Amanda Knox Discussion-Friendly Thread

jypsijemini

Former Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2019
Messages
58
Reaction score
402
Plead your case.

You can take one of three approaches:

You are the prosecution. Tell us why you believe Amanda Knox is guilty, and what evidence proves this for you.

You are the defence. Explain why Amanda Knox is innocent and back up your claims with evidence that you'd use to exonerate her.

You are neutral. You haven't been able to make your mind up yet because the evidence is telling you conflicting stories. Detail the reasons why she may be guilty as well as the factors which make you doubt her participation in the murder.

You may ask fellow Sleuths to provide links and sources to substantiate their claims, however you are not required to do so. This is a discussion-friendly post.
 
I am neutral.

The following evidence has me in two minds about Amanda Knox' involvement in the murder of MK.

The DNA and blood evidence from the scene:

Footprints seem to suggest that either Amanda or RS was present at the scene, in MK's bedroom after she was murdered. There was not enough blood throughout the rest of the apartment to suggest that these footprints were made when Amanda claims she returned to the home on the morning of November 2nd. The combined DNA samples from blood evidence taken from the bathroom suggest that Amanda's DNA mixed with that of MK. I do not wholeheartedly believe that these samples were mixed before the murder - however Amanda claims she brushed her teeth in the bathroom where the blood drops were found. This could explain why her DNA was found mixed in with MK's. However, this does not explain the bloody footprint on the bathmat.
RG confessed to being present at the apartment at the time of the murder. He claims that MK was killed by Amanda and RS, that he tried to save MK and stop the bleeding - which is how he explains his bloody fingerprint on the pillowcase found underneath MK. He explains that he was in the bathroom with earphones on, listening to his music at full volume when he heard a scream. This, to me, may explain why there was faeces found in the toilet. I imagine that the scream startled him and he went to investigate. RG was already known to authorities which is why they already had his prints on file, and he knew this. He fled the country knowing that he could be connected with the crime.
I believe testimonies that state there was an overwhelming sample of RS' DNA evidence on the bra hooks found at the scene and being such a concentrated sample of his DNA, this could not have been the result of cross-contamination. There was no plausible reason for RS to ever enter MK's room before or after the murder, nor would he have reason to handle the piece of evidence before it was collected by forensics. MK took her studies very seriously. She was in Italy to further her education, not to party. She enjoyed the occasional night out and socialising with her new friends but was said to have judged Amanda for her party-girl attitude and promiscuity. I strongly doubt that MK would have been a willing participant in any sexual activity involving RS or Amanda Knox.

Forensic recordings of evidence collection:
I was gobsmacked as I watched snippets from the forensic recordings. Armed with cotton pads, forensics wiped up and effectively smeared samples to 'collect' evidence. This method would have cross-contaminated many samples. The modern method of 'swabbing' is much more effective. Perugia forensics teams literally wiped the makeup pads across large sections of blood spatter, which in effect, could have cross-contaminated separate samples. For example, Amanda testified that she'd brushed her teeth on the morning of November 2nd. The forensics team collected samples from the sink but in doing so, wiped the pad along a large section of sink and potentially contaminated the sample themselves. Forensics teams collect evidence. They are not there to clean up the scene. Most, if not all crime teams do absolutely no crime scene cleaning whatsoever. Their job is to collect evidence and nothing more. Therefore, it's safe to assume that from the footage available, we're seeing the method used to collect samples.

The murder weapon/s:

Officials claim that two knives were used to kill MK. It is my understanding that only one of these weapons was found - in RS' apartment of all places. It is plausible and understandable that Amanda Knox' DNA would be present on the handle of the knife. She had been visiting regularly at RS' apartment and testified that they'd made dinner on the night of November 1st. What is more difficult to explain is why a small amount of MK's DNA was found on the very same knife. Had the knife never left the apartment, it would be difficult to understand why this DNA evidence belonging to the victim was found on the knife. If RS and Amanda had killed MK spontaneously and impulsively, there would be no reason for them to bring the kitchen knife with them when they arrived at Amanda's apartment. This suggests that the knife may have originally belonged in the sharehouse kitchen at Amanda's apartment and was removed from the scene and cleaned. I'm also intrigued by the way the prosecutor described Amanda's reaction when she was presented with all the knives from the kitchen and asked if any were missing. She is said to have covered her ears and had a look of distress. Amanda describes that the situation was overwhelming and she became "hysterical". However, this is not consistent with her behaviour noted by witnesses at the station who say that she was seen "doing cartwheels, doing the splits, doing yoga and commenting "Of course she suffered. She had her *advertiser censored**ing throat cut.""

The arrival of police on the scene & the '911' call:

Depending on which documentary you watch, you'll get conflicting stories about how police were contacted and summoned to the scene on the morning of November 2nd, 2007. Some start with RS' call to police to report a break in and the locked bedroom door. Some add to this by revealing that a local woman found two abandoned cell phones in her garden which were traced back to the apartment, to which local authorities responded. It is only after this tech-savvy team was deployed to the residence that RS' call to police was made and the appropriate investigative (crime scene/forensics) team arrived on the scene. So far, I am unaware if the first team ever reported the nature of the scene to crime scene investigators before RS' call was made. Amanda Knox produced her cell phone to authorities. RS assumedly used his own cell phone when placing the call (although I do not know this for a fact). Who did the abandoned cell phones belong to? Did either one of them ring when Amanda supposedly tried to call MK's phone and was unable to reach her? Did one of those phones belong to RG? At least one of those phones was registered to an occupant who lived at the residence - so who did it belong to?

Amanda's 'inappropriate' behaviour:
Cartwheels. "The splits". Callous, insensitive comments about the victim and the nature of her murder. "Making out" at the crime scene. Buying lingerie the day after the murder. Covering her ears when presented with evidence. Wrongfully accusing her employer of murder. Being the first witness at the scene, yet ignoring the visible blood traces and failing to alert police. Simultaneously switching off phones at an unusual time. Inconsistencies in her alibi. And the constant inability to show any emotion for anybody other than herself. When grouped together, these behaviours paint Amanda Knox as a psychopathic narcissist with something to hide. I believe that above all, it's Amanda Knox' behaviour which has convinced most people of her guilt. And to some extent, it certainly makes me question her innocence.
However, there are some things to consider. Amanda was an immature, excitable 20 year old with absolutely no experience handling such a traumatic experience. None of us can truly predict how we might react and behave when in a situation like this one. It's unclear whether she was regularly smoking marijuana through these first few days - there's a possibility that she got stoned to deal with the overwhelming nature of the situation. However, I believe this would be part of her story now to explain why she'd acted so strangely if that were the case. "I was high. It was stupid but I wasn't in my right mind which is why I spoke so abruptly and did the splits in the waiting room at the police station." That's never been said. She readily admitted that she'd smoked a joint with RS the night of the murder, so I believe she would be upfront and honest if she'd also been high in the days and hours before her arrest. It would actually better explain why she acted so inappropriately.
Therefore, it's still rather inconceivable as to why Amanda Knox' behaviour changed so rapidly throughout those first few days. She likes to remind the public, "It could have been me." But my gut doesn't believe her. I'm not convinced by her portrayal of vulnerability. She may not be a very empathic person and therefore, MK's murder may not have affected her emotionally - but that doesn't necessarily excuse her behaviour and actions.

Let's try then, to rationalise some of her behaviours.

The kisses and affection shown at the crime scene, while seemingly unusual, was not note-worthy. She does look concerned and a little frightened. It looks to me like a young couple in a moment of comfort, not a public display of affection. The kisses are three short pecks as they hold each other close. They are not parading their affection for the cameras. They are not kissing passionately or feeling each other up. The prosecution deemed this moment 'inappropriate', and this may very well have been inappropriate in the eyes of their people and culture - however it must be considered that Amanda was a 20-year-old American girl and completely unaware of the reaction a few short kisses and a cuddle was going to have. Yes, it is unusual to see a couple in distress or grief sharing kisses - but she was barely an adult yet. Most people will cuddle and hold their partner in times of distress. It was just unfortunate that the cameras caught the three little pecks on the lips. She was young and immature and seeking comfort from her new lover.
However, the very next day, witnesses claim that she was lingerie shopping and talking about the sex the couple would enjoy that night. Could this just be another example of her immaturity? She wasn't particularly close to the victim - they were housemates and early acquaintances who were exploring the possibility of a friendship. Amanda had been seen alone at the classical music concert when RS met her - so it can be assumed that Amanda and MK were not quite considered "friends", certainly not close friends with hands in each others pockets. Amanda went by herself to meet RS and spent the rest of the night with him. "Friends" is also a term used loosely by young people to describe friendly acquaintances who they see regularly. It's used to save face. For a couple of students who had really only just met one another, Amanda's tendency to describe her as a "friend" may show that she was open to the formation of a friendship. However, it may also be used to cover up any animosity between the two, which was witnessed by and described to investigators by the other house mates and friends of the girls. After all, MK had no opportunity to describe what the thought of Amanda and whether she believed there was a friendship there.

Amanda says that after many gruelling, intimidating and even abusive hours in the interrogation room, and upon being presented with a text message she sent to her employer, she was "exhausted" and "reality started to blur". She made a statement which placed her at the scene at the time of the murder, and claimed that her employer was present and responsible. She claims that she put her hands over her ears as she stood in the bathroom, listening to the confrontation. It would later be proven that there was no way that her employer ever visited the apartment, and no possible way that he (or anyone else) could have acted alone when MK was murdered. Was she really just overwhelmed, exhausted and coerced into this confession, or was she attempting to cover her own culpability as an accessory (or worse yet, perpetrator)?
In the same way she described "covering her ears" in the kitchen, Amanda displayed the same behaviour when confronted with multiple pieces of evidence. Is this a habitual response to difficult situations; something Amanda has always done since childhood as some form of coping mechanism - or is she remembering details (particularly sound memories) that she's attempting to block out? Some people shake their heads, rock their bodies back and forth, jitter, hug themselves - there are many forms of self comfort. However, many of these behaviours are also compulsive reactions to guilt. It's hard to know either way whether this proves anything.

