Amanda Knox New Motivation Report RE: Meredith Kercher Murder #1 *new trial ordered*

[Katie-L]

Sorry I just can't agree with that.
I think the police wouldn't have gone anywhere near him if he hadn't been mentioned, it was after all still under investigation.
Police officers in all countries investigate leads.
AK gave them a false lead, and was charged and convicted for it.

The "false lead" wasn't spontaneous.

It was told by the police to Amanda until Amanda told it to them back.

Still - there is NO excuse. Police don't put a person in prison or charge them on the basis of word of mouth.

That's supposed to be a foundation principle in modern justice.

If there is evidence to hold or incarcerate someone - they are held (until they're either charged or let go). Holding and charging someone without evidence is inexcusable - in ANY country.

Interrogating someone who's asked for a lawyer (and been denied) - then charging that person for saying what interrogators told her to say....

..... no matter how many times I roll that around in my brain - it just makes me furious.

Seriously - to me - this is the ugliest a justice system can look.

 

[molly333]

Speaking of false confessions... has anyone been watching the new series on the Sundance Channel called Rectify?
if you haven't seen it, watch the preview: http://www.sundancechannel.com/series/rectify/full-episode

The main character, Daniel, (falsely) confessed to the rape/murder of his high school girlfriend. Following her death he exhibited some strange behavior plus there was eyewitness - he was ultimately sentenced to death. The story begins 19 years later when his conviction is vacated due to new dna. On his release, the town is divided and the prosecutor may retry him. The best part though, is watching Daniel acclimate to life outside of prison - it's fascinating.

Damien Echols (West Memphis Three) said the show was too realistic for him - in a review for the Huff Post, regarding Daniel's false confession, he wrote:

Law enforcement and politicians in the show say that despite what DNA testing shows, the lead character would not have confessed if he weren't guilty. That greatly mirrors the sentiments I've heard in the outside world. The reality is that anyone can be so worn down that they'll eventually confess to anything, no matter how strong they believe themselves to be. And it happens all the time -- from people who are killed after confessing to practicing witchcraft, to people sentenced to lethal injection even though the crime scene bears no resemblance to the confession tortured out of them. Huffington Post
​

Even though Amanda never confessed to murdering Meredith, you can see the parallels.

It's hard to accept that people would confess to something they weren't involved in because it seems counter intuitive. Why would someone 'hurt themselves' by confessing to something they did not do. But, apparently it happens often enough to be very concerning. There is another case of a young man who confessed to a crime under extreme pressure by the police, and implicated his young friend as an accomplice. It was all videotaped. When you watch the videotape, it's clear the kid does not know what happened and the police are feeding him all the details of the crime. He later tried to exonerate his friend who had been incarcerated for many years on his false testimony. It's very sad.

Our Founders recognized the dangers inherent here and carefully protected us with the fifth amendment for just this reason--the right not to testify against ourselves. We are very blessed.

nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,--the 5th amendment

IMO

 

[sherlockh]

Is this your personal theory regarding the elbow injuries? Because that's not what the coroner said:

"He then proceeded to describe the two bruised areas present on the left elbow of the victim, and with regard to these, he stated that these were not marks caused by restraining, but hypostatic stains. But since he could not absolutely exclude that they might be bruises stemming from an effort of the victim to defend herself, he noted that the fact that they were present only on the left forearm at the level of the elbow would mean that the forearm remained free, making it difficult to attribute the bruises to the fact of having been restrained."

I believe she did make an effort to defend herself, but failed since she was restrained otherwise it would have been obvious from her defensive wounds. Funny that you quote the coroner. TOD by the coroner 10:50pm.

The following is the header of the section on her injuries from the Massei report:

"The consultants and forensic scientists have asserted that from the point of view of forensic science, it cannot be ruled out that the author of the injuries could have been a single attacker, because the bruises and the wounds from a pointed and cutting weapon are not in themselves incompatible with the action of a single person."

