If you think she did it, "Free" is a very provocative title for her new memoir. Credit: Getty

Amanda Knox starts off her new memoir, Free: My Search for Meaning, with a barbed anecdote: her mother told her once when she was a child that she would have “an extraordinary life”. And she has, though not in the way that any mother would wish for. As most people at least semi-remember, Knox is the American exchange student in Perugia, Italy, who, along with her Italian boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, was convicted of the brutal 2007 murder of her roommate, Meredith Kercher; a second man, a migrant from Côte d’Ivoire named Rudy Guede, was also convicted in a separate trial.
The bizarre details of the crime — Kercher was raped, stabbed multiple times, then covered tenderly with a duvet — and the Italian prosecution’s proposal, on no physical evidence, of a Satanic sex ritual orchestrated by Knox, created an international media firestorm that has flared up again with each new legal development. Knox was freed on appeal in 2011 and has been exonerated by Italy’s highest court. But the legal wrangling continues (she has sued to have additional minor convictions overturned), and she remains an object of bizarrely intense public fascination. Her new memoir (she also wrote one shortly after her release) is well-written, persuasive, and genuinely insightful.
It’s also occasionally tone-deaf in a way that seems to expose the reasons the story gripped us so in the first place.
Knox, who was 20 in 2007, has steadfastly maintained her innocence ever since her brief, obscure time in Italian police custody directly after the murder, when she made a series of damaging and incoherent statements that were used against her as a confession. She has always maintained the plausible and evidence-supported theory that Rudy Guede acted alone, and that the Italian police took advantage of her youth and naivety to juice up a salacious case.
Today, she is 37, married, and a mother of two, and lives once again in her hometown of Seattle. She has become a writer, hosts a successful podcast with her husband, the author Christopher Robinson, and is an activist for criminal-justice reform and media ethics. If she was once dangerously naive about her predicament, she is no longer. She explains that her first book, written shortly after her release, was “the story of what Rudy Guede had done to Meredith, and of what the Italian justice system had done to me. It was the story of what happened to me, and it left little room for anything I actually did.” Free is a corrective whose dual mission is to tell her personal story and to defend her right to tell it.
White, female, American college students from solidly middle-class families haven’t contributed much to prison literature to date. But the combination of Knox’s intelligence and unique situation is a genuine addition to the genre. As she tells it, she arrived in prison so innocent that “it took me a while to realise that the room I was kept in was in fact a cell, my cell…” As the days and months passed and the gears of justice turned (very slowly, provincial-Italian-style), she had the experiences we would expect: she was scared, alone, isolated, and mistreated by the guards and other inmates (who disliked her as the privileged and famous one).
But she also had experiences we don’t expect: when she was allowed out to exercise in a small courtyard, she jogged, did jumping jacks, skipped, and sang at the top of her lungs, anything to feel free. When she was scared and lonely, she would call up a vision of herself as the happy, innocent, tough little girl she once was, and then she would talk to her younger self about their current troubles. Her raw youth pours off the page.
She was aware, even at the time, that much “invisible luxury” set her apart from her fellow prisoners. She had family to support her and visitors at every visiting hour. She didn’t suffer from the combination of trauma, mental health, and addiction that is common among female prisoners. Nonetheless, she was a prisoner, and accepting the situation as it was, especially after her conviction and sentencing to 26 years, helped her survive. The story of a young girl’s slow, painful grasp of the human essentials is powerful: we always have agency; there are things we possess that can’t be taken away; we must accept the life we actually have, and not pine for the one we wish for.
After four years of incarceration, Knox was freed on appeal and returned to America, only to discover herself in a different kind of prison. She was traumatised from her ordeal, had panic attacks, and found it difficult to reconnect with family and friends. She was — and is — notorious, a public figure and media sensation, a frequent target of hatred and death threats. For defending her innocence, asserting the value of her own story, or even just being OK, she is perceived as denying the awfulness of what happened to Meredith Kercher. The tabloids, especially in England and Italy, continue to distort her every action into something sinister. “Amanda Knox Wears Bizarre Yellow Outfit as She Marries Poet Boyfriend”, ran a Daily Mail headline from 2020. Once again, she faces the challenge of accepting the life she has, trying to make sense of her experience and to make something good out of something terrible.