Amanda was the first known person to happen upon the scene after MK was murdered. She claims that she returned to the apartment to shower and to retrieve a mop that she intended to take back to RS' apartment. She claimed that his shower wasn't up to standard. RS and Amanda claimed that they awoke at 10am on November 2nd - however records supposedly show that his cell phone was turned back on at 6am. She claims that she noticed the front door wide open, but says that the latch was faulty and she attributed this to the wide open door. She says she got undressed, made her way to the bathroom and immediately noticed blood spots in the sink. She assumed that they'd been left by another house mate and thought little of it. She brushed her teeth and then showered. It was as she exited the shower that she noticed the "smudges" of blood on the bathmat, which were in fact, a partial bloody footprint. Then, she noticed the faeces in the toilet bowl. It was this discovery - the faeces - which "creeped her out" and she decided to return to RS' apartment to report her findings. RS and Amanda returned to the apartment where they discovered the broken window, the rock and MK's locked bedroom door. This is when RS contacted local authorities to report a break in and their concerns for the bedroom's occupant.
Maybe Amanda really was 'creeped out' and scared. Maybe she really didn't want to investigate any further for fear of stumbling upon an intruder. But why did an un-flushed turd in the toilet make her so uneasy? Was it the collection of abnormalities - the door, the blood and the faeces? Was it just immaturity that compelled her to run straight to her boyfriend? Did she doubt her instincts and want a second opinion before they contacted police?

Why were both Amanda's and RS' phones turned off at around 9.45 on the night of the murder, within minutes of each other? Authorities checked back and claim that on average, both regularly turned their phones off around midnight before the murders. Why was it different this night? Why did RS' alibi change? He first mirrored Amanda's alibi to claim that they'd watched a movie, made dinner, smoked a joint, had sex and went to sleep. Then later, he claims that she left his apartment and didn't return until 1am that morning. Was he covering for himself or admitting that he'd lied for her?

Amanda's Interviews:
I'm really interested in body language analysis and when considering any criminal case, I really like to pay attention to 'things unsaid' and the interviewee's choice of words. I've watched many examples where experts have done seminars and carefully deconstructed interview footage to shed light on typical and universal examples of telling the truth and blatant deception. I like to attempt to apply my amateur understanding of language and body language every time I delve into a case.
When analysing Amanda Knox's behaviour and her carefully selective responses in interviews, a few things stand out to me.
Firstly, it's said that as the viewer/listener, if you don't feel what the speaker is trying to convey, there's a likelihood that they are also not convinced of these feelings and it may be false. Words and body language are meant to 'sing' together as one. When someone is talking about fear they experienced, it should show in their facial expressions. When someone is professing to be speaking honestly, it should show in 'open' demonstrations of body language. When words and body language are conflicting, it can be an indication that the body is telling more truth than the words are.
Amanda has done countless interviews in the aftermath of her convictions and acquittals. She now uses her freedom to speak out as an advocate for the innocent who are wrongly convicted and accused of crimes they didn't commit. Not only does she agree to interviews, but she also has written several books in an attempt to tell her 'truth' to the world. She has hopes to clear her name and even wishes for MK's grieving family to read her story.

I have not read her books, but I have viewed several of her interviews. There are many to consider as she was convicted for a second time after returning to the US, and for a second time, acquitted upon appeal. Her story rarely changes these days. She maintains the story of the innocent student who fell into the vortex of drama and intrigue. She verbally denies any participation whatsoever in the murder of MK. However, in her interview with ABC's DS, her body language is... odd, to say the least. Amanda is asked a series of three very pointed, very direct questions. "Did you kill MK?" "Were you there that night?" "Do you know anything that you have not told police, that you have not said in this book? Do you know anything?"
She answers every question with "No". No surprises there. But it's Amanda's facial responses and body language which may tell another story. To the first question, "Did you kill MK?", Amanda responds with "No" but the corner of her mouth curls up for a split second - either showing contempt at the nature of the question asked, or even surpressing a "duper's delight" smirk. She's known to have laughed and smiled on several occasions when asked this very same question in other interviews. He head shakes weakly, no, in time with her answer. But the smirk is unmistakable. There is no furrowing of the brow as she replies "no". But she stares at DS from the moment she starts questioning her, and continues this unbroken eye contact as she answers. To the second question, "Were you there that night?" Amanda also replies "no". This time, we see her eyebrows raise, her head nods once very dramatically straight up and down, and the creases on her forehead remain in a sort of concerned, fearful way. Her mouth remains open after answering. Then DS continues, "Do you know anything that you have not told police," - Amanda purses her lips together and retracts her bottom lip at this point in the question. Some body language analysts suggest that this expression is regret, however I see an element of "I'm not saying another damn word about that. I don't want to talk about it. I'm hiding something and won't let it slip out. My lips are sealed." DS finishes her question, "that you have not said in this book. Do you know anything?" And Amanda replies, "No". There's a silence, so she offers, "I don't." And even more silence - which makes her uncomfortable. She shifts her eyes, shuffles in her seat and shrugs - a sort of "what more do you want me to say" as she answers "I wasn't there".

I noticed that despite the heavy story editing that cut this interview into sporadic clips of Knox, each segment gives us a view of the way Amanda Knox speaks. In some clips, she's animated, her sentences are flowing and answers come to her easily. She describes the open and honest relationship she has with her mother and reminisces about eating the food in their family kitchen when she'd visit. In another clip, DS shows her a video taken just weeks before she was set to leave for Italy and asks, "You look at the picture of the girl who arrived there. What would you want to say?" "I want to tell her," she replies, "not to be afraid." She tilts her head to the side and gives this knowing sort of side-glance with a tight lipped grin. "Of what's gonna happen." And again, she retains the side-look, raises her eyebrows and the grin deepens. "Because..." - instantly, her face falls and she goes dead-pan. "What happened to me... hit... hit me... like... like a train." And she shakes her head. She moves her mouth around as she tries to find more to say. "And there was nothing I could do to stop it." This could indeed just have started out as retrospective confidence she's now filled with knowing that she's free and can proclaim her innocence. She knows now what the overall outcome would be but when she reminisces deeper about what happened, she still experiences and relives the pain. However, she speaks slowly, pausing between a few words at a time, carefully answering the more pointed and direct questions that relate to her case.

DS asks her about RS - how she'd described him at some point as "a lightning strike". (She was a Harry Potter fan and saw a resemblance between RS and Harry Potter.) She takes a few seconds to construct her response in her head after translating the Italian words, and chooses to respond with "He writes about how taken he was with me, and I really liked him as well." She gives another side-glance very similar to the one mentioned above. In this context, the glance looks cheeky and suggestive. She's understating her attraction to him.

It makes me requestion my perception of that first glance. There was something hidden there. Something telling about the face she pulled when she said, "I want to tell her... not to be afraid... of what's gonna happen." Rather than depicting confidence, conviction and strength to tell herself not to be afraid - it feels like there's something more there. It's almost tongue-in-cheek, mocking, sarcastic. She didn't leave it at, "not to be afraid". She elaborated, as if there were two scenarios she was thinking about when she said it. It gets me wondering - did she add "of what's gonna happen" because she wasn't scared of the act of murder itself, in fact, maybe she actually enjoyed it. Perhaps the "of what's gonna happen" relates to the terror of not knowing whether she'd be caught or not, and now that she's back home and doing the interview, she can look back and realise there was nothing to be afraid of at all. Or maybe it's pure, innocent and genuine - not to be afraid because the truth will finally come out, so she'd give her younger self the advice to be brave, especially in the midst of accusations and interrogations. However, she doesn't show any remorse (at least not in this interview) for the false and misleading accusation against her employer. Maybe that's part of her answer here - that had she not been afraid, she may not have ever accused her employer of the murder.
 
I take defence.

Honestly, to me the best defence is to look at what actually happened, before, during and after the murder, with all that we can actually prove. The prosecution was never able to do this, which is a fundamental weakness in the case.

It's the fall of 2007. Amanda Knox and Meredith Kercher are both foreign exchange students in the Italian city of Perugia, one from the US, the other from the UK. They have both moved into a shared apartment in the upper floor of a cottage perched on the side of the hilltop city, with a spectacular view of the valley below. Two Italian women, Filomena Romanelli and Laura Mezzetti, share the flat with Amanda and Meredith, while the bottom floor is a separate apartment, occupied by four Italian youths. It’s not the best of apartments; the house has not been properly kept, and Filomena has lodged complaints about her window shutters, but it’s fine for a couple of students experiencing life abroad.

The four women get along in the usual way of housemates. They hang out sometimes, talk, occasionally differ about housework, but nothing major. As the end of October comes, they’re all pretty settled and happy. Meredith and Amanda act like normal students abroad. They study, they party, they drink and smoke weed – the boys downstairs have a small plantation indoors – but nothing excessive. Meredith starts dating one of the downstairs boys, and hangs out with a group of English girls from the university. Amanda starts a job serving drinks at a bar owned by the Kongo-born Patrick Lumumba. And in late October, she meets a young Italian man named Rafaelle Sollecito at a concert. They fall for each other, and soon Amanda spends all her free time with her new boyfriend. At Halloween, Meredith dresses up and heads out with her friends. Amanda goes out too, but the party scene has started to wear out its welcome, and she goes to Rafaelle’s place.

