What do you think?
Rate this book
Angel Face: Sex, Murder and the Inside Story of Amanda Knox
Despite all the airtime devoted to Amanda Knox, it’s still hard to reconcile the fresh-faced honor student from Seattle with the sexually rapacious killer convicted of the November 2007 murder of her British roommate. Few Americans have heard all of the powerful evidence that convinced a jury that Knox was one of three people to sexually assault Meredith Kercher, brutalize her body, and cut her throat. In Angel Face, Rome-based Daily Beast senior writer Barbie Latza Nadeau – who cultivated personal relationships with the key figures in both the prosecution and the defense – describes how the Knox family’s heavy-handed efforts to control media coverage distorted the facts, inflamed an American audience, and painted an offensive, inaccurate picture of Italy’s justice system. An eye-opener for any parent considering sending a child away to study, Angel Face reveals what really went on in this incomprehensible crime.
205 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2010
26 people are currently reading
928 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 126 reviews
Read
August 5, 2011Let's be clear: I am intentionally giving this book 0 stars. Everyone associated with this book should be embarrassed. I'm looking at you, Marcia Clark, for letting yourself be quoted praising this book on the back cover. I am also now going to cancel my Newsweek subscription after 20 years because the woman behind publishing this book is the chief editor of that magazine.
For the love of all that is good and pure, do not read this book if you want to understand the case of Amanda Knox. This book is thin, superficial, and oddly over-sexualized. What is there is not well written. The author clearly had an ax to grind with the Knox family and all of those who have criticized her reporting throughout this case. (Her reporting has deserved criticism.) She actually mentions her grudges and has a few moments where she really says "so there" to those who dispute her take on things.
I only read this book because it is presented as the bible for those who insist Amanda Knox is guilty so I wanted to understand the fuss.
Her presentation of the "facts" is, to put it kindly, exceedingly biased. She takes certain prosecution points as absolute givens without ever mentioning the very real reasons to question those points. Like stating as fact that the police arrived at Amanda's apartment at 12:35 the day after the murder even though Raffaele didn't call for another 10 minutes. But not once does she ever mention that the 12:35 arrival time is based on a time stamp from a camera at a parking garage that was off by about 12 minutes! And she presents it as a given that a witness saw Amanda and Raffaele on the night of the murder without any mention that he was so thoroughly proven at trial to have the wrong day that court members actually laughed at him.
I believe this author did not write a book to present an unbiased, thorough view of the case but rather to justify all of her reporting in the lead up to the trial. True crime, this is not. To qualify for that label, well, it at least has to be true. And an author who goes into a true crime book with such a personal agenda is almost necessarily going to fail. This author certainly did.
For the love of all that is good and pure, do not read this book if you want to understand the case of Amanda Knox. This book is thin, superficial, and oddly over-sexualized. What is there is not well written. The author clearly had an ax to grind with the Knox family and all of those who have criticized her reporting throughout this case. (Her reporting has deserved criticism.) She actually mentions her grudges and has a few moments where she really says "so there" to those who dispute her take on things.
I only read this book because it is presented as the bible for those who insist Amanda Knox is guilty so I wanted to understand the fuss.
Her presentation of the "facts" is, to put it kindly, exceedingly biased. She takes certain prosecution points as absolute givens without ever mentioning the very real reasons to question those points. Like stating as fact that the police arrived at Amanda's apartment at 12:35 the day after the murder even though Raffaele didn't call for another 10 minutes. But not once does she ever mention that the 12:35 arrival time is based on a time stamp from a camera at a parking garage that was off by about 12 minutes! And she presents it as a given that a witness saw Amanda and Raffaele on the night of the murder without any mention that he was so thoroughly proven at trial to have the wrong day that court members actually laughed at him.
I believe this author did not write a book to present an unbiased, thorough view of the case but rather to justify all of her reporting in the lead up to the trial. True crime, this is not. To qualify for that label, well, it at least has to be true. And an author who goes into a true crime book with such a personal agenda is almost necessarily going to fail. This author certainly did.
February 25, 2013
This "book" is deeply unsettling to read - unfortunately it's not due to the sinister details of the crime and characters, but rather the author's total lack of reporting skills on what is a fascinating true crime casefile wasted.
There is very minimal substance to any dialogue contained in the book, a crime in itself when dealing with such a high profile case, and although she boasts her own scoops and her status as "the worst of the worst/most fearer/most hated by the family" reporter, I am gobsmacked at how scattered the book is, how badly she covers both defense and prosecution events, how often she she assumes we don't want to know the non-fiction details and instead want to read her theories on how the media is represented. This should have been a book about that, as you will be left feeling sorely ripped off and patronised during this entire reading experience. There is no structure at all, I have just reread Ann Rules "Small Sacrifices" which exemplifies the format true crime works, starting off with putting you smack bang in the action, and then the author takes you on a journey, of the key players, the victim, the perps - all of this is metered out in Angel Face as rationed tidbits, which is not what I expect when I buy a book dedicated to the crime. It's a slap in the face to the genre, and to the victim, and I really wonder how much research was actually done.
Not just sitting around a bar or two, or in the press room, that is part of securing the story, but thats not what I care about, I care about the crime and the characters.
I get the feeling because the case is in italian, she thinks we can forgive the massive ommision of no verbatim dialogue, no opening or closing statements, we get more detail and facts only when she gives her own theory of the events of the fatal night, new evidence is mentioned and it does read well, but I get the feeling that the author is trying to show off, just in another way. If you manage not to fling it away (I finished it out of sheer open mouth disbelief) I get the impression this book was cobbled together whilst she did her other job, as a reporter for Newsweek. In fact, her constant focus on the press battles for access and in job battles, and where she was during the entire story dominate the prose, whereas true crime is meant to put you in the place, be it courtroom, police interogation, victim perspective, scene of the crime - Barb's sole aim is to inform you that she was there, and she's the one who can tell you what she knows. It ain't much.
