u/Own_Train_2889

This is a long post but bear with me. It’s worth reading to the end.

Part 1: The Context of the Day (November 1st)

What Meredith Knew About Her Roommates
Because November 1st was a public holiday (All Saints' Day), the Italian roommates had made plans. Based on the established timeline, Meredith would have expected to be the only one home when she returned later that evening.

Regarding Laura Mezzetti: Meredith almost certainly knew Laura was out of town. Laura had planned a trip to visit her family in Montefiascone for the long weekend. Because this was a pre-planned, multi-day holiday trip, her absence was established common knowledge in the house. Meredith would have last seen Laura on October 31st or very early on November 1st.

Regarding Filomena Romanelli: Meredith knew Filomena was leaving the cottage for a local holiday festival with her boyfriend, Marco. While it is unconfirmed in the court record if Filomena explicitly told Meredith she would not be returning to sleep there that night, Meredith's own plans for the evening were likely influenced by the fact that the house would be empty.

The Kitchen Conversation & The "Implausibility" Argument
Sometime in the early afternoon of November 1st, Amanda and Meredith had a conversation in the kitchen.
Amanda's Account (Nov 4 Email): > "I got home and she was still asleep, but after i had taken a shower and was fumbling around the kitchen she emerged from her room with the blood of her costume (vampire) still dripping down her chin. We talked for a while in the kitchen, how the night went, what our plans were for the day. Nothing out of the ordinary."

The Argument: It is highly implausible that in discussing their plans for the day, Meredith didn’t tell Amanda that she knew both Laura and Filomena were out for the night. Because Meredith’s plans were influenced by the fact her friends were out, she likely would have mentioned it. Furthermore, if Amanda told Meredith her own plans to stay at Raffaele's apartment, Meredith would have explicitly known she was going to be home alone that evening, making it highly likely this was communicated between the two of them during their chat.

Part 2: The Morning Discoveries & Door Inconsistencies (November 2nd)

When examining Amanda and Raffaele’s statements regarding the status of the doors on the morning of the discovery, significant contradictions emerge. The narrative surrounding Filomena's door, in particular, shifts dramatically depending on who is telling the story and which visit is being described.

The Timeline of Filomena's Door

State: Closed. Amanda stated in her Nov 2nd deposition and Nov 4th email that she saw Filomena's door closed, using this to justify her assumption that Filomena was inside sleeping.

State: Ajar. In Raffaele's Nov 2nd deposition, he stated that Amanda explicitly told him the door had previously been ajar (partially open) to excuse why she couldn't see clearly inside to notice the ransacked room.

2. The Return Visit (Approx. 1:00 PM) When Amanda and Raffaele returned to the cottage together.

State: Closed (and opened by Amanda). Amanda claimed in her Nov 2nd deposition that the door was closed when they arrived, stating under oath: "First I opened the door to Filomena's room," at which point she claimed they discovered the broken window together.

State: Closed (and opened by Raffaele). Contradicting Amanda's deposition, Raffaele wrote in his memoir, Honor Bound, that the door was closed, but he was the one who physically pushed it open.

State: Wide Open. Contradicting both his own later book and Amanda's deposition, Raffaele's initial Nov 2nd statement claimed that when they entered the apartment, Filomena's door was already completely "wide open."

Part 3: The Evidence

1. "Furthermore, the room used by Filomena had the door wide open, it was in disarray and had the window completely open... Amanda seeing this, told me that she had not noticed this previously as the door of the aforementioned room was ajar and did not allow her to see what was inside."
2. Raffaele’s Book, Honor Bound:
3. "...Amanda also found Meredith's door closed, which was unusual. She knocked, but nobody answered. Was she asleep? Or away? Amanda didn't quite know what to think." (He later states in the text that it was he who ultimately opened Filomena's door upon their return).

"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. I think I saw Amanda take the mop bucket and carry it to another room. The first thing I noticed was that Filomena's (called Molli) room had the door wide open."

There is no excuse for Raffaelle misremembering this. He himself says he remembers those moments well. His memory is not to blame for the inconsistencies here. Raffaelle tells us so himself.