The rest of Massei's logic concerning multiple attackers stems from how he thinks Meredith should have been able to fight back, and should have had more defensive wounds. The flawed logic here, as demonstrated by other posters here and in many other cases, is when threatened with physical and sexual violence it is not unlikely that the victim will either comply or simply go into shock.

You forget the screaming. Meredith didn't comply or went into shock. The evidence shows that. Besides we are not talking about rape here. We are talking about Meredith who was stabbed repeatedly in the neck. You seriously want me to believe that Meredith just stood there letting herself be stabbed in the neck because she complied or was in shock?

The kitchen knife was too big to make most of the wounds, but a smaller knife, the size of the one imprinted on the bed could have made all the wounds.

Yes, the smaller knife could have made all the wounds by using it as a saw. Ridiculous theory that was rejected.

The defense argued simply that a a single attacker could not be ruled out, as others agreed.

I can't rule out that you win the lottery next week. Massei made it pretty clear that this was the most improbable scenario.

 

[sherlockh]

The "false lead" wasn't spontaneous.

It was told by the police to Amanda until Amanda told it to them back.

Still - there is NO excuse. Police don't put a person in prison or charge them on the basis of word of mouth.

That's supposed to be a foundation principle in modern justice.

If there is evidence to hold or incarcerate someone - they are held (until they're either charged or let go). Holding and charging someone without evidence is inexcusable - in ANY country.

Interrogating someone who's asked for a lawyer (and been denied) - then charging that person for saying what interrogators told her to say....

..... no matter how many times I roll that around in my brain - it just makes me furious.

Seriously - to me - this is the ugliest a justice system can look.

How do you know all this? It is like you were present at that interrogation yourself. The 'false lead' was told by Knox as the court documents show. Her boyfriend dropped her alibi, and Knox was in trouble. She doesn't simply deny that her bf was lying and that she was at his apartment. She instead confirms that she was out and was present in the cottage during the murder. However, the police believed she had met someone based on that text message and wanted to know from who that was. Knox can't remember. Of course, the police gets frustrated when Knox refuses to remember a single thing. When Knox finally gives them the name of Patrick and how he raped and murdered Meredith then what is the police supposed to do? Let a murderer walk free till they have time to checkout his alibi? I can understand they arrested him. They had a direct witness account. Knox made up yet another version of the interrogation in her book. The book version is not consistent with the version she told in court. Why would you believe a word of someone who keeps changing her story?

The Amanda Knox Trainwreck: A Major Contradiction Between Knox’s Book And Her Trial Testimony

 

[sherlockh]

Mignini is known to lie. In two different interviews he gives conflicting reasons for why the interrogations weren't taped. But he did state the murder was committed as a "Halloween rite". Satanic or Halloween, both are nutty. The pre-trial judge threw his theory out.

When this has been shown to you in the past, you've tried to write it off as the defense making it up. But it's in Judge Micheli's report!

No, he didn't. Mignini makes a reference to Halloween ('Halloween ritual') since the murder was the day after and some journalist jumps all over the Italian word 'riti'. It is not used in the context of the murder being a rite. It is a reference to the murder being after Halloween. There is nothing 'nutty' about it.

 

[Gecko100]

I've never seen Amanda's name in red letters. It might be something unique to your browser or forum settings. ??

I think you misunderstood what was being said about the wonky science.

Guede was arrested and convicted based on solid DNA evidence, footprints, fingerprints, the works. He was there. He also agrees that he was there and that he committed the crime.

Amanda, Raffaele and Patrick were all arrested based on speculation. There was never ANY evidence at the crime scene (Meredith's bedroom) tying them to the crime in any way.

Patrick was released because he had a solid, verifiable alibi. It was a bad arrest and the investigators knew that.

Amanda and Raffaele were tried based on a fantastical, bizarre theory of the crime that had NO accompanying evidence at all. The theory changed as well. From a cult sacrifice to a demonic orgy to a "sex and drug game gone wrong". Their involvement was attributed to the idea that a single person couldn't possibly have done the crime without help.