November 1st

It’s Thursday, the day after Halloween, and the long holiday of All Saint’s Day ahead. Laura has left the city for the weekend, and Filomena and Amanda both plan on spending the night at their boyfriends’ places. The boys downstairs have left too. Meredith plans on going out, a quiet evening at one of her friends’ place, eating and watching a movie. Amanda has work in the evening, before and after which she will be with Rafaelle. She goes to hang out with him before work, and they start watching Amelie from Montmarte on his computer together.

What had promised to be a fairly hectic night for Amanda soon turns in her favor. At 20:18 she receives an SMS from her boss, telling her it’s a slow night and she doesn’t have to come to work. She sees and replies to him at 20:35. Even better, Rafaelle, who had promised to help a friend transport a bag via bus, is also freed from his obligations. The friend, Jovana Popovic, comes to his door at 20:40 and tells Amanda there’s no need, since the bus line wouldn’t take an unaccompanied bag. Hardly believing their luck, Amanda and Rafaelle settle in for a quiet and intimate night. Amanda turns off her phone so that she would have an excuse should Patrick change his mind. When Rafaelle’s father calls at 20:42, his son is washing dishes in preparation for dinner, grousing over a leaky pipe under the sink. Amelie ends at 21:10, and at 21:26 they watch episode 101 of the anime Naruto which lasts until 21:46. They follow this with dinner and the movie Stardust, but the movies become background for the antics of young love. They talk, smoke a bit, make love, and finally drift off to sleep.

Meredith’s night is similarly quiet, hanging out with friends at Robyn Butterworth’s place. Around 18 they start to eat a homemade pizza, then watch a DVD while eating apple crumble. At 20:45, Meredith and friend Sophie Purton leave, heading home together. Meredith and Sophie part at Sophie’s place at 20:55, and while Meredith walks the ancient streets of Perugia, she tries to call her mother, like she does every night. The call fails, and Meredith decides to try again when at home, where dodgy reception is less of an issue. The CCTV camera of the parking garage right across the street from the cottage captures her at 21:01, the last time she is seen alive by anyone other than her killer.

Enter Rudy Guede.

Rudy has not had the best of autumns. Cut off by his sponsor family, the once promising basketball athlete now spends his time drifting around the student scene, hanging out with other youths, playing basketball, smoking weed. Those who knew him talked about a young man with plenty of issues; sometimes he would bother women at clubs, other times he would have worrying mental episodes, or be found sleeping in someone’s bathroom. However, money was drying up, and in the fall of 2007, Guede had taken up burglary to replenish his funds. Following a near capture by his victims at one of his first tries (where he brandished a knife as he made his escape), Rudy had become more careful in ensuring the places he broke into were empty. Once inside, Rudy would make himself at home. At a lawyer’s office, he smashed the second story window with a rock and scrambled up the wall, then calmly helped himself to a drink as he ransacked the place. At a neighbor’s place, he cooked himself a meal on the stove and threw clothes about without a care, ultimately setting a fire that killed the neighbor’s cat.

His luck had run out in Milan, on October 27th, where he had been caught red-handed in a nursery. The Milan police found and confiscated his stolen goods, but when they called the Perugia police, they were told to simply send him back. No arrest, no charges. So Rudy got his freedom, but he had lost all his ill-gotten gains. Rent day was coming up back in Perugia, and he needed immediate cash. Thankfully, he knew of a place.

From 19:30 November 1st, 2007, Rudy stalks the area from the Piazza near the cottage of Meredith and the others. Unbeknownst to him, he is caught on the parking garage CCTV at 19:51 and again at 20:20. The house looks empty enough, and Rudy knows many youths go home for the holidays. Since the rent was soon due, it would not be impossible to find a fat envelope somewhere within. He approaches the door and knocks. No answer. He knocks on the door downstairs. Same.

Now for the delicate part of his plan. The window closest to the upstairs door belongs to Filomena, and its shutters are too warped to close properly. It’s easy enough for Rudy to lean over the edge and pull one of the shutters more open. Moving back to the parking space, he finds a suitable rock and lobs it through the window. It smashes the glass, hits and flings open the inside shutter, tears through a paper shopping bag and comes to rest under Filomena’s chair. After taking a few moments to ensure no sound coming from the house, Rudy leaps down from the parking area and scrambles up the wall, using the downstairs bathroom window as foothold. Picking the largest shards from the broken window, he unlatches the frame and scurries inside. As he does so, he bumps into the filled-to-bursting closet of Filomena, sending her clothes spilling on the floor, which is now a mess of glass shards, overturned laptops, strewn clothes and torn bags.

After a quick check for cash, and perhaps a mental note to pick up the laptop before leaving, Rudy leaves Filomena’s room, closing the door behind him. Laura’s room is next, but Rudy, now calm enough, stops by the fridge to drink some juice from a carton. He continues into Laura’s room, but as he opens her drawer, he feels a rumble in his stomach, as the kebab he ate earlier makes itself known. With no real concern, Rudy plops himself on the toilet next to the kitchen and relieves himself. It’s a few minutes past nine, and things are about to go very, very wrong.

Rudy hears the front door open and freezes in place. Next he hears a voice calling out “Hello?” He quickly wipes, but doesn’t flush so he isn’t discovered. He stands up and sneaks to the bathroom door. What happens then may never be known or guessed at with certainty. Perhaps he sees Meredith go to her room, and sneaks to the front door only to find it locked and in need of a key. Perhaps he sees her with her phone out and figures she’s about to call the police. Perhaps she sees him, and he rushes after her in a mad dash as she tries to get to safety in her room. Perhaps he reasons leaving the apartment without any money is not an option. Or perhaps he sees a girl he had seen before, had been attracted to before, and something flips in his brain.

What we do know is that it ends with Rudy grabbing Meredith from behind in her room and pressing his knife to her throat. If he tries to calm her or threaten her, it doesn’t work. She pushes back against him, he loses his balance and they slam into her desk. No longer in control, Rudy tries desperately to stop Meredith from struggling. The knife goes in. She keeps struggling. The knife goes in again. And again. Meredith collapses on the floor, blood pouring from her throat. Rudy, his own blood pounding in his ears, is working on reflexes at this point. He flips her over, drags her a bit to the center of the room, puts a pillow under her and tears and cuts off her clothes. And Meredith draws her final, ragged breaths while Rudy molests her. Her last meal has yet to enter her duodenum, making it 21:30 at the very latest, likely somewhere between 21:10 and 21:20.

As Rudy finishes, his senses come rushing back, and with them, the gravity of what he has just done. He has committed burglary and other crimes before, yes, but nothing like this. This is irrevocable. He has blood on his hands, and he places his handprint on the wall. His first instinct is to get towels to stem the blood coming from Meredith. He finds a few in the room, but they get soaked immediately. As he stands up, he sees that he has been kneeling in Meredith’s blood. Going into the small bathroom next to Meredith’s room – not the one he was in when she arrived – he washes his hands, then takes off his shoes and socks and rinses the worst of the blood off his pants. Distracted, he doesn’t notice the footprint on the bathmat made from blood and water. He picks up the remaining towels and goes back to the room.

By now, it’s likely clear to him that Meredith can’t be saved. Overcome by guilt, he covers her with the duvet from her bed. He sits down on the bed to rifle through her bags, his bloody knife leaving an imprint. He finds some money, Meredith’s keys and her two cell phones – one her own, British one, the other given to her by Filomena for use in Italy. Turning off the Italian phone is easy enough, but he fumbles with the British phone, accidentally dialing first her answering machine at 21:58, then the first number in her contacts at 22:00. The latter doesn’t go through, since there’s no country prefix. He gets up, not noticing part of his left shoe has stepped in blood, and walks out the door, closing and locking it. Rudy walks to the front door leaving fading prints of blood behind him, unlocks the door and slams it shut behind him. He doesn’t know the automatic lock on the door is broken, and a key is needed to both lock and unlock it. Heading down to the shaded paths below the city wall, Rudy takes the long way home when an incoming MMS scares him to pieces. He realizes the phones can likely be traced, so he chucks them into a garden and hurries home.

November 2nd.

Amanda, knowing nothing about the night’s events, lazily wakes up at Rafaelle’s place. Yesterday, they had made plans to visit Gubbio over the weekend, which she looked forward to. The leak under the sink had gotten worse in the evening, and Rafaelle was cursing over it. Since Rafaelle came from money, he had maid service, and no proper cleaning tools at home. Now in the morning, Amanda offers to bring a mop from her cottage. She’s already supposed to go there, since she needs new clothes for the trip and she prefers her own shower to Rafaelle’s. It’s before noon when she comes to the cottage and sees the door open. It looks wrong, but Amanda’s brain immediately tries to rationalize it. The lock is broken, someone simply forgot to use the key. These things happen. Stepping into the cottage, nothing seems out of the ordinary. Filomena and Meredith’s doors are closed. Meredith was supposed to be home, but as far as Amanda knew she could have spent the night at her friend’s. Amanda goes to take a shower, noticing a small drop of blood in the sink. Still, nothing that she’s never seen before. More worrying, as she steps out of the shower, there are no towels, and there’s a brown stain on the mat. At this point, the rationalizations start to wear thin (perhaps it’s period blood?) but there’s really nothing that hints at the truth. When Amanda goes to the other bathroom to use the hairdryer, she sees Rudy’s leftovers in the toilet, and at this point she’s starting to freak. She grabs the mop and hurries back to Rafaelle.