Part 4: The Logical Contradictions

To believe Amanda’s narrative of that morning, one must accept a highly convoluted series of behaviors and a physical anomaly regarding the doors:

The "Knock but don't check" Logic Gap: According to Raffaele's book, Amanda knocked on Meredith's door during her first visit. This means she was actively inquiring about the status of the room and was prepared to wake up a sleeping person. Yet, after making a noise explicitly intended to wake Meredith up and getting no response, she did not try the handle to see if it was locked.

The Special Treatment of Doors: Amanda claims she found blood, feces, and an open front door. If Filomena's door was also closed (as Amanda initially claimed), why did she knock on Meredith's door to check on her, but completely ignore Filomena's and Lauras? That she ignored their rooms shows that she doesn’t think there is a possibility that Filomena, or Laura, are in the house sleeping. So why does she think Meredith is both sleeping and outside the house? She thinks Meredith is asleep, therefore there is no other person who Amanda thinks could have gone to take the trash out. This is the moment where the alarm should have been raised that there was a break in. Instead, Amanda proceeds to the small bathroom, sees all the blood, thinks it’s both Meredith’s period blood and that there has been an accident simultaneous, but then proceeds to use the bathmat to sashay to her bedroom and back. Or doesn’t, depending on which version of the story she tells.

The "Ajar" Contradiction: Raffaele claimed Filomena's door was wide open when they returned, and that Amanda excused her earlier failure to notice the ransacked room by saying the door had previously been ajar. If the door was ajar, it means Amanda thought Filomena had the potential to be awake. Why inquire about a closed door where she assumes someone is asleep, but ignore an ajar door while actively investigating an alarming scene?

The Quantum State of Filomena's Door: Ultimately, for their combined narrative to work, Filomena’s door must exist in a quantum state of being simultaneously closed (Amanda's deposition), ajar (Amanda's excuse to Raffaele), and wide open (Raffaele's discovery), while also being simultaneously opened by Amanda, opened by Raffaele, and already open on its own. If the door was open when Amanda first when in to the flat, she would have seen the broken window and immediately understood there was a burglary and raised the alarm, which she didn’t do. So the state of Filomena’s door is incredibly important to Amanda’s narrative that she is telling the truth. Because if she saw the door open and didn’t raise the alarm, it is damning.

Both of them have managed to cover every hypothetical state of the door. There is nothing left out (apart from Amanda seeing it wide open, either time, hmmmm)

The conclusion

Someone is lying about something.

Either the door to Filomena’s room was open, and Amanda saw the broken window and lied about it, or Raffaelle lied about the door being open (He can’t have misremembered because of his paticularly good memory that morning according to him).

Amanda is lying about opening the door, or Raffaelle is lying about opening the door.

Raffaelle is lying about finding the door open or closed.

Amanda prioritises doing her hair in a bathroom with a big smelly sh*t in it, than investigating and knocking on other doors, or calling the police or her friends mobiles.

At no point while she is in the house, or walking back to Raffaelle’s, or mopping up Raffaelle’s floor, or eating breakfast with Raffaelle, does she consider to

1. Call the police
2. Call Meredith
3. Call Filomena
4. Call Laura

When she returns with Raffaelle, she is incredibly thorough in her search of the rooms and does a sweep through every single one. Why didn’t she do it before?

IT. IS. A. LIE!!

Case closed. Amanda and Raffaelle are both liars, and the only concieveable reason they would be lying is to protect themselves in this situation because they were present during the murder.

I was reading Honour Bound and this passage strikes me as very strange. Sollecito has always maintained his complete innocence in the Meredith Kercher case. However, here he describes joining in on the mockery and degradation of other inmates, some of whom committed truly heinous acts.

