u/Glittering_Bed_88

https://youtu.be/Ha0t9kAJ6fo?is=wKjCgDyUSZEVh6oq

I was watching this podcast of Amandas and right at the end, 42:30 her husband starts speaking about who is morally at fault if a child is left to die in a swimming pool.

“a child is drowning in a shallow pool as you walk by. If you do nothing, you're morally at fault because that was a moral duty to help. Whereas if you go out of your way to go help, you didn’t need to do that, right? But we will honor you. as long as you're not hurting anybody I view you as morally neutral. I accord you moral honor for having done so, right? Um same thing with like being a firefighter or something. That's a job that like where you risk your life to help people. And you get paid, you get health insurance, etc., but you also don't get to fault somebody for not choosing to be a firefighter." “ Right.” “Right?" "Right.” So like you don't fault somebody for like being totally devastated by the loss of their child forever and ever." " Right.” “Um but" "if that person is able to come out of that Not a positive influence on society [laughter] out of their out of their hermitage, like that's great and we should encourage that, I think.” “ Sure." "Yeah.“ I'm I'm sure we've pissed some people"

Amanda gets visibly upset during this conversation, and it seems like she is reflecting on a moment where she had the opportunity to step up and do something, perhaps to save someone’s life, but doesn’t.

Well she is clearly upset and tries to change the conversation multiple times by saying “anyway” and moving her neck. She tries to shut the conversation down and move on.

That Amanda think’s if you’re not hurting someone you are morally neutral is perhaps an interesting way how she tries to justify her presence at the house during the murder, but inaction to stop Rudy. Perhaps that’s the story she tells herself. I didn’t kill Meredith, so I am morally neutral. It was Rudy.

The court agrees that Amanda places herself in the kitchen at the crime scene during the murder by her own admission. That she heard the screams and didn’t do anything is perhaps what triggered her so much about this conversation.

There is also (perhaps unconsciously,) an insult here fired at the Kercher family. They acknowledge they have pissed some people off. They aren’t at fault for being totally devastated at the loss of their child, but they are certainly not doing anything positive for society.

Throughout the conversation in general, Amanda insults the Italian court relentlessly by calling them morons and ridicules her crime of calunnia. Her husband who is a little more astute realises perhaps they are listening and apologises on her behalf.

From Amanda knox’s book Free, speaking about her new boyfriend Mike who claimed to have been wrongfully convicted for his crimes.

“A few days later, I met up with an old friend from school who’d moved to New York years ago to pursue a music career. Mike came down from my apartment and saw us chatting on the sidewalk, and he walked right up and slapped my friend across the face. It was like he slapped me, too. In that moment, I realized how bad I had fucked up. I marched Mike back up to my apartment and demanded that he pack his things and leave. He said no. I insisted. His friend, the one who had introduced us, was now living in D.C. “Go stay with him,” I said. I gave him two hundred bucks for a train ticket and said goodbye. Two days later, I came home from work and found Mike sitting on my bed. He had climbed the fire escape and broken into my apartment. I screamed. He grabbed me. I twisted out of his grip and ran. He chased me down four flights of stairs and into the street. I dove into a taxi, pleading, “Go! Drive anywhere! Please!” I couldn’t go to Madison’s apartment. It was too close by, and Mike knew where she lived. I was in a state of panic. I’d fled, leaving the door wide open, and I was worried that my two cats had escaped. The darker side of my imagination worried that Mike would harm them to get back at me. I talked with Madison, and she urged me to call the police, but I was terrified of what would happen if I did. I called my lawyers instead, explained the whole situation, and they confirmed my fears. They were firm: Do not call the police. If I did, the tabloids would find out, and it would be international news that I had shacked up with a guy who’d done time for breaking and entering and who’d been violent toward women. For some reason, it wasn’t until they spelled it out that I realized who Mike truly was. He was not someone who had been victimized by an overzealous justice system, like me. He was a criminal, a con man, a burglar, a liar. . .just like Rudy Guede. Every hair on my body stood on end. If anyone found out about this, it would be a devastating blow to my appeal and any hope of fighting extradition to serve out that 28.5 year sentence in the U.S. I needed help, and I didn’t know what to do. So I called my stepdad back in Seattle. I sobbed into the phone, overwhelmed with shame, but he snapped into action and promised to be on the next red-eye to New York City. When he arrived the following morning, we went back to my apartment together. Aside from my cats who, thankfully, hadn’t escaped, it seemed empty. But then we heard a creak when we walked into the kitchen.”