On the way, she starts to rationalize again. Why make a fuss over what could be nothing, right? But she can’t shake the feeling, so she calls Meredith at 12:07 while Rafaelle mops. There’s no answer, only voicemail. Then she tries Filomena, who is at a fair with her friend Paola Grande, at 12:08. Filomena finds all this extremely worrying, and tells Amanda to go back and check. Amanda tries Meredith two more times (12:11), before a few more calls from Filomena pushes Amanda and Rafaelle to head out to the cottage, where they arrive at around 12:30. Amanda opens Filomena’s door, and they see the mess inside. Filomena calls again (12:34) and is informed of the break-in. Filomena calls her boyfriend Marco Zanetti (12:34) and gets him and Paola’s boyfriend Luca Altieri to drive over as well. Amanda and Rafaelle are still unsure of what to do. Meredith’s locked door is ominous. Rafaelle makes an attempt to bust it open before giving up. Amanda calls her mother in Seattle (12:47), regardless of time difference, while Rafaelle calls his sister, an officer of the Carabinieri. His sister is adamant that he contact the police immediately, which he does at 12:51. They go outside to wait for the Carabinieri. However when the police arrives, within minutes, it’s for an entirely different reason.

The Postal Police of Perugia have been contacted about two cell phones found in a garden and now two of them are on their way to return them to their owner. When they arrive, a few minutes before 13:00, they are instead hustled inside by two youths who babble about a break-in. To make matters worse, soon after Marco and Luca arrive by car, and a bit later, Filomena and Paola reach the cottage. Filomena immediately checks her room, seeing none of her valuables taken and glass on top of her knocked-over laptop, which she clears off. When Luca tells her about the police being there to return Meredith’s phones, something clicks in Filomena’s head. The broken window, the locked door, phones found outside. A terrible thought occurs to her, and she begs the police to break down the door. The two policemen, who feel in over their heads, refuse, so Filomena asks Luca, of far sturdier build than Rafaelle, to handle it. When he busts down the door, police and youths alike see a room covered in blood, and a duvet on the floor covering all of Meredith but her foot. One of the policemen steps inside and lifts the duvet, perhaps in a vain hope that it might not be too late.

Amanda didn’t see the room, but her Italian friends babble in the panic of the moment about their brief and traumatic view. Meredith was lying by the closet. No, Meredith was lying in the closet. There was blood on her throat. She was naked. At 13:24, Amanda’s mother calls again and receives the grim news. Five minutes later, the Carabinieri call for directions, a random fluke of timing having prevented them from securing a murder scene.

Enter Perugia’s finest.

Giuliano Mignini has, much like Rudy, not had a good year. The Perugian prosecutor has spent over six years working with a Florentine elite police force to uncover a secret Satanic sect responsible for a number of ritual murders, including the famous Monster of Florence. High-ranking masons, police chiefs, prosecutors and journalists had been monitored, arrested and charged based on Mignini and others’ brilliant deductions. But in 2007 it all came crashing down. The weakness of the cases were exposed in media. A massive international protest over journalists imprisoned over critical reporting resulted in the public shaming of Mignini and the dissolution of the elite police force. A normal mind might think this the righteous consequences of a prosecutor abusing his power, but to the brilliant mind of Mignini it showed the power and reach of his Satanic enemies.

And now he steps into the scene of a murder, a young woman stripped and covered, and on the day after Halloween too. A normal person might see it as a burglary gone wrong, but to the brilliant mind of Mignini? Much like his idol Sherlock Holmes, Mignini prides himself on his deductions. A duvet covering the victim? That is something a woman would do! A break-in at a second story window? Seems difficult, must be staged! Everything seems to point to one of the victim’s flat-mates, and it’s not difficult to decide which.

Detective Monica Napoleoni agrees. She also has a brilliant mind, the proper intuition of a police officer. She sees Amanda and Rafaelle standing outside, holding each other, giving each other brief kisses. A normal mind might think this a young man trying to comfort his girlfriend, traumatized over a friend’s brutal murder. The brilliant mind of Napoleoni sees a brazen hussy acting inappropriately at the scene of the crime. Mignini’s friend Giobbi, called in from Rome to help, also agrees. He stares at Amanda’s posterior as she pulls on plastic booties for a tour of the scene, and in his brilliant mind her slightly wiggling hips become a seductive dance intended to entrance the police officer. And when Mignini sees Amanda break down, crying with her hands over her ears, when asked about knives in the flat, a normal mind might think it’s a young woman stressed beyond the breaking point. Mignini’s brilliant mind sees a suspect trying to block out the screams of the murder, thus confirming his hypothesis.

It’s remarkable how everything falls into place when you’ve already decided on the outcome.

The break-in is easy enough. Filomena says her room was tidy when she left, and that she found glass on her laptop. A-ha! If the room was tidy, the murderer must have made the mess, but if he or she did, then the glass from the break-in would not be on top of the mess! A more nuanced view, that Filomena might have kept a few things on the floor, and was largely referring to her spilled clothes and the shattered window as the “mess”, was not entertained. None of the photos show glass on top of anything except the laptop, and no proper forensic investigation of the room was made, but the deduction of the Perugian Law Enforcement was brilliant enough that it wasn’t needed.

Suspicion might have fallen on Amanda on day one, but the police knew they had nothing concrete on her. Her testimony – staying at home with Rafaelle – matches his, with no lies discovered. Except she must be lying, since they have deduced she was there and thus can’t have been with Rafaelle all night. Amanda spends half her waking days with the police, either in the station or on the crime scene. In her naivety she thinks she’s helping to solve her friend’s murder. The grueling sessions last well into the night, with Amanda being found exhausted and seemingly forgotten in the station in the small hours at one point. When she’s not with the police, her phone is tapped, every second of her conversations recorded and finely combed to find even a smidgen of evidence, a Freudian slip, anything.

On November 5th, Amanda meets her boss, Patrick. Her third day with the police had ended at 2:45 that morning, and she is tired and scared, when Patrick approaches her outside class. She tells him of her situation and her desire to quit working for now, and he comforts her with a hug. And if someone saw that – say, a Perugian police officer assigned to tail Amanda – they suddenly had something juicy to report. The police might have Amanda as their main suspect, but they knew a man had been at the scene too. Rafaelle was a possibility, sure, but he could also be a patsy, only used for an alibi. Early stories leaked by police spoke of “African” hair found at the scene, and perhaps Rudy’s presence at the CCTV had helped, but certainly a look at Amanda’s cell phone log sealed the deal – only an hour or so before Meredith’s murder there’s an SMS from Patrick to Amanda, and then a reply. Coincidence? To the brilliant minds of the Perugian Law Enforcement, certainly not!

But they needed to move quickly. Amanda’s parents were on their way, likely to pick up their girl. Forensics had not returned any of the evidence that would surely damn her yet. And they needed the contents of the SMSs. So, a final session is planned. Twelve officers are assigned, with Mignini waiting in the other side of the building. Amanda is still technically a witness after all. Once a suspect, all those pesky “rights to an attorney” comes in. So Giobbi orders them both in, though only Rafaelle gets a direct order. Perhaps they had intended to separate the two earlier, but Amanda decides to tag along, not wanting to be alone.

And so the interrogation of Rafaelle begins in the late evening of November 5th. Rafaelle is taken completely by surprise by the turn-around, as the police start to brusquely ask him if Amanda left the apartment at any point, which they knew she did. He had never imagined being fingered as a suspect or even suspect-adjacent, and suddenly the days before the murder seem a long time ago. It’s easy enough to remember where you were on 9/11, but Rafaelle is asked to remember where he was on 9/10. He hadn’t gone out, but Amanda had, hadn’t she? And he had gone to her after 1 in the morning. If it was a Thursday, well, she worked on Thursdays, so… But something doesn’t seem right, he is forgetting something, so Rafaelle asks for a calendar. The interrogation turns ugly, lots of shouting, his request denied. Finally, hours later, Rafaelle’s hazy description of Halloween is jotted down by the police and presented to Rafaelle as a “spontaneous” account of November 1st. At the end, the police have added a sentence: “Amanda told me to lie”. That doesn’t seem right either, but the police are all smiles now. Sign and you can leave.

Meanwhile, a tired and bored Amanda tries to do some yoga exercises, when she’s pulled into another room for a new round of interrogation. It’s difficult at first, but an interpreter soon arrives. Unbeknownst to Amanda, Anna Donnino is a police officer too, working in tandem with the rest. She is asked about “African” acquaintances, including a young friend of her downstairs neighbors she only met that one time, whose name she can’t remember, and who is at this moment fleeing the country. But more importantly, she’s asked about the text messages to Patrick. She hands over her phone, and the tone changes. “OK. See you later.” To a normal mind, this is a young woman confirming that she won’t come to work and signing off. To the brilliant minds it’s an appointment to murder.

Everyone in the room becomes threatening. They tell her to confess what they know she did – that she met up with Patrick, went to her flat and murdered Meredith. Amanda protests, she was with Rafaelle. But they tell her Rafaelle has revoked her alibi. She was out of the flat! Amanda has no memory of that. Could the weed have caused a memory lapse? Surely not. But the police wouldn’t lie to her, would they? They tell her she will go to prison for 30 years. They slap her in the back of her head and tell her to remember. A pleased Giobbi hears her screams echo through the hall. The interpreter gently asks her if she hasn’t repressed a traumatic memory, much like she herself had done once. Perhaps if she imagines it? What does she see?

Amanda’s “imagination” is written down on a paper as another “spontaneous” declaration. After some coaxing and threatening, she finally signs it. It’s now after three in the morning, and Mignini can finally arrive on the scene. He takes a look at the declaration, and is displeased. It doesn’t contain his brilliant deduction about Amanda covering her ears, or the meeting with Patrick that sealed their fate. A new declaration is “spontaneously” written and signed. Amanda and Rafaelle are not freed, but imprisoned. The police go to Patrick’s place and drag him out in front of his family, and take him down to the station. They are not gentle.