From Honour Bound

“I never felt at home in prison—how could I?—but I did slowly get used to its strange rhythms and peculiarities. Where once I was appalled by the jokes and the not-so-subtle threats my fellow inmates made at each other's expense, I found myself beginning to join in. One of the most pathetic figures in the section was a man convicted of raping a number of wheelchair-bound women. He was short and stubby and covered in tattoos, and we knew him only by his last name, Pozzi. Mostly, we steered well clear, but one day one of the transsexuals decided to jump on a food trolley and have himself wheeled past Pozzi as a sexual offering. "Don't worry," the transsexual said, "I can't move my legs!"
Another contemptible inmate was an old man with no teeth who had brutally raped a ten-year-old boy in his basement and stuck a broomstick up his anus. We never let him forget it. "Hey," people would call out when he passed, "do you have a broom I could borrow?" I even did it myself once. Not my proudest moment.
I had the creepy feeling, when I thought on it, that I was slowly turning into one of them.”

Why does Raffaelle feel like he is slowly turning in to a bunch of convicted rapists, and sex obsessed transsexuals?

Is this a "tell"? Does the admission that he could "turn into one of them" suggest that his personality is more malleable or dark than he portrays?

My question is: Why does he feel he is "slowly turning into" them? If his innocence was his core identity, why would he feel that it wasn't enough to protect his own moral compass from being eroded by his surroundings? Does this suggest a lack of internal moral consistency, or is he just being uncomfortably honest about the reality of prison culture?

What does the Supreme Court ruling really say?

1. It places Amanda and Raffaelle in the house, at the time of the murder.

"...her presence inside the house, the location of the murder, is a proven fact in the trial, in accord with her own admissions, also contained in the memoriale with her signature, in the part where she tells that, as she was in the kitchen... she heard a harrowing scream from her friend, so piercing and unbearable that she let herself down squatting on the floor, covering her ears tight with her hands..."

2. Amanda came in to contact with Meredith’s blood and TRIED TO WASH IT AWAY.

"Another element against her is the mixed DNA traces, her and the victim's one, in the 'small bathroom', an eloquent proof that anyway she had come into contact with the blood of the latter, which she tried to wash away from herself..."

3. Amanda is guilty of calunnia and accusing Patrick of rape and murder was a deliberate cover up tactic.

"...the said calunnia is another circumstantial element against the current appellant, insofar as it can be considered a strategy in order to cover up for Mr. Guede, whom she had an interest to protect because of fear of retaliatory accusations against her."

4. Amanda Knox was protecting Rudy Guede by accusing Patrick of rape and murder.

"...the said calunnia is another circumstantial element against the current appellant, insofar as it can be considered a strategy in order to cover up for Mr. Guede, whom she had an interest to protect because of fear of retaliatory accusations against her."

5. The physical anomalies of the break in strongly pointed to a staged burglary, but it could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

"...the staging of a theft in Romanelli's room, which she is accused of, is also a relevant point within an incriminating picture, considering the elements of strong suspicion... a staging, which can be linked to someone who - as an author of the murder and a flatmate [titolare] with a formal ['qualified'] connection to the dwelling - had an interest to steer suspicion away from himself/herself..."

6. Amanda is a liar, not just inconsistent. Note, lies plural. Not one lie. Not just about the weed. Lies.

"Elements of strong suspicion are also in the inconsistencies and lies which the suspect woman committed over the statements she released on various occasions..."

7. Because the Court was certain Knox was at the house, they found it highly unlikely that Sollecito was not right there with her.

On the other hand, since the presence of Ms. Knox inside the house is sure, it is hardly credible that he was not with her."
"Not doing this [calling him for help] signifies Sollecito was with her... It remains anyway strong the suspicion that he was actually in the Via della Pergola house the night of the murder..."

8. The Failure of Raffaelle’s Electronic Alibi:

The defense claimed Sollecito was using his computer during the murder, but the Court noted this alibi fell completely flat.

"An umpteenth element of suspicion is the basic failure of the alibi linked to other, claimed human interactions in the computer of his belongings, albeit if we can't talk about false alibi, since it's more appropriate to speak about unsuccessful alibi."

So, what do we have after all of this?