The middle section of the book explores the social and cultural factors at play in her case, skilfully woven into the events of her life post-release. She was, she theorises, the first cancellation of the social-media era and the first person to be subject to the kind of prolonged public shaming that has now become commonplace. She was also a victim of prurience, and the virgin-slut narrative, and the time-honoured tradition of pitting women against each other. Cultural factors came into play: the Italian investigators couldn’t comprehend her behaviour in the days following the murder, and created a narrative of her guilt as a result. The case became not about the facts, but about her character.
I was moved by the book, and went to see Knox in discussion with British journalist Jon Ronson at the Powerhouse Arena in Brooklyn on Wednesday night without lingering doubts about her innocence. I understood why the people who still believe she is guilty, not least the Kercher family’s lawyer, find her ongoing notoriety to be ghoulish.
If you think she did it, Free is a very provocative name for a book. And that “extraordinary” from the opening anecdote has a third valence: Knox has had a more extraordinary life than most people because she has benefitted, and not just spiritually, from her hardship. She writes books about it; she befriends other famous people (Monica Lewinsky became a pal); she just executive-produced Blue Moon, a Hulu series about the ordeal set in Perugia, expected to debut this year. But I’d been convinced that these perceptions were not her fault, and that she had no moral obligation to cater to them.
And yet a strange thing happened: the longer she talked, the more it seemed possible that this small, cute, physically unimposing, nerdy-chic Seattle mom in platform boots could have done it. To be clear, I don’t believe she really did it. More important, there has never been any evidence that she did. But there is something about her affect and demeanour that gives off the eerie vibe that if any totally unlikely young woman could secretly be a crazed killer, it’s this one. The more she laughed and said how absurd it was, the more I could see why the police were suspicious.
She mentioned some photographs in a particular situation made her look like “a flippant psycho”, cackling at the ridiculousness to a crowd of fans, but that was exactly what she looked like in that moment. She argued that such perceptions are the awful legacy of suspicion, media-distortion, and our dirty minds. Perhaps greater self-knowledge would come in realising that it is a mysterious quality of hers, unfortunate to be sure, that was visible to Italian investigators, and has been visible in photography since the early days of the case. I suspect it’s the real cause of our unstoppable slippery fascination with her.
And there are reasons for it. Knox doesn’t quite know how to treat other people. Her co-defendant Raffaele Sollecito, for example, has only a minor role in Free, mainly as a person whose life was, unlike hers, permanently derailed by the wrongful accusations. He’s still single, Knox writes. He’s a pariah in Italy, and he’s never been able to get steady work. Someone brought him up at the event, and she retold an anecdote from the book about how sad he was during their meeting in Italy in 2022, when a passer-by mistook her baby for his.
I thought Sollecito would have been unlikely to feel good about himself if he were sitting in the audience. Knox’s right to tell her story suddenly seemed more complicated than it had in the memoir. If you’ve come through an awful catastrophe, with multiple victims including yourself, and your ultimate success highlights your fellow survivor’s failure, do you really have every right in the world to promote it far and wide? There are some situations — many, actually — where we can’t say whatever we want, and this in order to protect the feelings of other people. Or we can, but we’ve chosen ourselves over them, and it’s going to look bad.