The next day, Amanda writes down a repudiation of her declarations, but it is too late. The three suspects are publicly announced and paraded through the streets. The police hold a triumphant press conference, where they heap exuberant amounts of praises on themselves, for solving such a high profile crime so quickly, without forensic evidence. Just good old fashioned police intuition. Mignini is vindicated.

And then the forensic evidence comes in.

Turns out there’s nothing there pointing at any of the three suspects. Not a speck of their DNA in the murder room. The police rifle through Rafaelle’s apartment, and find a shoe that they claim could have made one of Rudy’s prints, but that’s it. Even worse, Patrick starts getting alibis. At first, the police try to discredit them, but they pile up.

But worst of all is who the evidence points to. It’s unknown just why Rudy was let go by the Perugian police after his Milan burglary, but it must come as an uncomfortable fact if they hadn’t, if they’d done their job, Meredith would be alive. Now, whether they actually remained firm in their belief in Amanda’s guilt, or they just wanted to cover their asses (perhaps a bit of both), they don’t let her go. In fact she’s promoted to ringleader, while Patrick is released and Rudy joins Rafaelle as her underling. Still, they need evidence, and they need it fast if the charges are to stick. Rudy has no connection to Amanda and Rafaelle, and when he is picked up in Germany, he denies the involvement of the others.

At the forensics lab, Patricia Stefanoni is pushed to find evidence that can put Amanda at the murder scene. She has already tested a whole bunch of Meredith’s things without any trace of Amanda. About the only thing she has is a knife that was picked up at Rafaelle’s place. It’s a common kitchen knife, picked up not because it matched the wounds of the victim (it didn’t), or the outline on the sheet (it didn’t), but because the police officer thought it looked cleaner than the others. And it is clean. While Stefanoni finds Amanda’s DNA on the hilt (nothing unusual), there’s no blood on the blade. In desperation, Stefanoni turns the machine’s sensitivity up, way beyond what it is made for, in a laboratory uncertified for such an operation. And in the stuttering peaks of noise, she finds a single, miniscule dot of not-blood DNA, belonging to the woman whose objects have been run through the same machine for days.

If there ever was a linchpin upon which an entire case rested, that bit of DNA was it. It’s seeded to reporters and presented to magistrates as a solid piece of evidence – the murderer’s DNA on the handle, the victim’s on the blade. That the victim’s DNA was almost certainly contamination is not mentioned, neither is the fact that a whole double-knife theory has to be invented to explain the knife not matching the wounds.

As for Rafaelle, when his shoeprint turns out to be a dud, the case against him starts to weaken. So they go back to the flat on December 18th, which at this point is a chaotic mess, most of it caused by police. Among the garbage strewn about Meredith’s floor they find the clasp to her bra, somehow not picked up back in November, and having rolled around the dirty floor. The police pick it up with dirty gloves, and sure enough, on it is found the DNA of Rafaelle. Of course, there’s also the DNA of several other men, but why perform tests on those?

To seal the deal, a couple of witnesses are found. One is a store-owner who claims he saw Amanda looking to buy bleach the day after the murder, though he somehow didn’t remember that when the police first asked him a year earlier. Another is a heroin addict who claims he saw Amanda and Rafaelle at the Piazza that very night. Of course, he was high on heroin, and describes buses that only ran on Halloween. The third is an old woman who heard a scream between 23:00 and 23:30.

The media does the rest of the work. Perugia’s finest leaks more than Rafaelle’s sink, flooding Italian and British media with all the lies Amanda had told, and the incriminating evidence against her, much of which had been swept under the carpet come trial. Eager to build on it, the tabloids dig into Amanda’s social media, gladly supporting Perugian Law Enforcement’s image of a sex-obsessed manipulative jezebel, much to Mignini’s liking. His co-prosecutor, Manuela Comodi, has persuaded him to tone down the Satanic ritual elements of his thinking, but the Madonna-*advertiser censored* dichotomy remains at the core of the new theory – Amanda was a loose American, setting her boy-toys on her flat-mate as punishment for her virginal ways.

Amanda sees all of her words twisted, all of her actions interpreted in the worst way. She becomes conscious of herself in appearances, which only makes it worse. Her former friends and flat-mates start looking back at all their interactions in the light of what everyone now knows – that she is a murderer. It’s not difficult to turn small complaints into simmering dislike, the occasional spat into resentment, a misunderstanding into a lie.

Rudy keeps his head down. Once he understands the situation, he starts pointing the finger at Amanda and Rafaelle. The case against him is strong, so better to be an accomplice than the sole killer. He opts for a speedy trial, where the prosecution and defense jointly blame Amanda. In the end he only gets 16 years in prison. He is already out on leave.

Amanda and Rafaelle go to trial together, and judge Massei is also a brilliant man. He doesn’t quite believe the sex-game-gone-wrong theory of the prosecution, but he can’t escape the DNA on the knife. So he does what any good judge would do, and invents his own hypothesis. Rudy assaulted Meredith while Amanda and Rafaelle were getting high. When they saw what he was doing they joined in and killed her together. Not really supported by anything, but a judge is a judge.

The rest of the story plays out in public. Judge Hellman reveals the depths of the Perugian police’s incompetence in the appeal trial, where independent experts tear Stefanoni’s evidence to shreds. Without those, the case collapses like a house of cards, but Mignini has cleverly enough made the case political. In his closing statements he calls upon national pride, implying corrupt American influence behind Amanda’s support. It succeeds, as the Supreme Court orders a new trial, where the fact that the evidence was “poor” or “non-existent” shouldn’t count if there is lots of it. But the farce has to end sometime. In the last round at the Supreme Court, the judges recognize the flaws in the Italian system that caused eight years of misery for everyone involved.

In the end, there really wasn’t a case against Amanda. A normal investigation may well have looked at her as a person of interest, but once forensics were in that really should have been it. But that is perhaps for minds less brilliant than others.
 
The footprints were not actually bloody footprints. What they did was use luminol to visualize some marks, but luminol reacts with a lot of other things as well, not just blood. It is a presumptive test, it is used to find where blood might be. To say that it actually is blood you are supposed to confirm that with more specific test. The fact that some of those "footprints" contained Knox's DNA but not MK's speaks volumes. If it really was blood it should have been full of MK's DNA. Whatever the residue was, it was not MK's blood. They found MK and AK's DNA at those spots because the two girls lived there and would have been shedding DNA all over the place. Some spots would have one or the other's DNA, other spots would have both.

The amount of MK's DNA on the knife was miniscule, it could easily have come from contamination either during the investigation (considering how sloppy they were) or just be incidental transference (AK and MK were room mates, they would have picked up and transferred small amounts of each others DNA simply because they shared the same living space). The prosecutors misuse of "forensic" data in this case is quite appalling and suggests that they are grossly ignorant about what the data actually means. If this is how they normally so things over there, you have to wonder how many other people they have railroaded in other cases.

The bra clasp was only collected six weeks later, it was collected at a location that was not the same as when it was originally photographed at scene, it contained the DNA of other unknown individuals beside RS, and it very conveniently was "mis-stored" resulting in degradation to the clasp rendering it useless for retesting. It seems likely that someone on the investigation team planted that particular piece of evidence once it became clear that they did not have anything implicating RS.

The problem with this case is similar to what you see with a lot of small town prosecutions...investigators get a "gut feeling" not supported by any real evidence about what happened, then try to find something that would be consistent with their hypothesis. And if they can't find anything solid they just make it up while ignoring anything that does not fit with their theory.
 
It is obvious (to me) that both RS and AK are guilty along with RG.

Her behavior that morning gave it away for me.
Can you actually see someone already nervous about an 'open' front door moving about naked thru a 'dark' apartment to take a shower?
After seeing 'blood spots' on the sink and being worried about your roommate's door being locked... you don't call her phone to see if it is in the room but instead crawl about outside to see if you can see in the window? Really... even trying to force the door open?
Obvious clean up in the apartment... why? Obvious footprints in blood of both RS and AK in the hallway... with RG's only in the bedroom. Would that be a possible frame attempt? Call another friend to bring her in... but don't call the friend you are worried about while you are standing outside her door?
The broken WINDOW busted from the outside by a large rock. Obviously staging. How many burglers/rapist throw a rock thru a 2nd story window... then crawl thru to do their deed? Would not MK had heard the window breaking and crawl thru?

Some of the CI was not done appropriately... but it surely wasn't aimed only for AK.
She seemed to do that all by herself.

She reminds me so much of Jody Arias it is amazing... and the trial like OJ's. Deflection and going after the crime scene techs to avoid incriminating evidence.
 
It is obvious (to me) that both RS and AK are guilty along with RG.

Her behavior that morning gave it away for me.
Can you actually see someone already nervous about an 'open' front door moving about naked thru a 'dark' apartment to take a shower?

The defense responds: It's always easy in hindsight to say what someone should think or do. But it's also easy to rationalize. The door was known to be faulty. The automatic lock didn't work; you had to use a key for both locking and unlocking. My own apartment door happens to be the same. So if you see the door open when you arrive, there are two things you can assume happened. Either there was a burglary, or someone forgot to lock the door with a key. And if you then enter and it looks completely normal like this, and not a tossed mess, TV and stereo stolen, furniture smashed, etc, it will be very easy to default to the second assumption.

After seeing 'blood spots' on the sink and being worried about your roommate's door being locked... you don't call her phone to see if it is in the room but instead crawl about outside to see if you can see in the window? Really... even trying to force the door open?