There is very minimal substance to any dialogue contained in the book, a crime in itself when dealing with such a high profile case, and although she boasts her own scoops and her status as "the worst of the worst/most fearer/most hated by the family" reporter, I am gobsmacked at how scattered the book is, how badly she covers both defense and prosecution events, how often she she assumes we don't want to know the non-fiction details and instead want to read her theories on how the media is represented. This should have been a book about that, as you will be left feeling sorely ripped off and patronised during this entire reading experience. There is no structure at all, I have just reread Ann Rules "Small Sacrifices" which exemplifies the format true crime works, starting off with putting you smack bang in the action, and then the author takes you on a journey, of the key players, the victim, the perps - all of this is metered out in Angel Face as rationed tidbits, which is not what I expect when I buy a book dedicated to the crime. It's a slap in the face to the genre, and to the victim, and I really wonder how much research was actually done.
Not just sitting around a bar or two, or in the press room, that is part of securing the story, but thats not what I care about, I care about the crime and the characters.
I get the feeling because the case is in italian, she thinks we can forgive the massive ommision of no verbatim dialogue, no opening or closing statements, we get more detail and facts only when she gives her own theory of the events of the fatal night, new evidence is mentioned and it does read well, but I get the feeling that the author is trying to show off, just in another way. If you manage not to fling it away (I finished it out of sheer open mouth disbelief) I get the impression this book was cobbled together whilst she did her other job, as a reporter for Newsweek. In fact, her constant focus on the press battles for access and in job battles, and where she was during the entire story dominate the prose, whereas true crime is meant to put you in the place, be it courtroom, police interogation, victim perspective, scene of the crime - Barb's sole aim is to inform you that she was there, and she's the one who can tell you what she knows. It ain't much.
August 2, 2010
While all true crime books certainly tend towards sensational coverage, this book is very clearly the work of Tina Brown's Beast Books imprint. The chapter titles are as lurid as they are ludicrious: "Perugia Is Not For The Weak," "Here is the List of People I've Had Sex With," "I Kicked the Door in, and Then I Heard a Scream."
Barbie Latza Nadeau has been a correspondent for Newsweek for enough years that I really expected her to deliver a more balanced and thorough review of the Amanda Knox case.
Whether you believe that Amanda Knox is guilty, as Nadeau does, or not - her arguments would hold more weight if she, for example, cited her sources at any point. She usually introduces claims with a breezy attribution to a source and a reference to the bar they were at when the quote was given. Claims which I feel would be bolstered if they cited dates or specific interview documentation. Throughout all the 200 padded pages of this book, not a single source is cited clearly enough that it could ever be checked.
It is also difficult to take her arguments seriously when she frequently describes various members of the Italian police force or court system in absurdly sexualized ways. From page 68, "Detective Napoleoni, forty-six, the head of the Perugia homicide squad, would make the perfect sex-flick dominatrix." She goes on to describe her jet black fringe of bangs and her heavy eye make up, as well as her tight blue jeans and stiletto boots. She does not, however, share any relevant information about whether or not this career police woman has experience with high profile homicides, or whether any other suspects have accused her detectives of brutality, or really - any relevant information about her ability as a capable investigator. She also describes many of the men on the case in similar fashion, describing Kercher's lead lawyer as "...Francesco Meresca, a fit, sexy, suave Neapolitan with long brown, wavy hair and blue eyes" and refering to the defense lawyer Carlo Dalla Vedova as, "...easily the most attractive lawyer in court - a tall muscular tennis player with white spiked hair and playful eyes." Really, if she were as descriptive of actual evidence as she is about the physical attributes of those involved in the case, the book would be a much more enlightening read.
The worst thing about the book, in my opinion, is that it reads like a two hundred page slut shaming of Amanda Knox. She is frequently described as promiscuous, and much is made of her tendancy to bring men home. Many mentions of her vibrator in the bathroom seem to attempt to bolster her image as a wanton American sex kitten. And yet, in the second chapter of the book, the Italian police lie to Amanda Knox by saying that she has tested positive for HIV for the express purpose of getting her to make a list of people she had had sex with (for, apparently, no real reason other than to leak to the media), that list had seven people on it. For a twenty-two year old college student in 2010, I hardly think that's a number high enough to raise an eyebrow at, much less perpetuate an image of her as a sluttish sex-crazed miscreant. Plus, in this volume, the fact that Amanda Knox enjoys sex is called up so often that it starts to sound like the author expects you to agree that being guilty of liking sex is a short step away from being guilty of a heinous murder. Being written by a female journalist, or really any journalist in the post-Victorian era, I would really have expected better.
The same goes for the descriptions of Amanda's drug use. They are anecdotal at best, and mostly involve smoking pot. There is not a single example of anyone saying they sold her any harder drugs, or ever saw her take anything else. This book is such a breathless account of Amanda Knox's alleged depravity that I really imagine if any such people could be found, they would have been quoted at length and probably given her some new chapter titles to be getting on with.
Again, I don't really think that every college student who enjoys smoking pot and having sex is on their way to crazed killer status.
The author does discuss various police procedural errors, and a lot of disputed DNA evidence, but does not explain enough about how the Italian justice system works (supposedly one of her areas of expertise) for the reader to understand the implications of her information. For example, she says that the DNA found on the knife that prosecutors determined to be the murder weapon should have been thrown out as it was only a single test sample, but then says that the prosecution used it anyway and built their case around it. Why was this allowed? Is this common in the Italian court system? What are the general rules that they use for evidence? When she describes things like jurors who routinely fall asleep after lunch - again, there is a clear lack of explanation and context. Is this usual? Does the judge not feel like it is necessary for jurors to be awake for any and all information that is presented?