There’s also Giuliano Mignini, the prosecutor of Knox’s case, with whom she strikes up an unlikely relationship in the book’s third section. The narrative slows down a bit here, as Knox enters into an endless wrangle with what she wants from the man — which somewhat contradicts her claim to have found peace. Mignini is willing to engage with her and offer her his friendship, but he won’t say he was wrong about her case. Her final epiphany comes from accepting that there is greater value in just forgiving him. It’s true, and it sounds good (and makes her sound good), but she also mocks him in the book and did so again during the event for being more invested in the relationship than she is. At the event, she tacitly agreed with Ronson, her interviewer, that Mignini is a narcissist. Again, I wondered how he would have felt if he were sitting there, and again I doubted Knox for promoting her own virtue at someone else’s expense.
One of the many themes of the case has been Knox’s ordinariness. She fascinates us, supposedly, because what happened to her could happen to anyone. But Free proves in many ways — both its insight and intelligence, and also its odd failures and lack of self-awareness — that she’s never been ordinary.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeBeing a child means every option is on the table.
That’s the joy of childhood.
Being an adult means having to make life choices based on your needs and wants tempered by your abilities.
You can’t have everything.
The David anecdote is a perfect example of transitioning from childhood dreams and expectations to hard adult choices.
David is now happy because he is satisfying his own personal priority list.
IMO, millenials, or whatever the current tag is for the younger generation, are really just suffering from stunted emotional growth.
I don’t blame them entirely because they’ve been lead to believe, mostly by doting parents and coffee bar communists, that not only can you have it all, the inability to tick every life goal box somehow represents a failure of the system.
You aren’t young and naive – you’re a victim. (I believe the neo-liberal corporate kleptocracy is the Voldemort du jour)
But don’t worry, we will rise up and fix it.
They aren’t victims.
They’re just not adults yet.
‘David, a youth campaigner in his twenties who moved to London after university to help found a new charity,’
Talk about a non-job. No sympathy whatsoever. Ah…upon reading further I see that David saw sense and got out of London. But we do not learn whether or not he left the non-jobbing behind.
Founding a charity seems quite impressive to me. Do please provide a list of real jobs that have your approval.
Law, accountancy, medicine, the armed services, the church, engineer, banker, plumber, electrician, fire brigade, police, sales & marketing, retail, manufacture, import & export, farming, university lecturer, university admin, gym instructor, sport, sport admin, archeologist, lab technician, actor, dancer, modelling, musician, grocer, delivery driver, haulier, shelf stacker … need I continue?
Thanks for your list of jobs. They’re all great in my eyes. It doesn’t really address my point though which was why the previous contributor was so dismissive of someone setting up a charity a ‘non-job’.
Not sure much has fundamentally changed- I graduated from a London University & started a professional training contract in 1979-for the first 5/6 years I lived in the outskirts of London in a room in a shared house whilst I run up a sizeable amount of debt.Eventually my earning increased but I was 30+ before I could buy a property and thatw as only because my employer lent me the deposit.
During a career in IT my Golden rule was never to look for a job inside the M25, no matter how much it paid. Although I occasionally had the misfortune to go into London for a meeting. In a lot of ways I’m an anywhere person but considered London to be a no-way-I’m-working-there place.
Is there anything smugger than those having left London for the Shires or small town life looking down in Millennials?
To paraphrase this nasty article: “Look at us and how clever and talented we are to have left the rat race. We have book clubs and artisan crafts and an excess of talent – and we don’t have coronavirus the way you city souls do. How dare Millennials be so arrogant as to sleep on sofas and commute long distances for no money.”
Should we all upsticks to the country and write columns for Unherd?
It seems to me everyday we find new ways to classify people, open verus closed, millenials versus genX, anywheres versus somewheres. In our ever finer dichotomy of society we are not valuing the individual, but resorting to a lazy and dishonest mental short-cut to classify them and dismiss them with all kinds of implied qualities (smart versus dumb, globalist versus bigoted, leavers versus remainers). We forget that individuals are infinitely more complex than these clever tags.
“The result, I argued last November, is a socially-liberal, economically aspirational graduate precariat, clinging to the big-city dream while scraping a hand-to-mouth existence in cramped, expensive shared housing.”