The defense responds: The timeline is off here. Amanda saw the tiny blood spots at her first visit some time just after 11. She didn't know Meredith's door was locked until her return visit with Rafaelle an hour later, when they were looking harder for evidence of a burglary. This is also when they opened Filomena's door, and got confirmation of the break-in.

And obviously at the return visit, they did exactly what you said. They tried Meredith's door, found it locked, Rafaelle tried to force it open, then they called the police, all in a roughly 20 minutes long timespan. Amanda had already called Meredith three times, so she knew it would just go to voicemail.

Obvious clean up in the apartment... why? Obvious footprints in blood of both RS and AK in the hallway... with RG's only in the bedroom. Would that be a possible frame attempt?

The defense responds: Actually, Rudy left partial prints from his left shoe, made in Meredith's blood, through the hall. As for the footprints claimed to be from Amanda and Rafaelle, they were tested and confirmed not to be blood. With the presence of Rudy's shoes and the absence of any streaks of cleaning liquid, there is no reason to assume any clean up was made in the apartment. In all likelyhood, these are traces of four young women walking around their flat barefoot in the days preceding the murder.

Call another friend to bring her in... but don't call the friend you are worried about while you are standing outside her door?

The defense responds: Actually, as soon as Amanda got really worried, she called Meredith first of all, at 12:07. When it went to voicemail, she called roommate Filomena, and after that tried Meredith two more times (one for each of her phones) with the same result.

The broken WINDOW busted from the outside by a large rock. Obviously staging. How many burglers/rapist throw a rock thru a 2nd story window... then crawl thru to do their deed?

The defense responds: Rapists? Maybe not. But for burglars, there was a burglary on October 13th, a few weeks before. A law office in Perugia, the 2nd story window had been smashed by a rock and the burglar had entered through it. Among other things, a laptop was stolen. A couple of weeks later, in Milan, that same burglar was caught red-handed at another break-in, the laptop from the lawyer's office still in the burglar's possession. That burglar's name was Rudy Guede.

So we know there is a burglar active in Perugia with that as one of his methods, and it is the same burglar whose physical evidence was found all over the scene.

Would not MK had heard the window breaking and crawl thru?

The defense responds: All reconstructions of the crime says Meredith wasn't home when Rudy broke in. Rudy broke into empty houses (after his first close call) and took it easy once inside and alone, swiping drinks, using the toilet. Meredith arriving was not something he would have planned for. So Meredith would not have heard or seen anything, probably until it was too late.

Deflection and going after the crime scene techs to avoid incriminating evidence.

The defense responds: I think it's fair to do so when the crime scene techs have proven themselves less than adept at their job. The "bloody" footprints mentioned above? The techs withheld the information that they had tested negative for blood from the defense until half-way through the first trial. And that's just one example. The Supreme Court of Cassation that finally acquitted Amanda and Rafaelle had choice words for how the entire investigation had been performed, so it's not just the defense criticizing.
 
1- So you take a shower, without getting a towel first, then have to move about the 'dark' apartment naked... after finding the door unlocked? Would you shuffle around on a bloody bathmat? You don't check everywhere for the burglar possibility? You don't check Meredith's door and call while standing outside? Instead... take a shower? Hair didn't look like it IMO.

Actually climb the balcony outside to try to look in Meredith's window? Wow
Many climbers around there it seems. Poor RS couldn't bust the door open? Did they try to call her phone to see if she/it was in the room? Interesting. They must have done alot in very little time if it was only 20 minutes... don't ya think?

Footprints are AK and RS in the hallway IMO. There is also a clean-up attempt on the bathroom door and RS print on the bathmat IMO.

AK's location for her calls is what is of interest to me. Plus her call to her mom. And RS's calls from his dad regarding dinner/leak and such.

Did that burglar rape and kill anyone? Why would he this time? Was anything stolen in this incident? Do you know if AK and RS knew of RS's previous run-ins with the law?

What reconstructions do you speak of? The fake break-in/staging is the most likely reconstruction IMO. Now who would stage a break-in and for what reason?

Why would RG kill Meredith when he could easily say he was supposed to meet 'someone' (hint, hint who) there and was waiting? Oh yeah... the 8LB rock thru from the inside of the window.

There was still plenty of evidence that AK and RS were involved... regardless of crime scene mistakes IMO.

Anyway... still no need to flaunt her luck in getting out of it IMO.
 
1- So you take a shower, without getting a towel first,

The defense responds: Have you never gotten into a shower and not realize until getting out that there's no clean/dry towel in the bathroom (because you're so used to there being one there)? I certainly have, more than once.

then have to move about the 'dark' apartment naked... after finding the door unlocked? Would you shuffle around on a bloody bathmat?

The defense responds: Wouldn't have much choice, would I, if I wanted to keep the floor dry. Also that's what, a few meters at most? Not all that dark either.

You don't check everywhere for the burglar possibility? You don't check Meredith's door and call while standing outside? Instead... take a shower? Hair didn't look like it IMO.

The defense responds: Any image you've seen of Amanda that day would be at the very least two hours after showering and then blow-drying her hair. Hardly close enough to make any sort of judgement.

Actually climb the balcony outside to try to look in Meredith's window? Wow
Many climbers around there it seems.

The defense responds: No need to climb anything. Just walk out the balcony door right behind them, and lean slightly over the edge to see Meredith's window. Here is a picture of the balcony, here is one that includes Meredith's window. As you can see, it wouldn't even take a minute, and minimum effort.

Poor RS couldn't bust the door open? Did they try to call her phone to see if she/it was in the room?

The defense responds: As I said in the earlier post, by that time, Amanda had called Meredith three times, and all times it had gone to voicemail. Why would she call again? Rafaelle actually cracked the door a bit, but decided against continuing after that. Remember, they had no reason to suspect the worst yet, and even so, they decided to call the police, who would handle any such things.

Interesting. They must have done alot in very little time if it was only 20 minutes... don't ya think?

The defense responds: Not really, few of the things would take more than a minute.

Footprints are AK and RS in the hallway IMO. There is also a clean-up attempt on the bathroom door and RS print on the bathmat IMO.

The defense responds: There's no reason to think so, and even if there were barefoot prints from Amanda (or even Rafaelle), they could have been done at any time. No comparison prints from Filomena, Laura or Meredith were taken, most of the prints are partial and distorted (as few people make a perfect print while walking). Most importantly, they were not made in blood, did not contain Meredith's DNA, and there being no streaks through them, disprove the claim of a clean-up. The prosecution's expert would only go so far (rightly) as to claim some of them were "compatible" with Amanda and Rafaelle's feet. Of course, that just means they can't be ruled out as having made them.

To make an actual identification from a foot print, you need an even surface and a complete print. The bathmat offers none.

Here's the print. Here's Rafaelle's print. Here's Rudy's print. It would take a far clearer print to rule out either of them - or bind any of them to it.

AK's location for her calls is what is of interest to me. Plus her call to her mom. And RS's calls from his dad regarding dinner/leak and such.

The defense responds: Here are the phone records again. As you can see, Amanda's initial calls to Meredith and Filomena were made from Rafaelle's apartment, also where the first two calls were received from Filomena, urging Amanda to go back. Those calls took place 12:07-12:20. When Filomena calls a third time at 12:34, Amanda and Rafaelle are at the house, where all calls are made and received until 14:46.

Here are Rafaelle's records. His father called to talk a few times during the day, but the one you refer to was made 20:42, and you can see it was received at Rafaelle's apartment. This was right after Jovana Popovic came to tell Rafaelle he didn't need to help her that night, and Amanda answered the door. His father's next call came at 09:30 the next morning.

Did that burglar rape and kill anyone? Why would he this time?

The defense responds: Not that we know of, though I would say it's highly unlikely he had. Guede had been caught twice. The first time he waved a knife and escaped. The second time, he was held until police arrived. In both cases, he was faced with multiple people. In Meredith's case, he was facing just one, and his best route of escape (front door) had been cut off.

Was anything stolen in this incident? Do you know if AK and RS knew of RS's previous run-ins with the law?

The defense responds: 300 euro, credit cards, two cell phones and keys taken from Meredith. Rudy may have been used to burglary, but murder? Not so much. I suspect he just took what was closest at hand when fishing for the keys. Getting out would be priority one. There's no reason Amanda and Rafaelle would know about Rudy's history. After all, Perugia police had refused to do their job and charge him after the Milan police caught him red handed. So the only ones who knew would be law enforcement in Milan and Perugia, and whoever Rudy chose to tell. He only met Amanda (briefly) once, and had no connection with Rafaelle whatsoever. Why would they know?

What reconstructions do you speak of? The fake break-in/staging is the most likely reconstruction IMO. Now who would stage a break-in and for what reason?

The defense responds: Forensic experts, of which Ron Hendry would be the one that immediately comes to mind. But let's look at the scene:

1. Here you can see Filomena's room. The spray of glass shards can be seen on the mat, consistent with a projectile smashing the window from the outside. Another angle.

2. Here is the rock. After going through the window, the rock tore through a paper bag and came to rest under a chair. Very unlikely to have been staged like that.

3. Here is a glass shard found in Rudy's shoe print.

4. Here is the mark in the inner shutter where the rock struck. Again, consistent with rock thrown from outside, or the mark would have been on the outer shutter.

Why would RG kill Meredith when he could easily say he was supposed to meet 'someone' (hint, hint who) there and was waiting?

The defense responds: Who's to say he didn't try? But the lie would have been obvious to Meredith, and we know that if he tried, he failed.

Oh yeah... the 8LB rock thru from the inside of the window.

The defense responds: Outside. No indication it was from the inside. If so, the glass spray would be on the ground below.

There was still plenty of evidence that AK and RS were involved... regardless of crime scene mistakes IMO.

