Karl ‘Evie’ Amati in 2015, after sex-change surgery in Thailand.

Karl Booth Amati grew up in privileged circumstances, the son of two senior labor-union representatives, and graduated from prestigious Shenton College in the suburbs of Perth, Australia, with top grades in 2009. Amati moved across the country to Sydney where, through family connections, he obtained a job at the headquarters of CPSU, the government employees union in Australia. Two years later, in June 2012, Karl posted on Facebook that he had “wanted to be a girl for a while now and wants to act more publicly feminine.” Shortly thereafter, Karl began taking hormones, calling himself “Evie,” and eventually traveled to Thailand for sex-change surgery. There were post-surgical complications, and Karl/“Evie” began suffering “excruciating pain,” his/“her” attorney later explained in court, saying Amati “began to experience visions, hallucinations and suicidal and homicidal ideation.” In January 2016, Amati had a date with a woman he/“she” had met via Tinder, but that went badly, with Karl/“Evie” feeling that his/“her” date found him/“her” “unattractive … on the basis she was transgender.” Amati had been drinking vodka and taking drugs, including marijuana and the hallucinogen MDA, and on Facebook in the wee hours of the morning declared: “Humans are only able to destroy to hate so that is what I shall do.” About 20 minutes later, Amati walked into a convenience store, carrying an ax and with a long knife in his/“her” back pocket. Amati used the ax to attack two customers in the store, inflicting severe injuries, then left the store, later attacking a homeless man on the street.

At trial, Amati’s attorney argued that he/“she” should be acquitted on the basis of his/“her” mental illness, but the jury rejected that defense and convicted the ax-wielding tranny of felony offenses that carried a minimum prison sentence of 20 years. However, the judge sentenced Amati to a term that could set the attempted murderer back on the streets in less than five years. Amati has not been a model prisoner:

Convicted axe attacker Evie Amati, who was jailed over an axe attack at a 7-Eleven, has been involved in a prison fight because other inmates want her moved to a male jail.

Amati’s involvement in a prison fight emerged during an appeal against her “manifestly inadequate” sentence for attempting to murder three people with an axe in January 2017.

The NSW Court of Criminal Appeal heard that Amati’s maximum nine-year and minimum four-and-a-half year sentence was “so manifestly inadequate that it is an affront to the administration of justice”.

Crown barrister Maria Cinque told the CCA that nine years was inappropriate for just one of the three attacks, on victim Ben Rimmer whose face Amati split, fracturing his nasal bone, eye socket and cheekbones.

News.com.au has learned that Amati, who underwent gender reassignment surgery in Thailand in 2014, had been involved in fights at the all-female Mary Wade Women’s Correctional Centre since her 2018 trial.

During the appeal against Amati’s short sentence, it emerged that she and a female inmate became involved in a fight after the inmate told Amati she should be in a male prison. . . .

Before the late-night attack, Amati had been on a failed Tinder date and ingested a cocktail of drugs with alcohol.

She’d bought the axe months before and tested it on a couch, and on the night of the attacks heard a voice telling her to “kill and maim … and start the rise of hell on Earth”.

Sentenced in January this year, Amati faced a maximum 75 years in prison with a minimum term of 20 years. . . .

Maria Cinque for the Crown told the CCA last week Amati’s sentence showed “a disconnection”.

“The non-parole period [four-and-a-half years] is only six months more than the indicative (minimum) sentence for the first offence,” she said.

Amati’s barrister, Peter Lange, told the court the sentencing judge had taken into account several unusual features, including the interplay of gender dysphoria, a depressive illness and drug-taking.

Translation: “Your honor, my client is a violent lunatic, and therefore you can’t impose the same sentence you would on a sane criminal.”







Share this: Share

Twitter

Facebook



Reddit



Comments