Amanda Knox is a criminal, a liar who protected a murderer. Raffaelle is also a liar, who protected a murderer. In the U.S. or U.K., Amanda would be guilty of the following:

Accessory After the Fact: This is the most common charge for someone who knows a crime has been committed and takes active steps to help the perpetrator avoid arrest, trial, or punishment. Actions can include hiding the perpetrator, giving them money to flee, or helping them dispose of a weapon.

Obstruction of Justice: This involves intentionally interfering with the work of police, investigators, or prosecutors. Examples include destroying evidence, cleaning or staging a crime scene, or repeatedly lying to investigators to misdirect them.

https://www.themurderofmeredithkercher.net/docupl/filelibrary/docs/motivations/2015-03-27-Motivations-Cassazione-Marasca-Bruno-annulling-murder-conviction-Knox-Sollecito-translation-TJMK.pdf

What do Rudy Guede, Amanda Knox, Nara Capezzali and Antonella Monacchia all have in common?

They all heard a scream.

Nara Capezzali: This witness testified to hearing a woman's scream around 11:00 or 11:30 PM that was "heart rending," "unusual," "long," and "single". She stated that the scream was so distressing it made it difficult for her to go back to sleep. 
Antonella Monacchia: This witness testified that she went to sleep around 10:00 PM and was later awakened by an animated discussion between a man and a woman. Shortly after, she heard a "very loud," "sharp" woman's scream coming from below, in the direction of via della Pergola. 

Amanda Knox's Handwritten Statement
In a handwritten letter written in English, Amanda Knox recounted crouching in the kitchen and covering her ears with her hands so that she would not hear her friend's screams. 
Although Knox framed this experience as being dream-like and stated she was unsure if it actually happened, the document notes her admission of hearing the victim's scream. 
Rudy Guede's Account
During a chat with his friend Giacomo Benedetti, Rudy Guede reported hearing an "unbearable scream". Guede claimed this scream is what prompted him to come out of the bathroom. 

The First Instance Court's Evaluation
The First Instance Court utilized the testimonies of the witnesses who heard the scream to help establish the timeline, placing the time of death at approximately 11:30 PM. 
The court deduced that the attackers covered the victim's mouth specifically to prevent her from repeating the initial scream heard by the neighbors. 
Pathology findings indicated that the victim suffered asphyxia from choking and suffocation, which the court believed occurred following the scream. 

The Hellmann Court of Appeal's Evaluation
The second instance court (Hellmann Court) dismissed the scream as a reliable indicator of the time of death. They argued that the witnesses were imprecise about the timing and that the scream was not linked to an objective fact. 
The Hellmann Court suggested the witnesses may have simply confused the "heart-breaking scream" with the general noise or "racket" made by young people in the nearby square. 
Consequently, this court favored an earlier time of death (before 10:15 PM) based on cell phone activity and Guede's chat, ignoring the later scream. 

The Supreme Court and Prosecutor General's Critique
The Prosecutor General argued that the Hellmann Court's dismissal of the scream was highly illogical. They pointed out that the women who heard the scream were credible and reliable witnesses. 
The Supreme Court noted that it was "jarring" for the lower court to dismiss the testimonies about the scream, especially considering Amanda Knox had written about the "heart-rending scream" before that information was even available to the public. 

The Supreme Court concluded that disregarding the concordant testimonies of independent witnesses regarding the scream in favor of an alternative timeline contradicted post-mortem findings and relied on the statements of an unreliable witness (Guede).

Amanda heard the scream. She was there. The Supreme Court says so. Disagree with them? Well, stuff your face with a big bag of Cheetos.

Dear moderators. For the sake of free speech, please let this post stay up. I will reduce posting frequency. I believe it is an important post. The figures are approximations.

So Rudy, after picking the worst window in the house to break in to, makes an absolutely heroic superman leap up to Filomena’s window, without leaving any traces, fingerprints, or being seen by any potential passersby.

He enters Filomena’s room, sees the following and leaves it. Why did he leave it? If he were a professional burglar like some on this forum are making out, he would have brought a bag to put items into.