She also shrugs off the prosecutor's wild theories of satanic rituals due to the fact that there was still some Halloween stuff in the house on November 1st. She indicates that theory was discarded early on, but then mentions that he attempted to bring it up in the closing arguments of the case. The question of whether he believes Amanda Knox is a satanist or that these murders had a satanic element, is never really answered and appears to be contradicted even in her own recounting.
It does seem clear that Amanda Knox was likely involved in the murder of Meredith Kercher, and likely to an extent not really covered by the American media. The fact that she and her boyfriend attempted to clean the house with bleach the morning after the murder, the fact that someone certainly tried to stage a break in after the fact, the fact that she doesn't seem able to accurately account for large portions of time on the night of the crime, and that she attempted to implicate her former boss in the murder - all of those facts certainly lend themselves to a narrative of guilt. And her bizarre behavior in the days after the killing, doing cartwheels in the police station, etc - also seem to paint a portrait of an unbalanced and distrubed / frequently drug enhanced personality.
If the book had focused more on the actual evidence in the case, or the various possible motives for the murder, it would have been much a much more informative and far less speculative read. It would also, perhaps, leave the reader feeling more knowledgable about the case itself, as opposed to feeling like you have just overdosed on tabloid gossip and junk food.
Barbie Latza Nadeau has been a correspondent for Newsweek for enough years that I really expected her to deliver a more balanced and thorough review of the Amanda Knox case.
Whether you believe that Amanda Knox is guilty, as Nadeau does, or not - her arguments would hold more weight if she, for example, cited her sources at any point. She usually introduces claims with a breezy attribution to a source and a reference to the bar they were at when the quote was given. Claims which I feel would be bolstered if they cited dates or specific interview documentation. Throughout all the 200 padded pages of this book, not a single source is cited clearly enough that it could ever be checked.
It is also difficult to take her arguments seriously when she frequently describes various members of the Italian police force or court system in absurdly sexualized ways. From page 68, "Detective Napoleoni, forty-six, the head of the Perugia homicide squad, would make the perfect sex-flick dominatrix." She goes on to describe her jet black fringe of bangs and her heavy eye make up, as well as her tight blue jeans and stiletto boots. She does not, however, share any relevant information about whether or not this career police woman has experience with high profile homicides, or whether any other suspects have accused her detectives of brutality, or really - any relevant information about her ability as a capable investigator. She also describes many of the men on the case in similar fashion, describing Kercher's lead lawyer as "...Francesco Meresca, a fit, sexy, suave Neapolitan with long brown, wavy hair and blue eyes" and refering to the defense lawyer Carlo Dalla Vedova as, "...easily the most attractive lawyer in court - a tall muscular tennis player with white spiked hair and playful eyes." Really, if she were as descriptive of actual evidence as she is about the physical attributes of those involved in the case, the book would be a much more enlightening read.
The worst thing about the book, in my opinion, is that it reads like a two hundred page slut shaming of Amanda Knox. She is frequently described as promiscuous, and much is made of her tendancy to bring men home. Many mentions of her vibrator in the bathroom seem to attempt to bolster her image as a wanton American sex kitten. And yet, in the second chapter of the book, the Italian police lie to Amanda Knox by saying that she has tested positive for HIV for the express purpose of getting her to make a list of people she had had sex with (for, apparently, no real reason other than to leak to the media), that list had seven people on it. For a twenty-two year old college student in 2010, I hardly think that's a number high enough to raise an eyebrow at, much less perpetuate an image of her as a sluttish sex-crazed miscreant. Plus, in this volume, the fact that Amanda Knox enjoys sex is called up so often that it starts to sound like the author expects you to agree that being guilty of liking sex is a short step away from being guilty of a heinous murder. Being written by a female journalist, or really any journalist in the post-Victorian era, I would really have expected better.
The same goes for the descriptions of Amanda's drug use. They are anecdotal at best, and mostly involve smoking pot. There is not a single example of anyone saying they sold her any harder drugs, or ever saw her take anything else. This book is such a breathless account of Amanda Knox's alleged depravity that I really imagine if any such people could be found, they would have been quoted at length and probably given her some new chapter titles to be getting on with.
Again, I don't really think that every college student who enjoys smoking pot and having sex is on their way to crazed killer status.
The author does discuss various police procedural errors, and a lot of disputed DNA evidence, but does not explain enough about how the Italian justice system works (supposedly one of her areas of expertise) for the reader to understand the implications of her information. For example, she says that the DNA found on the knife that prosecutors determined to be the murder weapon should have been thrown out as it was only a single test sample, but then says that the prosecution used it anyway and built their case around it. Why was this allowed? Is this common in the Italian court system? What are the general rules that they use for evidence? When she describes things like jurors who routinely fall asleep after lunch - again, there is a clear lack of explanation and context. Is this usual? Does the judge not feel like it is necessary for jurors to be awake for any and all information that is presented?
She also shrugs off the prosecutor's wild theories of satanic rituals due to the fact that there was still some Halloween stuff in the house on November 1st. She indicates that theory was discarded early on, but then mentions that he attempted to bring it up in the closing arguments of the case. The question of whether he believes Amanda Knox is a satanist or that these murders had a satanic element, is never really answered and appears to be contradicted even in her own recounting.