The defense disagrees. As we've seen, none of the evidence holds up, and unless there's a secret trove not presented at trial, it's unlikely that something will emerge.

Anyway... still no need to flaunt her luck in getting out of it IMO.

She's innocent. She knows she's innocent. The Supreme Court of Italy has irrevocably acquitted her. Why should she shape her life around those who don't believe her? Especially since she's used her tragedy to help others in the same situation as her?
 
The broken window evidence is the downfall... whatever the 'excuse' for ALL the other stuff. It explains itself.

Poor girl with all that pointing directly at her, RS and RG. Bad luck and all. Sad all the evidence doesn't stand up in the defense opinions (sad there is so much to explain away) Bad luck too her performance in those excruciating interrogations. Yeah, right.
 
The broken window evidence is the downfall... whatever the 'excuse' for ALL the other stuff. It explains itself.

The defense responds: And I have just demonstrated that the broken window evidence does indeed point to a burglar and that there was no staging. Is there any evidence against?

Poor girl with all that pointing directly at her, RS and RG. Bad luck and all. Sad all the evidence doesn't stand up in the defense opinions (sad there is so much to explain away) Bad luck too her performance in those excruciating interrogations. Yeah, right.

The defense responds: She was acquitted by the Supreme Court of Italy. Obviously the evidence provided by the prosecution didn't hold up, as I've demonstrated. And now Italy has been taken to the ECHR for the trampling of her rights. I bet a lot of people regret the actions of Perugia's prosecutors and police in this case.
 
Yes... for sure. Blatant and obvious. Are you saying someone threw a 8lb rock thru a window then scaled the wall to break in a second story window? Didn't you mention a broken front door earlier. Why was there no evidence of someone climbing in?

I wonder if she regrets trying to frame innocent Patrick and his rights? Doesn't seem so.
I also wonder if she was furious with him for demoting her to passing out flyers and asking Meredith to come make drinks there? Was she mad at Meredith too because of this?

By the way do those phone records you mentioned have that drug dealer's name that was on her phone being called both before and after the murder? I bet he REALLY regrets that 'friendship' being that it thrust him into a murder investigation and later cause his arrest/trial.

Since you are familier with the case/excuses/evidence/behavior/etc could you help with understanding all that 'water leak' stuff? Why would anyone leave water/spill on the floor? Why would a mop be needed on a spill/leak that eventually mostly evaporated?
Would not paper towels/toilet paper or rags/towels do just fine? A mop needed... really? Peculiar all that huh?

I bet many people regret the CIs and prosecution in the OJ case too.
The trials and after behavior remind me of OJs... and her actions/behavior/excuses remind me of J.Arias. Both like to stretch... then lie.

All my opinion of course.

The Murder of Meredith Kercher

A nice place for some real information so the jury can see facts for themselves.
 
Yes... for sure. Blatant and obvious. Are you saying someone threw a 8lb rock thru a window then scaled the wall to break in a second story window?

The defense responds: Yes, exactly as he had done at least once before.

Didn't you mention a broken front door earlier.

The defense responds: The autolock was broken, meaning it had to be locked and unlocked with a key. Rudy didn't know this, so he just slammed it shut behind him as he left, but it would have been locked when he first arrived.

Why was there no evidence of someone climbing in?

The defense responds: There was. Here you can find images both of scruff marks on the top of the windowframe just below Filomena's window, and shards removed from the bottom of the broken window and placed on the pane for easier access to the latch within.

I wonder if she regrets trying to frame innocent Patrick and his rights? Doesn't seem so.

The defense responds:

"Initially the American gave a version of events we knew was not correct," Perugia police chief Arturo de Felice told reporters. "She buckled and made an admission of facts we knew were correct and from that we were able to bring them all in. They all participated but had different roles."

This is from the press conference held right after Amanda, Rafaelle and Patrick's arrests. Nov 6, 2007. What does this tell us? It tells us that the police believed the Lumumba-Knox-Sollecito murder theory before Knox was brought into interrogation. When Amanda told them she was home with Rafaelle, she was (in the eyes of the police) giving a version of events they knew was not correct. When they wore her down and she finally told them (in the vaguest of terms) that she and Patrick had been in the house together, she was making an admission of facts they knew were correct!

Amanda was threatened with prison for 30 years, called stupid, slapped and cajoled just so she would say something that wasn't true ("Patrick was the killer") but that the police openly claimed they knew was true.

Why do you think they had 12 officers on site for the interrogation, in the middle of the night? Why Mignini was waiting all night in the building? Why do you think the police went to Patrick's place and dragged him out in his underwear in front of his family (and not, say, call him in for questioning)? Why do you think they immediately paraded the three of them around town as public criminals. Why do you think they held a press conference saying the case was closed before even a speck of forensic evidence had been processed?

Because it wasn't Amanda framing Patrick, it was the police wanting her to accuse him as part of their chosen theory.

On what grounds, you may ask? After all, they had no physical evidence. They had no discrepancies in their stories, no lies that had been caught. Well, let lead investigator Giobbi tell you:

"We were able to establish guilt," said Edgardo Giobbi, the lead investigator, "by closely observing the suspect's psychological and behavioural reaction during the interrogation. We don't need to rely on other kinds of investigation."

Of course, once forensics and Patrick's alibis came back, the police changed their tune. Now it became a gentle conversation over tea and cakes, where Amanda suddenly out of nowhere starts lying just to ensnare poor Patrick. The police had nothing to do with it, of course, just ignore what they said only a few days before...

I also wonder if she was furious with him for demoting her to passing out flyers and asking Meredith to come make drinks there? Was she mad at Meredith too because of this?

The defense responds: It's hard to get mad at something that never happened. It may be something a (understandably) bitter Patrick said in a paid interview with bottom-feeding British tabloid Daily Mail, always eager for a juicy Knox story, but when he was arrested he told the police he had never met Meredith. From the trial:

Question: Listen, how was your relationship with Amanda?

Answer: My relationship, from my point of view was good.

Question: Was it always like that?

Answer: Our personal or work relationship?

Question: Both.

Answer: As a person, honestly, from what I know, we always had a good relationship, but with her as an employee, with her way of working, I had to repeat her tasks to her several times.

Question: Did you have some … Did you have to tell her off on occasion? Did you have some… Did you ever argue?

Answer: No no no no.

Question: Did you ever have to raise your voice, for example?

Answer: No no no never, no no never, because even when these types of things happened, after the customers left and she had neglected to clear a table, what did I do… it’s something that you mustn’t do, I said this like for all staff. I spoke to all employees together to tell them: you have to be careful, when the customers leave, you have to clear up. But saying it directly to her, like that, never.

Does that sound like someone who has been demoted? Or does it sound like a fairly usual work situation? This is Patrick on the stand, by the way, more than a year after the murder, and he has been open about hating her guts in the meantime. So why would he neglect mentioning the demotion and Meredith's potential employment where it could easily be used against her? Unless, say, the whole demotion story wasn't actually true?

Incidentally, at the trial he does admit to having met Meredith:

Question: Listen, and so who introduced you to Meredith?

Answer: I met her through Amanda.


So Patrick too told a lie at the interrogation, probably to save his own *advertiser censored*. And you know what? I don't blame him at all.

By the way do those phone records you mentioned have that drug dealer's name that was on her phone being called both before and after the murder? I bet he REALLY regrets that 'friendship' being that it thrust him into a murder investigation and later cause his arrest/trial.

The defense responds: You'll be disappointed. Perugian police did indeed ask for a tap on the phone of a guy they claimed (baselessly, as far as I can tell) had contacts with Amanda. Federico was his name and his phone number was 389-9647716. Here are the phone records, feel free to check.

Since you are familier with the case/excuses/evidence/behavior/etc could you help with understanding all that 'water leak' stuff? Why would anyone leave water/spill on the floor? Why would a mop be needed on a spill/leak that eventually mostly evaporated?
Would not paper towels/toilet paper or rags/towels do just fine? A mop needed... really? Peculiar all that huh?

The defense responds: Do you do any cleaning in your home? Genuine question, not meant to be sarcastic. Yes, water can leak from pipes. Someone would leave it on the floor by necessity if no other means of wiping it up were available. Yes, a mop would be needed for large amounts of water. It's why they exist, and cleaning staff don't just walk around with toilet paper in their hands. And no, large amounts of water do not evaporate on their own.

This is all very basic stuff. If it had happened in any other context, not a single person would raise an eyebrow.

The Murder of Meredith Kercher

A nice place for some real information so the jury can see facts for themselves.

I prefer this place.

Amanda Knox Case
 
Understood... I feel like we have discussed all this in the past. Deja Vu maybe. No doubt we would/will never agree on this case. Thanks for staying civil.
 
The defense responds: It's always easy in hindsight to say what someone should think or do. But it's also easy to rationalize. The door was known to be faulty. The automatic lock didn't work; you had to use a key for both locking and unlocking. My own apartment door happens to be the same. So if you see the door open when you arrive, there are two things you can assume happened. Either there was a burglary, or someone forgot to lock the door with a key. And if you then enter and it looks completely normal like this, and not a tossed mess, TV and stereo stolen, furniture smashed, etc, it will be very easy to default to the second assumption.



The defense responds: The timeline is off here. Amanda saw the tiny blood spots at her first visit some time just after 11. She didn't know Meredith's door was locked until her return visit with Rafaelle an hour later, when they were looking harder for evidence of a burglary. This is also when they opened Filomena's door, and got confirmation of the break-in.

And obviously at the return visit, they did exactly what you said. They tried Meredith's door, found it locked, Rafaelle tried to force it open, then they called the police, all in a roughly 20 minutes long timespan. Amanda had already called Meredith three times, so she knew it would just go to voicemail.



