I don’t remember when all of this was happening – I think it just wasn’t on my radar – but I did remember her name and I equated it with scandal and controversy.
Obviously, everyone is a suspect early on in a case but I was truly taken aback when Italian police maintained that Amanda was the prime suspect. None of it made sense to me, and from the get-go it seemed like all of the evidence was circumstantial or insufficient. I was also concerned with the manner of interrogation, some of what Amanda said was clearly coerced.
The whole ordeal also naturally made me consider how harshly Amanda was judged for the smallest details of her life, like a posed picture or how many men she’d slept with. She said something like “people like to see monsters” and will scrutinize any details that uphold the fictional character that the media has created.
It was also interesting to see Rudy’s defense lawyer speak on the inadequacies of Amanda’s defense; I don’t remember the exact quote, but he noted that while Rudy had been processed, Amanda was still on trial.
I wonder if a man in the same position would have been under such scrutiny- on one hand, I think it’s easier to believe that a man would commit such a brutal act (data supports that over 80% those found guilty of homicide are male) but perhaps such circumstantial evidence would not have been so seriously considered, perhaps his history would not have played such a role in his conviction.
There’s no way to know, of course.
For the record, I believe she’s completely innocent. I can’t say whether or not I believe Rudy is guilty but I do believe Amanda had nothing to do with it.