Alot of people on this forum are following the Jodi Arias trial. Can you imagine if the prosecutor just decided that there was no way she could have committed such a violent murder alone? Her victim was, after all, stabbed 27 times, shot in the head, and had his throat sliced open - all in under 2 minutes and Arias didn't have more than a few scratches and cuts.

Lets say the prosecutor was in charge of the investigation and decide that all his previous girlfriends were in on it? And that this was an ultimate revenge kill? And that everyone but Arias managed to completely remove all their DNA from the locked bedroom - leaving poor little Jodi to take the fall all on her own?

And lets say he dragged former girlfriends into an interrogation room and yelled at them in French for hours, forcing them to sign a confession - even though none of them spoke more than a few words of French?

Would a US jury find that compelling? Even if the press found it titillating?

Would it be a travesty of justice? Would it be a crime against innocent people?

I think so - and I'm pretty sure that a jury of 12 peers (in a proper jury system) would feel the same.

Yet, it seems there are a few people who believe that Amanda and Raffaele don't deserve the dignity of truth or justice. If they can be blamed - regardless of the logic - they must have done it.

Meanwhile, Meredith's murderer was allowed to appeal his sentence and have it knocked down to a length that will put him back on the streets - still young and still able to do whatever he wants with his own life.

This isn't a case of "if the glove doesn't fit - you must acquit" - it's a case of "if nothing fits, no matter how hard you try to twist it in - you must still find them guilty - along with the guy for whom everything fits".

Lol, you can see the red letters now though, I wonder how it happens, even my posts have turned red!:scared:

 

[Gecko100]

Ok I am officially insane....

 

[Malkmus]

No, he didn't. Mignini makes a reference to Halloween ('Halloween ritual') since the murder was the day after and some journalist jumps all over the Italian word 'riti'. It is not used in the context of the murder being a rite. It is a reference to the murder being after Halloween. There is nothing 'nutty' about it.

Let's look at this in context because you're really trying hard to spin this whole thing so it doesn't seem like Mignini said what he did, despite multiple citations that he did.

The following is a quote in the NY post attributed to Mignini. It is on par with the Micheli report and is a direct quote:

As late as October 2008, a year after the murder, he told a court that the murder “was premeditated and was in addition a ‘rite’ celebrated on the occasion of the night of Halloween. A sexual and sacrificial rite [that] in the intention of the organizers ... should have occurred 24 hours earlier” -- on Halloween itself -- “but on account of a dinner at the house of horrors, organized by Meredith and Amanda’s Italian flatmates, it was postponed for one day.”

Micheli report (Google trans.):

[Mignini], while not asserting, in a co-dir some descriptive imaginative reconstruction of rituals, feasts of Halloween, manga publications and occasions not to be missed, perhaps after a pantomime rehearsal before the Committee malcapi-K

So we have multiple citations that Mignini initially tried to argue that the murder was a Manga-inspired sacrifice in honor of Halloween, but we're supposed to believe that this was just a mistranslation and he just meant to say it occurred after Halloween because... you say so??? No proof to back up your theory? While I and others have offered perfectly legitimate citation as proof, you're only offering personal opinion masquerading as fact that Mignini didn't say these things.

Please cite any credible source for your theory or please stop posting that this is all just some gross misunderstanding.

 

[Malkmus]

I believe she did make an effort to defend herself, but failed since she was restrained otherwise it would have been obvious from her defensive wounds. Funny that you quote the coroner. TOD by the coroner 10:50pm.

He also gave it a window of 8pm to 4am because he didn't take body temperature until 11 hours after the body was found.

You forget the screaming. Meredith didn't comply or went into shock. The evidence shows that. Besides we are not talking about rape here. We are talking about Meredith who was stabbed repeatedly in the neck. You seriously want me to believe that Meredith just stood there letting herself be stabbed in the neck because she complied or was in shock?

Her bruising shows she struggled with Rudy. He overpowered her, likely with her on all fours. I showed you a study that many women go into shock. Again, your incredulity is not a convincing argument.