It does seem clear that Amanda Knox was likely involved in the murder of Meredith Kercher, and likely to an extent not really covered by the American media. The fact that she and her boyfriend attempted to clean the house with bleach the morning after the murder, the fact that someone certainly tried to stage a break in after the fact, the fact that she doesn't seem able to accurately account for large portions of time on the night of the crime, and that she attempted to implicate her former boss in the murder - all of those facts certainly lend themselves to a narrative of guilt. And her bizarre behavior in the days after the killing, doing cartwheels in the police station, etc - also seem to paint a portrait of an unbalanced and distrubed / frequently drug enhanced personality.
If the book had focused more on the actual evidence in the case, or the various possible motives for the murder, it would have been much a much more informative and far less speculative read. It would also, perhaps, leave the reader feeling more knowledgable about the case itself, as opposed to feeling like you have just overdosed on tabloid gossip and junk food.
April 7, 2017
Poorly written, self pitying recap of a journalists time covering the Meredith Kercher murder trial. 30% trial recap, 30% complaining about the American Media, 30% personal attack on Amanda and the Knox family and 10% opinion.
Easy read since it's so short, but it's more of a recap of the media coverage of the trial than it is a recap of the trial itself. Also I find the authors theory on how the murder happened laughable....I'm not gonna to go into detail for those that may read the book but I'll just say baseless, wild, speculation.
Easy read since it's so short, but it's more of a recap of the media coverage of the trial than it is a recap of the trial itself. Also I find the authors theory on how the murder happened laughable....I'm not gonna to go into detail for those that may read the book but I'll just say baseless, wild, speculation.
January 18, 2022
Read: Jan 2022
I read Angel Face immediately after finishing Waiting to be Heard by Amanda Knox and found that it filled in a few more details to this crime that Knox doesn't really touch upon. To be clear, I don't believe she or her boyfriend murdered Meredith but after reading Angel Face I can understand why the police targeted her.
In her own autobiography, Knox doesn't really touch upon the facts of Meredith's murder but it is clear from this book that the evidence pointed to more than one killer and more than one murder weapon. Amanda's odd behaviour at the scene and in the police station plus the inconsistencies with her story, led the police to suspect her involvement from the start.
I found this book to be pretty fair to Amanda in acknowledging that the police were sloppy in their evidence collection and analysis which led to DNA contamination of key evidence.
The language barrier also played a part, with for example, a message from Amanda to her boss reading 'see you later' taken as a literal appointment to see him later that evening by the police, as opposed to the casual goodbye phrase that is more commonly used in Britain and America.
Despite this even-handedness, the author of Angel Face believes that Amanda and Rafaele were involved in the murder and makes her own theory clear - in her opinion the three of them (including Rudy) killed Meredith while high on drugs and alcohol and then attempted to clean up after themselves.
I don't believe this theory but it is possible based on the evidence presented here (and from what was conspicuously NOT mentioned in Knox's own autobiography) that for some reason they did not phone the police immediately when they discovered the break in, cleaned parts of the house with bleach using a mop that morning, and that Amanda had not actually taken a shower at the house as she had claimed (the police on scene had noted her body odour and the previous night's make-up smeared around her eyes).
I wouldn't recommend reading this book as a stand-alone, but alongside Waiting to be Heard to get a more nuanced picture of the media circus surrounding and ultimately clouding the murder of Meredith Kercher and the campaign to implicate Amanda Knox.
I read Angel Face immediately after finishing Waiting to be Heard by Amanda Knox and found that it filled in a few more details to this crime that Knox doesn't really touch upon. To be clear, I don't believe she or her boyfriend murdered Meredith but after reading Angel Face I can understand why the police targeted her.
In her own autobiography, Knox doesn't really touch upon the facts of Meredith's murder but it is clear from this book that the evidence pointed to more than one killer and more than one murder weapon. Amanda's odd behaviour at the scene and in the police station plus the inconsistencies with her story, led the police to suspect her involvement from the start.
I found this book to be pretty fair to Amanda in acknowledging that the police were sloppy in their evidence collection and analysis which led to DNA contamination of key evidence.
The language barrier also played a part, with for example, a message from Amanda to her boss reading 'see you later' taken as a literal appointment to see him later that evening by the police, as opposed to the casual goodbye phrase that is more commonly used in Britain and America.
Despite this even-handedness, the author of Angel Face believes that Amanda and Rafaele were involved in the murder and makes her own theory clear - in her opinion the three of them (including Rudy) killed Meredith while high on drugs and alcohol and then attempted to clean up after themselves.
I don't believe this theory but it is possible based on the evidence presented here (and from what was conspicuously NOT mentioned in Knox's own autobiography) that for some reason they did not phone the police immediately when they discovered the break in, cleaned parts of the house with bleach using a mop that morning, and that Amanda had not actually taken a shower at the house as she had claimed (the police on scene had noted her body odour and the previous night's make-up smeared around her eyes).
I wouldn't recommend reading this book as a stand-alone, but alongside Waiting to be Heard to get a more nuanced picture of the media circus surrounding and ultimately clouding the murder of Meredith Kercher and the campaign to implicate Amanda Knox.
September 10, 2010
Nadeau thinks Knox is guilty, that much is clear, but she still does a great job of being fair -- especially in acknowledging weaknesses in the prosecution's case which are, in some instances, extreme. She also really digs into explicit testimony and doesn't just choose the parts that support her view, which I appreciate.
There are some factual errors (based on what I read in the Italian court's original opinion) and there were a few unnecesary digs at Knox, but overall, this is a fairly straightforward book that builds the case of Knox's guilt. The style is much less novel-like than Candace Dempsey's book (not to knock Candace's book, which I also gave four stars) and it's also much shorter. They come to opposite conclusions, but both are worth reading if you're interested in this case, IMHO.