You’re talking about my kids. This middle-aged white conservative male thinks that millennials should go en masse to parks and, while scrupulously observing social distancing protocols, sunbathe to their hearts’ content, and tell any copidiots who harass them to keep their far king distance.
Not everyone is a nimby
Always lived in the shires as my family have for generations. Glad to say all my children do as well. Today I went to pick up my weekly supplies at the local farm shop. The whole yard was full of clearly London millenials on bikes all with those stupid helmets they wear. ignoring as they felt they had the right to all social distancing and yabbering away at each other. I live in an area where the richer ones have second homes ( or daddy does) . This puts the farm and the workers in peril and as the whole area is now under much more police surveillance puts the farmer himself under pressure he does not need. .
My small town does not want then here. Not now and not ever really.
No doubt your ‘small town’ is the beneficiary of far too generous farming subsidies? No doubt it also gleefully accepts the largesse handed out by ‘daddy’ and his pampered offspring?
Yet, both you and it remain chippy and envious. You should banish the green eyed goddess and count your blessings. The perpetual whining of the shires, most notably by such organisations as The Countryside Alliance is one of the most unattractive features of modern Britain and its chemically saturated landscape.
I think it’s s shame that a thought provoking article has elicited so many antagonistic responses. I don’t agree with everything in the article but the general thrust, identifying a clear and damaging societal split, is spot on. And I’d like to come to Boris Johnson’s defence regarding the author’s pooh-poohing of his aspirations for ‘levelling up’ the country. I think he’s referring to a general economic levelling up between our major population centres as much as between town and country but it strikes me he is on the same page as the author and deserves some credit for this ambition. Let’s hope he manages to turn it into a set of successful policies.
The English have long tended to celebrate the provincial and rural over the metropolitan. And smug metropolitan-hating parochialism and swaggering philistinism have long defined the shires, compelling many a bright young thing to escape to the big city. Some of those bright young things may return, as the provincial ‘somewhere’ is held up as a seedbed of community, meaning, the good life and authenticity against the emptiness and shallowness of city life. It is a persistent motif of a return-to-nature, back-to-basics counter culture, disenchanted with the excesses and false promises of liberal, urban civilisation. Yet can this somewhere be found in a hinterland, which is more a myth than reality? Is this ‘somewhere’ merely another car-dependent nowhere, an elevated suburbia of renovated cottages, identikit housing estates, out-or-town shopping centres, industrialised food production and farming, dingy towns, inadequate infrastructure, all repackaged by a bogus heritage culture and imported artisanal pretension? Life in the sticks may be an interesting counterpoint to frenetic, big city life, yet there needs to be some critical balance against London bashing and back-to-somewhere delusion and proselytising.
Yes, move to a small town, there’s no chance of finding small-minded, disapproving people who will never accept you as anything but a blow-in. And you won’t miss the bookshops, concerts, diverse restaurants, fashion choices and just being with other young people like yourself. It will be so easy to find a good music teacher etc. …..
why would you not be able to go to a concert just because you moved out of the city? fashion choices? everyone shops online so same choices unless you like weird clothes from Camden Market. Bookshops? Believe it or not people outside of cities also read as well, lots of towns have great independent bookshops. Same with food and believe it or not, there are young people outside of cities, shocking i know!
The best bit of moving out of London? Hell of a lot less crime, do i miss the high levels of crime and constant threat of danger? Not on your life! There is nothing trendy about the constant fear of someone pulling a knife on you, throwing acid in your face, stealing your phone/wallet/bike etc It is certainly no place to bring up a young child that is for sure.
Be trendy or be safe? No brainer for me really
I did just that; 40 years in London and finally got out. To deep rurality, but with a wonderful classical and modern music scene (and music teachers – starting right next door), lanes and barns full of artisans and creatives making all sorts of wonderful things, good food and much cheaper and less pretentious, and even bookshops. And publishers, writers, bookclubs… Amazing, there’s life out here, culture, creativity, and friendly people.