Yes, the smaller knife could have made all the wounds by using it as a saw. Ridiculous theory that was rejected.

One wound was made wider by plunging the knife repeatedly. What's so hard to believe about that?

I can't rule out that you win the lottery next week. Massei made it pretty clear that this was the most improbable scenario.

Massei also thinks Knox carried around a giant kitchen knife in her purse for protection. Not a smart judge is he. If there had been clear evidence of multiple attackers, such as multiple persons' footprints in the murder room and bruises showing she was restrained from multiple points, a single attacker could be ruled out.

 

[Malkmus]

How do you know all this? It is like you were present at that interrogation yourself. The 'false lead' was told by Knox as the court documents show. Her boyfriend dropped her alibi, and Knox was in trouble. She doesn't simply deny that her bf was lying and that she was at his apartment. She instead confirms that she was out and was present in the cottage during the murder. However, the police believed she had met someone based on that text message and wanted to know from who that was. Knox can't remember. Of course, the police gets frustrated when Knox refuses to remember a single thing. When Knox finally gives them the name of Patrick and how he raped and murdered Meredith then what is the police supposed to do? Let a murderer walk free till they have time to checkout his alibi? I can understand they arrested him. They had a direct witness account. Knox made up yet another version of the interrogation in her book. The book version is not consistent with the version she told in court. Why would you believe a word of someone who keeps changing her story?

The Amanda Knox Trainwreck: A Major Contradiction Between Knox’s Book And Her Trial Testimony

This whole assessment is, as usual, revolving around her inability to recount everything that was said during her interrogation verbatim and in the exact order it happened. You know what would clarify that? A recording.

 

[Gecko100]

Not that I've heard. Do you have a link?

No, but the book has been banned in Europe because of her allegations, and she faces possible further charges, for lying again, and so does RS.
It's madness to publish a book in the middle of a trial, and it says a lot about exploitation and focus. They had only known Meredith Kercher for one month the same as the other residents of the house in Perugia, and their relationship was deteriorating.
No-one discusses the length/amount of questioning the other residents experienced, and they had no complaints.
I believe Filomena was also rigorously questioned for long periods of time too, and has said nothing about it.
Ms AK and Mr RS are in it up to their ears.

 

[Malkmus]

No, but the book has been banned in Europe because of her allegations, and she faces possible further charges, for lying again, and so does RS.(snipped)

It wasn't banned. The publisher chose not to release it in the UK.

An irony is that Waiting to be Heard won’t actually be heard in the UK. The book has been published around the world, but not here because of our absurd libel laws. There were fears that Knox’s acerbic comments about Italian prosecutors would prove libellous. (In February Mignini sued Sollecito for defamation after the publication of his book Honour Bound.) Britain used to pride itself on being a bastion of free speech, but our libel laws force publishers to be cautious. It’s nothing compared to the injustice of Kercher’s death and – depending on your point of view – Knox’s imprisonment, but the book’s non-publication shows that here, too, the law is often an *advertiser censored*.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/10049975/Waiting-to-be-Heard-by-Amanda-Knox-review.html

 

[sherlockh]

Let's look at this in context because you're really trying hard to spin this whole thing so it doesn't seem like Mignini said what he did, despite multiple citations that he did.

The following is a quote in the NY post attributed to Mignini. It is on par with the Micheli report and is a direct quote:

Micheli report (Google trans.):

So we have multiple citations that Mignini initially tried to argue that the murder was a Manga-inspired sacrifice in honor of Halloween, but we're supposed to believe that this was just a mistranslation and he just meant to say it occurred after Halloween because... you say so??? No proof to back up your theory? While I and others have offered perfectly legitimate citation as proof, you're only offering personal opinion masquerading as fact that Mignini didn't say these things.

Please cite any credible source for your theory or please stop posting that this is all just some gross misunderstanding.