High-Value Electronics
Four Laptops (Romanelli, Knox, Kercher, and potentially Mezzetti): In 2007, standard Windows laptops (like the Toshiba often cited in the case files) or entry-level MacBooks cost between €600 and €1,200 each.

Estimated Total for 4 Laptops:*** ***€2,400 to €4,800

Filomena Romanelli's Digital Camera: A standard digital "point-and-shoot" camera (such as a Casio Exilim) in 2007 cost roughly €150 to €300.
The Common Room Television: A standard flat TV in a student apartment at that time (likely an older, heavy CRT model or a smaller, early LCD) would have been worth €100 to €300.

Personal Valuables & Accessories

Romanelli's Jewelry: While highly variable depending on the pieces, a young professional/student's jewelry box could conservatively be estimated at €100 to €500+.
Designer Sunglasses: Brand-name designer sunglasses in Italy typically retailed for €100 to €250.
Designer/Brand Name Clothing: Several items of quality clothing pulled from the drawers but left behind. Conservative estimate: €200 to €500+.
The Money Box (Small Change): Likely contained between €20 and €50 in coins and small bills.
Amanda Knox's Desk Lamp: Negligible value, roughly €15 to €30.

Total Estimated Value Left Behind
If an intruder had taken the time to pack up and steal all of these items, which were either right in front of them or easily accessible within the apartment, the total haul would have been worth roughly €3,100 to €6,700 (approximately $4,500 to $9,500 USD in 2007).

The Stolen Items Comparison:
Instead of taking thousands of euros worth of goods, the burglar walked away with:
Meredith's rent money (€300)
Two credit cards (canceled before they could be used)
Two mobile phones (dumped in a nearby garden shortly after) 

In terms of percentage value of what Rudy took, it sits somewhere at 10% of the total value in the property.

Instead of taking the remaining 90%, according to the burglar theory, Rudy decides rather than put the laptops in to a bag, like a burglar would, to go to the fridge, drink some juice, and then take a big **** in the toilet.

After taking a big **** in the toilet, he comes out, rapes and kills Meredith, THEN and ONLY THEN decides to steal something. So in other words, STEALING IS NOT HIS PRIORITY.

Why? Because he only took what was in Meredith’s room, and from Meredith’s person. E.G. Meredith’s stuff.

When Rudy is in the house, he is not in burglar mode. He is relaxed. Drinking juice, taking a big ****. Burglars do not normally drink juice and **** in toilets.

They are on a time sensitive mission to steal as much as possible. His actions show his priorities.

He could have placed the laptops in his bag, but instead he beelines for the fridge and the toilet.

Eating, ****ing, raping, murdering, AND THEN, and ONLY AFTER MURDERING, stealing.

The order of Rudy’s actions show his priority.

In order to believe Amanda’s story, you have to believe the following.

That Amanda thinks Meredith has left the door to the house open because she is taking out the trash.

Amanda simultaneously thinks that Meredith is asleep in her room.

If Amanda thinks Meredith is asleep in her room, the justification for the front door being open not being alarming because she thinks Meredith is taking the trash out is redundant.

Amanda enters the house, and shouts “is anyone here?”. Amanda is shouting in the house and making noise to wake people up.

She doesn’t lock the door because she thinks someone has popped out to take the rubbish and go get something.

She notices Meredith’s door is closed, which to her “meant she was sleeping.”

Raffaelle testifies that Amanda found “Meredith's door closed, which was unusual. She knocked, but nobody answered.”

So right there, we have Amanda thinking someone (or Meredith) is out the house, potentially getting cigarettes, potentially downstairs, and potentially taking the trash out. And simultaneously, that Meredith is asleep, despite the fact that Amanda has made TWO LOUND NOISES at this point. She has shouted out to alert people if anyone is there, and she has knocked on Meredith’s door.

Nor does she check Meredith’s door is locked (despite knocking on it, and making loud noises to wake people up, nor does she try to open Filomena’s door despite it being a quantum mess of both closed, ajar, and wide open)

Amanda can’t believe Meredith is both asleep, and that Meredith is outside the house.

She is lying.