There are some factual errors (based on what I read in the Italian court's original opinion) and there were a few unnecesary digs at Knox, but overall, this is a fairly straightforward book that builds the case of Knox's guilt. The style is much less novel-like than Candace Dempsey's book (not to knock Candace's book, which I also gave four stars) and it's also much shorter. They come to opposite conclusions, but both are worth reading if you're interested in this case, IMHO.
November 12, 2013
I really don't like this book. The journalist traded access to local big shots in exchange for their favourite description. Equally, she tried to dupe Knox's family to get more access there, only to describe them as unsophisticated and dumb. While not a direct hatchet job, this is rather a benevolent, easy-to-blame, reckless journalism, with minimum care for a truth or consequences.
July 19, 2010
A quick read and very informative. It fills in a lot of holes of the American media coverage of the case.
August 9, 2014
I loved this book. It was short and straight to the point.
June 14, 2015
Bloody terrible (excuse the pun). I read this out of curiosity for the plot, but the writing was painful at best. Far from being impartial, written from a journalist perspective rather than author- there was an entire section speculating on what happened, which summed it up... It was one long opinion laced with a few facts.
Reading this in 2015, after the couple were acquitted, was just a bit bizarre.
Not great, a trashy read.
Reading this in 2015, after the couple were acquitted, was just a bit bizarre.
Not great, a trashy read.
September 10, 2011
The Author is from Italy but has done freelance work in Seattle, she is unarguably the expert on the topic because she was able to understand the case from the Italian and American side, whereas much of the case was lost in translation.
May 12, 2012
November 2007. Amanda Knox, an American student in Perugia, is accused of murdering her British roommate Meredith Kercher. She is later convicted to 26 years in prison, a conviction which was overturned on appeal last year. There was no conclusive evidence, nor was there a clear motif. What exactly happened we will probably never know and this book does not reveal that either. The whole trial became a media circus with two camps, the so-called “innocentisti” (she's innocent) and the so-called “colpevolisti” (she's done it). Although there was no firm proof, there are at the same time so many unanswered questions and so many inconsistencies that it is hard to believe that she is completely innocent as well. Amanda Knox eventually ended up spending 4 years in jail and in the beginning of this year she landed a $4 million book deal for her memoirs. About the book itself, unfortunately it is pretty disappointing in my opinion. I found it to be pretty superficial, incoherent and badly written.
September 4, 2011
For about a week, my sister and I became re-obsessed with the Amanda Knox trial. I checked this book out of the library not really intending to read the whole thing. When I first started reading it, I could barely put it down. There's something so compelling about the case that I can't help but study everything I can on it. I am also intrigued by the fact that nobody knows for sure what happened (except maybe the murderer(s), but even he/she/they probably only remember the night through a drugged up haze). This book offered the most realistic and logical account I have seen on what probably happened that night. If you are at all interested in this case, you might want to check out this book.
March 2, 2011
This book is total tabloid trashy fun. It's also written in a completely narcissistic fashion and the author spends the entire book telling us how villainized she was during the trial. Yeah, Barbie? I don't actually care about YOU in this story. I wanted to read the details of the Amanda Knox story, not the Barbie Latza Nadeau story. It's quite clear she thinks Amanda is guilty, but she does also seem to make it clear that the shoddy police work by the Italians compared with the bad defense team of Amanda led to a very strange trial. All in all, it's pretty much exactly what I expected and the Lifetime movie follows the details almost to a T!
July 13, 2010
This is a very quick read with a few editing errors (for instance she mentions "JorDan VanDerSloot; his name is Joran, no D. For an established reporter, you'd think she'd get that right.). I didn't come away feeling certain Amanda Knox is guilty, although it does appear that she is. I do believe her family did a great job spinning it to make her seem like a sweet innocent which I've never firmly believed. It's certainly an interesting case, and the authors hypothetical seems plausible.
August 24, 2014
Some reviewers of this book claim that the author is biased against Knox. While she obviously believes Knox and Sollecito to be guilty, I didn't find this to be so.
A refreshing, objective read after "Waiting To Be Heard" by Amanda Knox and "Honor Bound" by Raffaele Sollecito.
Well worth the read if you haven't already made up your mind which side of the fence you're on.
June 27, 2013
It has been several years since I've read this, but I do recall the completely biased nature of the author. For something pegged as "The Real Story" there were a lot of the authors opinions and theory and very little evidence to support said theories. I was very disappointed with this book.
June 9, 2014
I guess I should know better than to read a true crime book by a reporter as opposed to just a random true crime writer or researcher. Where a book by any run of the mill writer might contain some bias relating to the crime, in a book by a reporter, there's a metric shit ton of bias and sensationalism to the point of annoyance. I understand that this particular writer had inside access to the case and went to all the hearings and read the entire 10k+ page dossier on the case, but that doesn't make her any less prone to the 'oh my god, how mysterious and awful, look at this dreadful crime!' kind of thing that you would expect from people clustered outside crime scene tape, gawking and gossiping.
While the writing here isn't bad in terms of prose, the sensationalising of the case put me on the edge of boredom the entire time I was reading it because I'd rather just have the straight facts about the crime as opposed to what the writer feels about the case (and it's clear here that Nadeau would hang Amanda Knox herself if given the chance). Right around the time the author started spouting her own theory about what happened is when I was ready to give up. Luckily, it wasn't that much further to the end so I pushed on. What she thinks happened may be true, but as with all fatal crimes, the exact details always die with the victims, or remain unspoken by perpetrators and witnesses and I'm more interested in what is known as opposed to what the author, a random travel writer who just happened to get involved in reporting on this one case, thinks.