This passage really got me thinking. By her own admission, Amanda was attracted to, and moved in with, a man who turned out to be a violent criminal, a conman, a burglar, and a liar.

It brings up a heavily debated aspect of the original case: Is it really so implausible that she wasn’t attracted to, or willing to associate with, Rudy Guede?
What do you guys think? Does this show a pattern in her judgment, or is it unfair to connect a later abusive relationship to the events in Perugia?

Hey everyone, I’ve been going down the rabbit hole on this case again, and there’s one specific detail I am seriously struggling to wrap my head around: the mop.

The whole thing feel so off.

1. The Physics of the "Evaporating" Water
This is probably the biggest glaring physical hole for me. According to Raffaele’s prison diary on Nov 7, the floor was flooded the night before:
"She was cleaned up and she had brought me a Vileda mop [mocio Vileda] in order to help me dry the floor around the sink. The previous evening I had placed only a few rags on the floor and they were not sufficient."

So he put a few rags on a flooded floor. Yet, Amanda claimed at trial that by the time she got back with the mop the next morning, it was basically gone:
"When I got back to his house, he was in the bathroom, and I started to clean up the floor in the kitchen, but it was by now almost dry, just a bit of water left because it had evaporated... there still was a bit of water on the ground, but not too much to clean up."

I don't know about you, but water pooling on a hard floor in November doesn't just vanish in the 30-45 minutes she was gone. The fact that she claimed it was suddenly "almost dry" and "largely unnecessary" to mop feels like such a retroactive excuse for why the mop wasn't actually used much at Raffaele's place.

2. Prioritizing Chores Over an Emergency
In her handwritten statement to police on Nov 6, Amanda wrote:
"After we ate Raffaele washed the dishes but the pipes under his sink broke and water flooded the floor. But because he didn't have a mop I said we could clean it up tomorrow because we (Meredith, Laura, Filomena and I) have a mop at home."

Fair enough,wanting to use your own mop makes sense. But here is what defies human instinct: she walks into her shared house to get it, the front door is wide open, there is literally blood on the bathmat, and someone has left feces in the toilet. The normal reaction should be pure panic. You assume the worst, back out, and call the police or your roommates.

Instead, her narrative requires us to believe she saw these terrifying red flags, brushed them off, “took a shower in that same bathroom”, blow-dried her hair, and then prioritized taking this mop back to Raffaele's flat to clean up a spill from the night before instead of calling the police. The total lack of urgency or fear in that moment is incredibly difficult to rationalize.

3. The Mop's Return Journey
This is the visual that really gets me. Amanda finally gets back to Raffaele's flat, tells him about the blood and the open door, and they decide to rush back to her house to check it out. They are supposedly anxious and alarmed. Here is what Raffaele wrote in his diary about getting back to the cottage:
"As soon as we arrived inside the house, I left the mop in the entrance and I went towards the other rooms so I could see what the hell had happened. I remember those moments well because I was agitated and alarmed."

If you are rushing to a potential crime scene or a break-in and are genuinely "agitated and alarmed," you drop everything. You grab your phone, your keys, maybe your partner's hand. You do not grab a wet, bulky Vileda mop to carry with you through the winding streets of Perugia. Dragging cleaning supplies to an emergency makes zero sense.

4. Putting the Bucket Away
Following up on Raffaele's quote about trying to see "what the hell had happened," they are supposedly checking rooms to see if something was stolen or if an intruder is still there.

In the middle of this high-adrenaline, terrifying situation, taking the time to properly stow a mop and bucket in its designated spot is entirely misplaced housekeeping. It shows a level of calm and routine organization that completely contradicts the panic they claimed to be feeling.

I just keep coming back to the fact that none of this holds up to how real people act in an emergency. It feels less like a casual, quirky choice and more like they needed a documented reason for “why” a mop was being shuffled between the two apartments on the exact morning a crime scene was discovered.

Am I missing something here, or does this bother anyone else as much as it bothers me?