Why is all of this so important? Because of the failure to raise the alarm before Raffaelle in the 1 hour and 52 minutes after discovering the crime scene. If she had known there was a supposed “burglary”, she should have called the police immediately. But instead we get this quantum mess of possibilities (it was Meredith’s period blood or Meredith had an accident, Meredith was asleep, Meredith was outside, Filomena’s door was open, ajar, wide open, I bathmat sashayed outwards and return journey, the bathmat sashay failed”)

Sources

1. The Mass Email to Friends and Family (November 4, 2007)
   Two days after the discovery of Meredith Kercher's body, Knox sent a long email to her family and friends explaining her perspective on what happened. In it, she wrote:

"...anyway, so the door was wide open. strange, yes, but not so strange that i really thought anything about it. i assumed someone in the house was doing exactly what i just said, taking out the trash or talking really uickley to the neighbors downstairs."

2. Court Testimony in Perugia (2009)
   During her trial, Knox was questioned about why she didn't immediately lock the front door or panic when she returned to the house to take a shower. She testified to the court:

"I thought that was a bit strange. We all usually closed it with a key. When I walked in I shouted out 'Is anyone here?' and I closed the door but didn't lock it. I thought maybe someone had just popped out to take the rubbish or go and get something, I thought maybe they were coming back soon, so I didn't lock it."

In another translated transcript excerpt of her depositions/testimony regarding the open front door, she reiterates a similar thought process:
"When I approached home I saw that there was an open door to the entrance, I thought 'oh strange!' ... I thought if a person didn't close the door properly obviously he would open it and then maybe a person went out quickly or they went downstairs to look for something, or they went to take away garbage or both!So when I entered I called 'is there anyone?' and no one answered me but I left the door anyway, I left the door slightly ajar but I didn't lock it with the key, because I thought maybe someone is coming, maybe he went to get cigarettes..."

Amanda's initial deposition, Nov 2nd:
"This morning, around 10:00-11:00 am, I went to my house alone to take a shower and change and in the circumstance I noticed that the entrance door to the apartment was completely wide open, while the rooms around the apartment were closed, at least Filomena and Meredith's, even if I didn't check if they were locked, while Laura's was ajar and mine was open as usual.
[...]

http://www.themurderofmeredithkercher.net/docupl/filelibrary/docs/depositions/2007-11-02-Deposition-Police-Sollecito.pdf
Amanda’s statement in her email to her friends “when i entered i called out if anyone was there, but no one responded and i assumed that if anyone was there,  they were still asleep. lauras door was open which meant she wasnt home, and filomenas door was also closed. my door was open like always and meredith door was closed, which to me weant she was sleeping.”
https://famous-trials.com/amanda-knox/2629-amanda-s-email-to-friends-nov-4-2007
And from Raffaelle’s book, honour bound, describing Amanda coming back to Raffaelle’s flat after discovering the ransacked house.
“Amanda looked increasingly worried as she began detailing the things she'd found out of place. The open front door was concerning, but not alarming—the latch was broken and the only way to keep it shut was to lock it. But Amanda also found Meredith's door closed, which was unusual. She knocked, but nobody answered.

Ahh the bus. The good old bus. Raffaelle never misses an opportunity to throw Amanda under it. Nor does Amanda miss an opportunity to throw Raffaelle under it. Just a few extracts from his book in which he reliably chucks her under the bus. (To throw someone under the bus is an idiomatic expression that means to betray, blame, or sacrifice a friend, colleague, or ally for personal gain or to avoid trouble)

Speaking about his family’s reaction to Amanda doing the bathmat sashay “most of my family could not fathom how she could go ahead with her shower after finding blood on the tap, much less put her feet on the wet bathmat, which was also stained with blood, and drag it across the floor”. Thank you Raffaelle’s family for acknowledging the ridiculousness of the bathmat sashay.