While the writing here isn't bad in terms of prose, the sensationalising of the case put me on the edge of boredom the entire time I was reading it because I'd rather just have the straight facts about the crime as opposed to what the writer feels about the case (and it's clear here that Nadeau would hang Amanda Knox herself if given the chance). Right around the time the author started spouting her own theory about what happened is when I was ready to give up. Luckily, it wasn't that much further to the end so I pushed on. What she thinks happened may be true, but as with all fatal crimes, the exact details always die with the victims, or remain unspoken by perpetrators and witnesses and I'm more interested in what is known as opposed to what the author, a random travel writer who just happened to get involved in reporting on this one case, thinks.
August 8, 2014
Obviously the author took offense to some words thrown at her during the trial and so published this book to prove she isn't a failed writer. It didn't work. There's no real details and nothing that makes the book memorable. For somebody who apparently knows everything about the case, one would think the book would be better.
There was more about what the fan clubs and media said than anything else. While that could be an interesting subject of a book, it's not what one would expect from this and still doesn't have anything substantial in it. It would've been better if the author had chosen to go in depth on one thing but instead it's a bunch of random notes thrown together that don't give a full story.
Skip it. Find a different book to read.
There was more about what the fan clubs and media said than anything else. While that could be an interesting subject of a book, it's not what one would expect from this and still doesn't have anything substantial in it. It would've been better if the author had chosen to go in depth on one thing but instead it's a bunch of random notes thrown together that don't give a full story.
Skip it. Find a different book to read.
April 3, 2010
I signed up for this on Amazon and got it in the mail 2 days ago. It's riveting and spells out exactly what Amanda Knox was about. It gives a good glimpse into what being an international student in Perugia is like. The way the Americans misread Italian culture and how to comport themselves in the courtroom is simply breathtaking. Ironically, the old saying, "When in Rome........." didn't seem to occur to them.
July 11, 2015
4.0 out of 5 stars -- Older book published in 2010 reinforces my opinion about this case and Amanda Knox. I have read extensively on the topic and found this book very interesting with details that I had not read in other sources because of the author's proximity to the entire case and original trial.
January 13, 2014
I've read worse books, but not many. Its best feature is its brevity.
November 20, 2015
This book, written shortly after the conviction of Amanda Knox, originally appeared under the subtitle, "The True Story of Student Killer Amanda Knox". It contains many errors of fact, either false information released by the police or outright fabrications. For the former the author could be forgiven if she had taken opportunity to correct them in this second edition, but says she chose not because "you can't rewrite history."
But Nadeau's factual errors pale in comparison to the effect of her intense personal dislike for Knox, which continues to color her subjective interpretation of the young student's statements, facial expressions, and body language.
For young Amanda Knox, appearances at trial were at least a respite from prison. Upon entering the courtroom her face glowed at the sight of her family among the spectators, and she had a warm smile for her attorneys. Photos depicting these reactions were described in tabloids and interpreted by Nadeau as evidence of Knox's narcissistic personality and excitement at being the center of attention.
Amanda loves Beatles songs so an aunt in Seattle sent her an "All You Need Is Love" t-shirt, which she wore at trial for her family on Valentine's day. This was also interpreted by tabloids as evidence of sociopathic or psychotic behavior.
Nadeau has a grudge against the Knox family for refusing to grant her an interview, and claims no major U.S. media source will run a story that has not been cleared by the all-powerful Knox PR firm. Though she blames them for everything in general, she has yet to cite a single specific item of false information issued by the Knox "machine".
By comparison her book is rife with specific errors of fact. Samples:
(1) "Meredith was so mortified by the pink 'Rampant Rabbit' vibrator on display in their shared bathroom that she felt compelled to point it out to everyone who visited and explain that it wasn't hers." (pp. 29-30)
Nobody testified that Meredith was mortified or felt compelled to assure people it wasn't hers. Candice Dempsey ("Murder in Italy") asks "So why were two British girls checking out Amanda's toiletries, stored in a clear plastic bag in the American's own bathroom? Robyn [in the witness box at trial] didn't want to explain."
"Did you see the condoms? Did you see the vibrator?" Mignini kept pressuring her.
"Robyn...said she was only in the bathroom to brush her hair... No, she finally admitted, she could not see the objects inside. (Candace Dempsey, p. 279)
(2) "[Amanda's roommates] worried that Amanda would bring home someone who would rob or rape them." (p. 31)
Nobody, including the two other surviving roommates, ever testified to this. It is a blatant fabrication.
(3) "... Police computer experts would determine that Raffaele did not download anything [the night of the murder]" (p. 37)
It is established as fact that they downloaded and watched Amelie that night.
(4) "[Postal police] found Amanda and Raffaele standing outside the house. A mop and bucket stood propped against the tiny porch at the front of the house." (P. 42).
This suggestion that they were caught in a clean-up is a total fabrication that was widely reported in the press. Amanda took the mop to Rapahele's to clean the kitchen when she went back to his place, and brought it back when she returned with Raffaele. The mop had been put away and they were waiting outside for the police when postal police arrived. Police crime video shows Monica Napoleoni famously finding the mop in the closet and wrapping it in gift wrapping paper like a Christmas present to preserve it for analysis.
(5) "From their position in the back of the crowd, there was no way Amanda or Raffaele could have seen Meredith's position inside the room [when the bedroom door was kicked in and body discovered]. A few hours later, though, Amanda told police and onlookers outside the house that Meredith had been found in front of her closet." (p 45)
This suggests Amanda "knew things only the killer could know".