I already gave the proof. Direct quotes from Mignini in an interview with CNN. He blamed the journalist for making it up. That you believe the journalist and for some reason want to make Mignini a liar is your problem. That doesn't make it true. Mignini claimed it also in a letter to Linda Byron.

About the “sacrificial rite” issue, I have never stated that Meredith Kercher was the victim of a “sacrificial rite”. It should be sufficient to read the charges to understand that the three defendants have been accused of having killed Ms Kercher in the course of activities of a sexual nature, which are notoriously very different from a “sacrificial rite”.

http://truejustice.org/ee/documents/perugia/MigniniByron.pdf

You are mistranslating the Micheli report. Ask an Italian what he means. He is talking about 'Halloween rituals'. In other words, Micheli didn't think Halloween had anything to do with the murder. I don't understand why anyone would seriously consider that an experienced prosecutor would come up with a line like 'a Manga-inspired sacrifice in honor of Halloween'. Some people have a weird imagination of Italy and Italians I suppose.

 

[Malkmus]

I already gave the proof. Direct quotes from Mignini in an interview with CNN. He blamed the journalist for making it up. That you believe the journalist and for some reason want to make Mignini a liar is your problem. That doesn't make it true. Mignini claimed it also in a letter to Linda Byron.

In the CNN interview he says he never said it was a satanic ritual. Regardless, he's lied about other things, so I can see why he's covering his butt in the interview.

You are mistranslating the Micheli report. Ask an Italian what he means. He is talking about 'Halloween rituals'.

If you're going to say I'm mistranslating it then you should be able to translate it yourself. Please explain why Micheli is talking about Mignini making an "imaginative reconstruction of rituals, feasts of Halloween, manga publications".

In other words, Micheli didn't think Halloween had anything to do with the murder.

Why would he mention it unless someone thought Halloween did have something to do with it?

I don't understand why anyone would seriously consider that an experienced prosecutor would come up with a line like 'a Manga-inspired sacrifice in honor of Halloween'. Some people have a weird imagination of Italy and Italians I suppose.

Micheli wrote it.

Basically, there are multiple citations of this, and Mignini back-pedaling to say it wasn't satanic doesn't change that he initially said it was a murder in accordance with Halloween rituals. It doesn't make much sense that he would sue everyone under the sun for defamation but let this biggest one go untouched.

 

[sherlockh]

He also gave it a window of 8pm to 4am because he didn't take body temperature until 11 hours after the body was found.

More specifically 10:50pm

Her bruising shows she struggled with Rudy. He overpowered her, likely with her on all fours. I showed you a study that many women go into shock. Again, your incredulity is not a convincing argument.

The study talked about rape cases. Not stabbing victims. Nobody would let that happen. It is a natural reflex. Everybody would try to defend themselves. Look at real one on one fights such as Ron Goldman (O.J. Simpson), or Stephany Flores (J. vd Sloot). Horrible defensive wounds.

One wound was made wider by plunging the knife repeatedly. What's so hard to believe about that?

In exactly the same spot while Meredith was trying to get away? That is very hard to believe IMO.

Massei also thinks Knox carried around a giant kitchen knife in her purse for protection. Not a smart judge is he.

How do you know it wasn't Knox that carried the knife around? Somebody must have brought it to the cottage.

If there had been clear evidence of multiple attackers, such as multiple persons' footprints in the murder room and bruises showing she was restrained from multiple points, a single attacker could be ruled out.

Massei report

It seems inevitable that it must be considered that the criminal action was carried out by several people acting together against Meredith

Furthermore, it is impossible to imagine in what way a single person could have removed the clothes that Meredith was wearing (shoes, pants and underwear), and using the violence revealed by the vaginal swab, could have caused the resulting bruises and wounds recalled above, as well as removing her sweatshirt, pulling up her shirt, forcing the bra hooks before tearing and cutting the bra.