The defense responds: Actually, Rudy left partial prints from his left shoe, made in Meredith's blood, through the hall. As for the footprints claimed to be from Amanda and Rafaelle, they were tested and confirmed not to be blood. With the presence of Rudy's shoes and the absence of any streaks of cleaning liquid, there is no reason to assume any clean up was made in the apartment. In all likelyhood, these are traces of four young women walking around their flat barefoot in the days preceding the murder.



The defense responds: Actually, as soon as Amanda got really worried, she called Meredith first of all, at 12:07. When it went to voicemail, she called roommate Filomena, and after that tried Meredith two more times (one for each of her phones) with the same result.



The defense responds: Rapists? Maybe not. But for burglars, there was a burglary on October 13th, a few weeks before. A law office in Perugia, the 2nd story window had been smashed by a rock and the burglar had entered through it. Among other things, a laptop was stolen. A couple of weeks later, in Milan, that same burglar was caught red-handed at another break-in, the laptop from the lawyer's office still in the burglar's possession. That burglar's name was Rudy Guede.

So we know there is a burglar active in Perugia with that as one of his methods, and it is the same burglar whose physical evidence was found all over the scene.



The defense responds: All reconstructions of the crime says Meredith wasn't home when Rudy broke in. Rudy broke into empty houses (after his first close call) and took it easy once inside and alone, swiping drinks, using the toilet. Meredith arriving was not something he would have planned for. So Meredith would not have heard or seen anything, probably until it was too late.



The defense responds: I think it's fair to do so when the crime scene techs have proven themselves less than adept at their job. The "bloody" footprints mentioned above? The techs withheld the information that they had tested negative for blood from the defense until half-way through the first trial. And that's just one example. The Supreme Court of Cassation that finally acquitted Amanda and Rafaelle had choice words for how the entire investigation had been performed, so it's not just the defense criticizing.
One issue I have is with the smell. It must have smelled like a slaughterhouse. Door closed or not.

Other issue, why did RS come up with the pricking story? Meredith never came to his house. Or did he bring the knife to the villa?? He was a knife collector though. And carried one.
 
The defense responds: Yes, exactly as he had done at least once before.



The defense responds: The autolock was broken, meaning it had to be locked and unlocked with a key. Rudy didn't know this, so he just slammed it shut behind him as he left, but it would have been locked when he first arrived.



The defense responds: There was. Here you can find images both of scruff marks on the top of the windowframe just below Filomena's window, and shards removed from the bottom of the broken window and placed on the pane for easier access to the latch within.



The defense responds:

"Initially the American gave a version of events we knew was not correct," Perugia police chief Arturo de Felice told reporters. "She buckled and made an admission of facts we knew were correct and from that we were able to bring them all in. They all participated but had different roles."

This is from the press conference held right after Amanda, Rafaelle and Patrick's arrests. Nov 6, 2007. What does this tell us? It tells us that the police believed the Lumumba-Knox-Sollecito murder theory before Knox was brought into interrogation. When Amanda told them she was home with Rafaelle, she was (in the eyes of the police) giving a version of events they knew was not correct. When they wore her down and she finally told them (in the vaguest of terms) that she and Patrick had been in the house together, she was making an admission of facts they knew were correct!

Amanda was threatened with prison for 30 years, called stupid, slapped and cajoled just so she would say something that wasn't true ("Patrick was the killer") but that the police openly claimed they knew was true.

Why do you think they had 12 officers on site for the interrogation, in the middle of the night? Why Mignini was waiting all night in the building? Why do you think the police went to Patrick's place and dragged him out in his underwear in front of his family (and not, say, call him in for questioning)? Why do you think they immediately paraded the three of them around town as public criminals. Why do you think they held a press conference saying the case was closed before even a speck of forensic evidence had been processed?

Because it wasn't Amanda framing Patrick, it was the police wanting her to accuse him as part of their chosen theory.

On what grounds, you may ask? After all, they had no physical evidence. They had no discrepancies in their stories, no lies that had been caught. Well, let lead investigator Giobbi tell you:

"We were able to establish guilt," said Edgardo Giobbi, the lead investigator, "by closely observing the suspect's psychological and behavioural reaction during the interrogation. We don't need to rely on other kinds of investigation."

Of course, once forensics and Patrick's alibis came back, the police changed their tune. Now it became a gentle conversation over tea and cakes, where Amanda suddenly out of nowhere starts lying just to ensnare poor Patrick. The police had nothing to do with it, of course, just ignore what they said only a few days before...



The defense responds: It's hard to get mad at something that never happened. It may be something a (understandably) bitter Patrick said in a paid interview with bottom-feeding British tabloid Daily Mail, always eager for a juicy Knox story, but when he was arrested he told the police he had never met Meredith. From the trial:

Question: Listen, how was your relationship with Amanda?

Answer: My relationship, from my point of view was good.

Question: Was it always like that?

Answer: Our personal or work relationship?

Question: Both.

Answer: As a person, honestly, from what I know, we always had a good relationship, but with her as an employee, with her way of working, I had to repeat her tasks to her several times.

Question: Did you have some … Did you have to tell her off on occasion? Did you have some… Did you ever argue?

Answer: No no no no.

Question: Did you ever have to raise your voice, for example?

Answer: No no no never, no no never, because even when these types of things happened, after the customers left and she had neglected to clear a table, what did I do… it’s something that you mustn’t do, I said this like for all staff. I spoke to all employees together to tell them: you have to be careful, when the customers leave, you have to clear up. But saying it directly to her, like that, never.

Does that sound like someone who has been demoted? Or does it sound like a fairly usual work situation? This is Patrick on the stand, by the way, more than a year after the murder, and he has been open about hating her guts in the meantime. So why would he neglect mentioning the demotion and Meredith's potential employment where it could easily be used against her? Unless, say, the whole demotion story wasn't actually true?

Incidentally, at the trial he does admit to having met Meredith:

Question: Listen, and so who introduced you to Meredith?

Answer: I met her through Amanda.


So Patrick too told a lie at the interrogation, probably to save his own *advertiser censored*. And you know what? I don't blame him at all.



The defense responds: You'll be disappointed. Perugian police did indeed ask for a tap on the phone of a guy they claimed (baselessly, as far as I can tell) had contacts with Amanda. Federico was his name and his phone number was 389-9647716. Here are the phone records, feel free to check.



The defense responds: Do you do any cleaning in your home? Genuine question, not meant to be sarcastic. Yes, water can leak from pipes. Someone would leave it on the floor by necessity if no other means of wiping it up were available. Yes, a mop would be needed for large amounts of water. It's why they exist, and cleaning staff don't just walk around with toilet paper in their hands. And no, large amounts of water do not evaporate on their own.

This is all very basic stuff. If it had happened in any other context, not a single person would raise an eyebrow.



I prefer this place.

Amanda Knox Case
I prefer the Fred's place. The library re Meredith's murder.
 
They were ordered out of the house immediately after finding Meredith. How did Knox know details of the murder, such as the sliced throat?

How come she replied to the questions of the police that she heard it from someone, then from Sollecito specifically who in turn refuted this?
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_2020-05-08-13-55-42.png
    Screenshot_2020-05-08-13-55-42.png
    302.6 KB · Views: 11
I noticed that most of the links in my earlier posts have changed their url; if you click them, change .com to .net and you should get to the pages.

One issue I have is with the smell. It must have smelled like a slaughterhouse. Door closed or not.

Would it? It was less than 24 hours after death and in the late fall at that. Meredith hadn't had time to turn on the heat before she was murdered either. The body would not have begun to smell, so only the blood would have potentially smelled. As for that, apart from Amanda and Raffaele, there were six other people in the apartment. If it's suspicious that Amanda didn't smell anything, well, neither did anyone else, two police officers included.

Other issue, why did RS come up with the pricking story? Meredith never came to his house. Or did he bring the knife to the villa?? He was a knife collector though. And carried one.

Imagine the police coming to your door. You stand there, clueless, as they rummage around your house, take knives from your kitchen and then toss you in jail. Then you hear that one of your kitchen knives had blood from an acquaintance on it, and your DNA on the handle. How would you react? After all, you know that knife has never left your place and you've never killed anyone with it. Would your mind immediately go to the the truth (that the police lab, in their incompetence, made an error)? Or would you try to think of an alternate way that blood got on the blade?

Until you've been in that situation, who's to say. Still, remember Raffale never testified or gave statements about this. It was just thoughts he jotted down in his prison diary. Given that we now know that the kitchen knife wasn't the murder weapon, wouldn't it be weirder if Raffaelle WAS guilty and still wrote that?

They were ordered out of the house immediately after finding Meredith. How did Knox know details of the murder, such as the sliced throat?

How come she replied to the questions of the police that she heard it from someone, then from Sollecito specifically who in turn refuted this?

And yet Luca Altieri, who was one of the people in the cottage, confirms that he not only heard from the police that Meredith's throat had been cut, but also that he had told Raffaele specifically in his car as he drove Amanda, Raffaele and Paola to the police station. So obviously Amanda wasn't the only one who "knew" about that, and Luca's testimony completely backs her story.

From Amanda's book:

The police wouldn’t tell us anything, but Luca and Paola stayed close, trying to read lips and overhear. At one point, Luca told Raffaele what the police had said: “The victim’s throat has been slashed.”

I can't find any info about Raffaele refuting this. Even if he had, it should be clear by now that Amanda's story makes perfect sense and lines up well with the facts.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
90
Guests online
2,802
Total visitors
2,892

Forum statistics

Threads
592,495
Messages
17,969,861
Members
228,789
Latest member
Soccergirl500
Back
Top