In fact when the door was broken down Amanda heard someone shout, "A foot! A foot!" Amanda imagined Meredith had been stuffed inside the closet with only her foot sticking out. This is what she told everyone but she was totally and absurdly wrong."
(5) "The rest of the house was oddly devoid of fingerprints" (p. 53)
This is another suggestion of a clean-up. In fact police found plenty of unidentified prints all over the apartment and made no attempt to identify them. ("We didn't check to see if they belonged to Obama," was one investigator's contemptuous remark.)
The tabloids claimed it was suspicious that police could not even find Amanda's fingerprints in her own room. Her attorney asked police if they tried to find them there and they replied, "No, why should we?" Tabloids had a field day with the story anyway.
(5) "Police searched Raffaele's apartment and found a receipt for Ace bleach." (P.54 )
Police told reporters they found such receipts and tabloids ran with it, but in fact no bleach or cleaning supplies are listed on any receipts found in his apartment. It was another police fabrication to the press.
(6) "Amanda and Raffaele did not go to the vigil [for Meredith]. Instead, they waited until it was over before visiting the boutique near the duomo to buy underwear for Amanda." (P.60)
They bought the underwear upon leaving the questura, not on the night of the memorial. Amanda's apartment was sealed as a crime scene, and she was having her period and needed underwear. She did not attend the memorial because Raffaele was not at home that night and she did not want to go alone.
(7) "Meredith's British friends ... all agreed that Amanda's behavior was oddly detached from this violent murder. One by one, they told the police that Amanda's behavior was suspicious." (p. 63)
Nina Burleigh ("The Fatal Gift of Beauty") can find no record of the girls saying anything against Amanda until a month after her arrest. Police flew to northern Italy to interview them.
Other claims by Nadeau include "mixed blood" of Amanda and Meredith found in five different locations around the house.
I could go on but this should be enough to convey a sense of the quality of the work. I would hate to have this book on my conscience.
But Nadeau's factual errors pale in comparison to the effect of her intense personal dislike for Knox, which continues to color her subjective interpretation of the young student's statements, facial expressions, and body language.
For young Amanda Knox, appearances at trial were at least a respite from prison. Upon entering the courtroom her face glowed at the sight of her family among the spectators, and she had a warm smile for her attorneys. Photos depicting these reactions were described in tabloids and interpreted by Nadeau as evidence of Knox's narcissistic personality and excitement at being the center of attention.
Amanda loves Beatles songs so an aunt in Seattle sent her an "All You Need Is Love" t-shirt, which she wore at trial for her family on Valentine's day. This was also interpreted by tabloids as evidence of sociopathic or psychotic behavior.
Nadeau has a grudge against the Knox family for refusing to grant her an interview, and claims no major U.S. media source will run a story that has not been cleared by the all-powerful Knox PR firm. Though she blames them for everything in general, she has yet to cite a single specific item of false information issued by the Knox "machine".
By comparison her book is rife with specific errors of fact. Samples:
(1) "Meredith was so mortified by the pink 'Rampant Rabbit' vibrator on display in their shared bathroom that she felt compelled to point it out to everyone who visited and explain that it wasn't hers." (pp. 29-30)
Nobody testified that Meredith was mortified or felt compelled to assure people it wasn't hers. Candice Dempsey ("Murder in Italy") asks "So why were two British girls checking out Amanda's toiletries, stored in a clear plastic bag in the American's own bathroom? Robyn [in the witness box at trial] didn't want to explain."
"Did you see the condoms? Did you see the vibrator?" Mignini kept pressuring her.
"Robyn...said she was only in the bathroom to brush her hair... No, she finally admitted, she could not see the objects inside. (Candace Dempsey, p. 279)
(2) "[Amanda's roommates] worried that Amanda would bring home someone who would rob or rape them." (p. 31)
Nobody, including the two other surviving roommates, ever testified to this. It is a blatant fabrication.
(3) "... Police computer experts would determine that Raffaele did not download anything [the night of the murder]" (p. 37)
It is established as fact that they downloaded and watched Amelie that night.
(4) "[Postal police] found Amanda and Raffaele standing outside the house. A mop and bucket stood propped against the tiny porch at the front of the house." (P. 42).
This suggestion that they were caught in a clean-up is a total fabrication that was widely reported in the press. Amanda took the mop to Rapahele's to clean the kitchen when she went back to his place, and brought it back when she returned with Raffaele. The mop had been put away and they were waiting outside for the police when postal police arrived. Police crime video shows Monica Napoleoni famously finding the mop in the closet and wrapping it in gift wrapping paper like a Christmas present to preserve it for analysis.
(5) "From their position in the back of the crowd, there was no way Amanda or Raffaele could have seen Meredith's position inside the room [when the bedroom door was kicked in and body discovered]. A few hours later, though, Amanda told police and onlookers outside the house that Meredith had been found in front of her closet." (p 45)
This suggests Amanda "knew things only the killer could know".
In fact when the door was broken down Amanda heard someone shout, "A foot! A foot!" Amanda imagined Meredith had been stuffed inside the closet with only her foot sticking out. This is what she told everyone but she was totally and absurdly wrong."
(5) "The rest of the house was oddly devoid of fingerprints" (p. 53)
This is another suggestion of a clean-up. In fact police found plenty of unidentified prints all over the apartment and made no attempt to identify them. ("We didn't check to see if they belonged to Obama," was one investigator's contemptuous remark.)
The tabloids claimed it was suspicious that police could not even find Amanda's fingerprints in her own room. Her attorney asked police if they tried to find them there and they replied, "No, why should we?" Tabloids had a field day with the story anyway.
(5) "Police searched Raffaele's apartment and found a receipt for Ace bleach." (P.54 )
Police told reporters they found such receipts and tabloids ran with it, but in fact no bleach or cleaning supplies are listed on any receipts found in his apartment. It was another police fabrication to the press.