In order to maintain such a hypothesis (action performed by a single attacker), Professor Introna suggested that Meredith was undressing, and thus when her attacker arrived, she had already removed her own shoes, pants and underwear; the attacker would have come up from behind, thus taking her by surprise. But this reconstruction appears unrealistic, as we have seen.

it seems inexplicable unless it is admitted that several attackers were present, with a distribution of tasks and roles: either holding Meredith and preventing her from any significant defensive reaction, or actually performing the violent actions

Such a situation seems inexplicable if one does not accept the presence of more than one attacker who, holding the girl, strongly restrained her movements and struck her on the right and on the left because of the position of each of the attackers with respect to her, by which it was easier to strike her from that side.

But but...he doesn't rule out a single attacker!

 

[kwmred]

I believe there was only one attacker. There is no "evidence" to the contrary. Seems to me that the Italians don't have much use for actual evidence.

 

[sherlockh]

In the CNN interview he says he never said it was a satanic ritual. Regardless, he's lied about other things, so I can see why he's covering his butt in the interview.

Lied about what? Is this like saying the forensic expert lied about not doing a blood test and then claiming the Luminol evidence is useless because they didn't do a blood test?

If you're going to say I'm mistranslating it then you should be able to translate it yourself. Please explain why Micheli is talking about Mignini making an "imaginative reconstruction of rituals, feasts of Halloween, manga publications".

Why would he mention it unless someone thought Halloween did have something to do with it?

Micheli wrote it.

Basically, there are multiple citations of this, and Mignini back-pedaling to say it wasn't satanic doesn't change that he initially said it was a murder in accordance with Halloween rituals. It doesn't make much sense that he would sue everyone under the sun for defamation but let this biggest one go untouched.

This is now completely different than claiming the murder was a satanic rite or sacrifice or whatever. Micheli rejected the Halloween elements, but it is not so strange to consider that Halloween elements could have played a role in whatever lead up to the murder. It was the day after Halloween after all.

Micheli rejected the manga comics element, but Massei didn't. He mentioned it because it showed Sollecito had an interest in images of sexual violence.

It was mostly defence lawyers who put these words in Mignini's mouth, and then journalists who picked up on that.

While Mignini didn't use the term "Satanic ritual" in court, he alluded to it by noting that additional factors in the slaying included drug use and cultural connections to Halloween. "He framed it in a way that suggested there was a sect element to it," Guede's attorney, Valter Biscotti, told the Seattle P-I.

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Knox-case-takes-new-twist-33-million-sought-1288815.php

 

[minazoe]

okay so I keep asking myself this , so in an effort to find the truth, I hope no one is offended...but i feel like amanda has still not adequately explained her wrongful imprisonment of her boss,

she could for instance say her decision was based on his race, and that she thought they would believe that a black man had done this...which they did...

so maybe if she could be truthful, then she could be believed, but I am having problems with her, even tho I was a staunch defender....

she is annoyingly difficult...no one can know or understand her pain, in ths she is above and beyond others,

she had to defend herself in prison by throwing up her hands and yelling "I am not attacking you"

really? in prison here, that will just get you your teeth knocked out...I know it was so traumatic....for her, being forced to talk about sex in italian.

I think " I am not attacking you "sounds like something Merideth could have said.

I didn't like amanda in the interview, I didin't like her angelic self important suffering routine...

and the way she stalled, about her hands, even though she made no attempt to cover all the scabs and broken skin.

she should say she got what she deserved for implicating Lumbada

 

[molly333]

I looked at this case closely way back when it was first beginning and up until Amanda was given her long sentence. Shortly after that, it was too painful for me to keep up with it, and I have forgotten a lot of the particulars.

But, at the time, it became clear to me that this was a simple burglary gone wrong. I think that Rudy was planning to rob the house that night because I think he expected the house to be empty with all the roommates gone for the holidays. He was in the process of leaving his usual calling card in the bathroom when Meredith unexpectedly walked in. I was interested to see someone here suggest that Meredith locked the door, locking him in. That was something I hadn't thought of before. If that is the case, perhaps Rudy wasn't intending on killing anyone that night, if he could have escaped unseen.

