what I said above, you can just check it with a research. You are wasting your time in attempting to argue it. That makes no sense.

The only proof that we have that Amanda was not questioned after 1:45 AM is the word of a convicted criminal abuser of office named Mignini.

No, there is plenty of other evicence, ad also the word of other witnesses. You just deny it.

Why should we believe this mans word? And save me the three phases of innocence in Italy. Right now a court has found him guilty and he currently awaits an appeal trial.

You don't need to believe. The defense have to first claim, and then bring evidence it is false. And would not be enough, because there is overwhelming evidence tha Knox is lying.

This would be like returning the schoolmaster found guilty of abusing children back to his job of overseeing children. The risk is high that the abuse would continue.

This may well continue, but the abuse for which Mignini was convicted in first degree does not include any falsehood nor corruption. Mignini was not convicted for stating the false or for fabricating evidence, he was convicted on a specific charge that concerns the interpretation of the law and the function of his actions. This is not an abuse that concerns truth and obstruction of justice, it is not like calunnia. It's clear that you don't know the law.

So how hard is it for a known criminal to lie about asking a few questions? Certainly there is a tape for this part right?? Granted the only reason to lie is that Mignini would breaking the law by doing so as it would clearly violate the suspects right to a lawyer.

But this is not the point. A "few questions" would not change anything in Amanda's position. If you want a judge to excuse Knox for the spontaneous statement you must explain and justify the series of Amanda's actions, not claim that Mignini asked a few questions.

Finally how is it that RS was never allowed a lawyer until his first appearance in court?

All this is legal. Their first appearence before a judge was within 48 hours after the decree of arrest. This is the first right to be provided to the defendant. There isn't a specific right to confer with an attorney before the meeting with a preliminary judge. You would know that there was nothing illegal if you just read the rulings about it.

And what of Lumumba? He was certainly a suspect and so where was his lawyer during his interrogation on 6 Nov 2007?

There was no interrogation of Lumumba. There are no minutes of interrogation. There was some informal exchange with the police (not Mignini), but it was never transcribed, no judicial document was redacted. The only documentation admitted in the investigation, the onky interrogation of Lumumba existing in the trial acts, is the interogation by the preliminary judge.

Do you know his name so that we can question this lawyer about the methods and treatment of Lumumba during this interrogation?

Of course I know his name. But he will never answer about priviledged conversation with his client.
And anyway we all know exactly how Lumumba was treated. He was insulted and kicked in the first hour after his arrest. He was not tortured and not forced to confess, nor questioned, nor detained abusively. He never claimed abuses except the said mistreatment before the preliminary judge nor in any other venue.

Can you understand why we think something is not right about these stories?

No.
Or better, I have my opinions about why.

Why it appears that the officials seem to act like thugs? Why Hellmann called the Massei report unsustainable fiction?

Hellmann did not call the Massei report "unsustainale fiction". His definition was "lacunosa ed illogica" (incomplete and illogic).

Tell us please what the ruling of the Supreme Court means in regards to statements made by Amanda on Nov 5 and 6 2007? And will the Supreme Court in reviewing Massei somehow be able to ignore the fact that its own ruling was ignored by the judge and prosecutor? How would it be possible for them to ignore this?

I have already explained this many times. So I will not repeat this now.

The Massei court did not ignore the Supreme Court ruling, simply used a higher Supreme Court ruling ("Sezioni Unite della Corte di Cassazione"). Every ruling and every principle of law has a scope and limits for its applications. Amanda Knox committed a calunnia, a crime for which she was not a suspect at the moment when she released the statements.

 

[Diocletus]

And anyway we all know exactly how Lumumba was treated. He was insulted and kicked in the first hour after his arrest.

They kicked an arrestee? Amazing that you can be so breezy in your mention of that.

Hellmann did not call the Massei report "unsustainale fiction". His definition was "lacunosa ed illogica" (incomplete and illogic).

LOL. In other words, Massei is a nitwit.

 

[Osterwelle]

Knox was objectively "detained" before 1:45 on 11/6 ...

That would be Nov 5 according to the cable. Or is there something wrong with it that everybody keeps ignoring it?

-
Osterwelle

 

[Grinder]

It's not just the canonisation of Meredith, who seems to have been an ordinary girl who drank and smoked pot and slept with her Italian boyfriend just like Amanda was doing. And have you seen the baby pics they posted of her, and the near-worship extended to that icon? It's the hagiography of the Kercher family.

I suppose if it had been Amanda who had come home early and surprised Rudy and been murdered, and Meredith who raised the alarm and was falsely accused, we'd be seeing the exact mirror image. Amanda would be the saint, and Meredith the sex, drugs and alcohol obsessed "witch". And the Knox and Mellas families would be "gentle and dignified" (no matter how they behaved), and the Kerchers' peculiar physical appearance would be mocked and lampooned.

Rolfe, I don't it would have been the same. Peg and some of her crew truly seem to have something against American women in Europe. She has bashed any American woman that has backed Amanda at all. Most recently it was Burleigh - read the crud Peg wrote about her bad attitude toards the French. Peg left the US for France and made her living doing commercial translating (easiest profession next to teaching English). She seems very resentful that she, for some reason, needed to come back. Remember her story about being angry with her mother when the mother couldn't use the locks on Peg's French home properly? Perhaps, Peg needed to come back for her, but I digress.

Peg thinks that Amanda is a boor along with her parents (I can't argue that point too much) and resents Amanda being young, from the US and in Europe where Peg wants to be. Peg likes other aging US Ex-Pats like Barbie and Andrea because they have given up the US as she did herself and are mediocre.

I never thought the anti-Americanism came from Italy - I always thought it was centered right here in Amanda's backyard.

I doubt PQ would have done a TJAK page. She's not his type.