(6) "Amanda and Raffaele did not go to the vigil [for Meredith]. Instead, they waited until it was over before visiting the boutique near the duomo to buy underwear for Amanda." (P.60)
They bought the underwear upon leaving the questura, not on the night of the memorial. Amanda's apartment was sealed as a crime scene, and she was having her period and needed underwear. She did not attend the memorial because Raffaele was not at home that night and she did not want to go alone.
(7) "Meredith's British friends ... all agreed that Amanda's behavior was oddly detached from this violent murder. One by one, they told the police that Amanda's behavior was suspicious." (p. 63)
Nina Burleigh ("The Fatal Gift of Beauty") can find no record of the girls saying anything against Amanda until a month after her arrest. Police flew to northern Italy to interview them.
Other claims by Nadeau include "mixed blood" of Amanda and Meredith found in five different locations around the house.
I could go on but this should be enough to convey a sense of the quality of the work. I would hate to have this book on my conscience.
February 3, 2014
If you come to the Amanda Knox case already invested in an opinion on her guilt or innocence, then don't bother reading this book.
If, however, you are thoughtful and open-minded enough to consider the possibility that law enforcement in other Western countries might be as competent and thorough as law enforcement in North America, and that even if the system of justice in other countries is different from what you find in the Commonwealth and the United States, it might still be capable of treating those before it fairly, then you will find this to be an informative, and well thought out work on a bizarre and troubling case.
Having read the written reports from the Italian courts that have dealt with the Knox matter, I can say that the way that Nadeau has treated the evidence in her book is correct and fair.
She has her own possible scenario about what happened that night, but presents it as nothing more than her own theory. Given the lack of any toxicology on the 3 accused parties, or on the deceased herself, there remain a lot of questions that can never be definitively answered.
From a legal point of view, however, leaving aside the media reports, there is no way to seriously conclude on a fair consideration of the evidence, that Amanda Knox was entirely innocent.
If you want to understand why, then I highly recommend this book.
If, however, you are thoughtful and open-minded enough to consider the possibility that law enforcement in other Western countries might be as competent and thorough as law enforcement in North America, and that even if the system of justice in other countries is different from what you find in the Commonwealth and the United States, it might still be capable of treating those before it fairly, then you will find this to be an informative, and well thought out work on a bizarre and troubling case.
Having read the written reports from the Italian courts that have dealt with the Knox matter, I can say that the way that Nadeau has treated the evidence in her book is correct and fair.
She has her own possible scenario about what happened that night, but presents it as nothing more than her own theory. Given the lack of any toxicology on the 3 accused parties, or on the deceased herself, there remain a lot of questions that can never be definitively answered.
From a legal point of view, however, leaving aside the media reports, there is no way to seriously conclude on a fair consideration of the evidence, that Amanda Knox was entirely innocent.
If you want to understand why, then I highly recommend this book.
June 2, 2012
I liked the fact that the author of this book was actuallyat the trial as apposed to someone just reviewing the case and hilights of a trial. She points out facts on both sides of the trial both good and bad. The best part is the title... "Angel Face". Unfortunately one of the biggest defensively arguments is that someone that looks so innocent ans sweet could not have committed such a horrendous crime .... as if looks has anything to do with it. I realize that this was an American student being tride in Italy but that doesn't change the facts if the case. Who cares that she is American? The American media tried to swing this as a poor student in a foreign land but that's bull shit. I feel this book does a good job depicting the media's role in a case where looks are in fact a major role. Shame to those who base their judgment on appearances. That's no different then being a racist sexist bigamists etc. A jury of her peers convictect her and she has been found guilty as it should be pretty American girl or not.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
December 30, 2010
In 2007, Amanda Knox, an American student, was accused of murdering her roommate, Meredith Kercher, a British student, in the swinging college town of Perugia, Italy. The case was covered heavily in both the American and the European press. It's been an interesting case to follow. This book tells the story of the case from the point of view from one of the reporters charged with covering it. It really doesn't add anything new to insight into the case though.
I picked this book up on a whim. The case of Amanda Knox has been fascinating to follow mostly for the way in which the case has been covered by the media. It was interesting to gain some insight from one of the reporters and how they felt about the case.
I picked this book up on a whim. The case of Amanda Knox has been fascinating to follow mostly for the way in which the case has been covered by the media. It was interesting to gain some insight from one of the reporters and how they felt about the case.
April 18, 2013
I didn't really follow this case when it was in the news, and afterward felt as if I hadn't heard the whole story. The author of this book is an American who works as a news correspondent in Italy, so she has a unique perspective and the ability to see issues on both sides of the story. I felt this greatly enhanced my understanding of the events (or rather, what's known of the events), though I would've liked more in-depth detail about the legal proceedings themselves. A quick, fast read.
July 12, 2011
Not the best account of the case that I've read but some interesting insights. I suggest reading this in conjunction with more information about what actually happened. Because we can't trust any of the evidence or testimony from court, it is hard to be sure the information in this book (and Barbie's anti-Knox perspective) is completely warranted or accurate.
Want to read
June 3, 2010This may turn out to be absolute trash (esp by an author named Barbie no less) but I did get a kick out of The Monster of Florence and I did study for 6 months in Florence. The ways of the Italian justice system are truly byzantine...
March 25, 2012
Just ok... kind of rushed to publish, I think. Didnt think much of the author, but at least she didnt take the American-Knox-Is-Innocent route.... a lot of the evidence has been ignored by American press, due to their own agenda. This was more objective, and a good reference for evidence.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 126 reviews