Unfortunatly, Meredith would have recognized him as he had occassionally visited the boys downstairs [maybe to deal drugs? I can't remember why]. This would mean he would either do time for burglary or need to silence her. If Amanda had walked in instead, she, too, would likely have been killed.

The police arrested Raffeale and Amanda before they figured out that the one person they had forensic evidence on was Rudy. By the time they realized it was Rudy, they had already concocted this crazy theory involving sex, threesomes, a loose American girl, and--I can't remember--but wasn't witchcraft and demons thrown in there somewhere? Anyway, the fewer the forensics the more complicated the crime theory, it seems. And, the crime theory always gives an insight into the mind of the prosecutor when it is not based on evidence. Foxy Noxy--a harmless childhood nickname--became fodder for the tabloids. Everyone loves a good story.

Now I am revisiting this, and am very grateful that Amanda has finally been released. I read her and Raffeale's books in my sleep--both great books and highly recommended. And, I am beginning the Monster of Perugia and the Monster of Florence.

Although I know I will not live long enough to understand the Italian system of justice, the counterpoint to ours makes us look like geniuses. Justice should be blind, and to that end, all high profile juries should be sequestered, but, other than that, God Bless this great country of ours.

IMO

 

[Sigh Sister]

I looked at this case closely way back when it was first beginning and up until Amanda was given her long sentence. Shortly after that, it was too painful for me to keep up with it, and I have forgotten a lot of the particulars.

But, at the time, it became clear to me that this was a simple burglary gone wrong. I think that Rudy was planning to rob the house that night because I think he expected the house to be empty with all the roommates gone for the holidays. He was in the process of leaving his usual calling card in the bathroom when Meredith unexpectedly walked in. I was interested to see someone here suggest that Meredith locked the door, locking him in. That was something I hadn't thought of before. If that is the case, perhaps Rudy wasn't intending on killing anyone that night, if he could have escaped unseen.

Unfortunatly, Meredith would have recognized him as he had occassionally visited the boys downstairs [maybe to deal drugs? I can't remember why]. This would mean he would either do time for burglary or need to silence her. If Amanda had walked in instead, she, too, would likely have been killed.

The police arrested Raffeale and Amanda before they figured out that the one person they had forensic evidence on was Rudy. By the time they realized it was Rudy, they had already concocted this crazy theory involving sex, threesomes, a loose American girl, and--I can't remember--but wasn't witchcraft and demons thrown in there somewhere? Anyway, the fewer the forensics the more complicated the crime theory, it seems. And, the crime theory always gives an insight into the mind of the prosecutor when it is not based on evidence. Foxy Noxy--a harmless childhood nickname--became fodder for the tabloids. Everyone loves a good story.

Now I am revisiting this, and am very grateful that Amanda has finally been released. I read her and Raffeale's books in my sleep--both great books and highly recommended. And, I am beginning the Monster of Perugia and the Monster of Florence.
Although I know I will not live long enough to understand the Italian system of justice, the counterpoint to ours makes us look like geniuses. Justice should be blind, and to that end, all high profile juries should be sequestered, but, other than that, God Bless this great country of ours.

IMO

The Monster of Florence is a good read. It gives a lot of insight into the mind of Mignini and some of the differences between American and Italian cultures. When I learned that Mignini was also involved in the MK murder case, I looked at the prosecution and conviction of AK and RS with new eyes. Based solely on news coverage, I originally thought that they probably were somehow involved. I then read the Monster of Perugia and was appalled! I am absolutely convinced that they are innocent. Mignini is a hardcore conspiracy theorist, and it is clear to me that a wild theory of the murder was concocted before the evidence was evaluated. And because "salvare la faccia", saving face, is a big part of the Italian consciousness, we will never hear him say, "I was wrong". (For the record, I am not criticizing Italians overall, just simply stating what I have learned about the culture.)

I just finished AK's book and found it compelling and started reading RS's yesterday. I can't believe that this nightmare isn't over for them.

(I've lurked quite a bit on this thread, but have hesitated to post as it can get rather heated in here. :seeya