Speaking about Amanda’s behaviour in the station. “The English girls later said they were appalled by Amanda’s behaviour and I admit, it made me a little uneasy too.””She was acting like a little girl” Her “unrestrained behaviour” was “embarrassing” and “I can understand why Meredith’s friends were put off”

Speaking about Amanda’s behaviour in the station. “Three days after the murder- I realised I had not acknowledged my own discomfort with Amanda.” “I shouldn’t have allowed her to climb all over me in the Questura, and I shouldn’t have counseled her quietly not to complain so much.

Raffaelle’s statement to the police “In my last statement, I told you a lot of crap because she (Amanda) talked me in to her version of events, and I didn’t think about the inconsistencies”

From Honour Bound - asked if Amanda had gone out on the night of the murder, Raffaelle says “I can’t… I can’t” “I can’t remember exactly”

From Honour Bound, speaking about Amanda “I didn’t believe she was capable of murder, but I did have doubts about the crowd she ran in. Maybe she knew something. Maybe there was something she hadn’t told me.”

From Honour Bound, speaking about his computer evidence. “I’m convinced to this day that the computer could have exonerated me completely, and probably Amanda too.”

From Honour Bound, speaking about Amanda’s statement in the Questura “I was beginning to wonder if I could trust her on anything, including her sexual fidelity” “I even asked myself if she might have taken my pocketknife and given it to the son of a bitch who murdered Meredith.”

I’m sure there’s more… but enjoy these quotes!

Let’s look at the inconsistencies in Amanda and Raffaele’s statements regarding the doors in the apartment on the morning Meredith was discovered.

Amanda's initial deposition, Nov 2nd:
"This morning, around 10:00-11:00 am, I went to my house alone to take a shower and change and in the circumstance I noticed that the entrance door to the apartment was completely wide open, while the rooms around the apartment were closed, at least Filomena and Meredith's, even if I didn't check if they were locked, while Laura's was ajar and mine was open as usual.
[...]
When we got home, around 1:00 p.m., I opened the front door, which I found locked, and when I entered the apartment I started opening the doors of the rooms occupied by the other girls. First I opened the door to Filomena's room, which is the first room closest to the entrance, and together with Raffaele we found that the window, with two panels, was open and the glass was broken."
http://www.themurderofmeredithkercher.net/docupl/filelibrary/docs/depositions/2007-11-02-Deposition-Police-Knox.pdf

And Raffaele's from the same day:
"Furthermore, the room used by Filomena had the door wide open, it was in disarray and had the window completely open with the glass of the left door broken in the lower part. Amanda seeing this, told me that she had not noticed this previously as the door of the aforementioned room was ajar and did not allow her to see what was inside."
http://www.themurderofmeredithkercher.net/docupl/filelibrary/docs/depositions/2007-11-02-Deposition-Police-Sollecito.pdf

Amanda’s statement in her email to her friends “when i entered i called out if anyone was there, but no one responded and i assumed that if anyone was there,  they were still asleep. lauras door was open which meant she wasnt home, and filomenas door was also closed. my door was open like always and meredith door was closed, which to me weant she was sleeping.”

https://famous-trials.com/amanda-knox/2629-amanda-s-email-to-friends-nov-4-2007

And from Raffaelle’s book, honour bound, describing Amanda coming back to Raffaelle’s flat after discovering the ransacked house.

“Amanda looked increasingly worried as she began detailing the things she'd found out of place. The open front door was concerning, but not alarming—the latch was broken and the only way to keep it shut was to lock it. But Amanda also found Meredith's door closed, which was unusual. She knocked, but nobody answered. Was she asleep? Or away? Amanda didn't quite know what to think.”

So, here we have in Amanda’s initial deposition say she didn’t check if the doors were locked. But she IS checking the doors. Amanda has already called out to see if anyone was there, and because no one has answered, she assumes they are still asleep. We know because she is very aware of the status of the doors. She says Filomena’s is closed, Meredith’s is closed, Laura’s is ajar, Amanda’s is open as usual. Amanda states that because Meredith’s door is closed, she thinks it means that Meredith is sleeping.

But in Raffaelle’s book, he describes how Amanda finds Meredith’s door closed, but she “KNOCKED”. This is means Amanda is actively enquiring about the status of those doors. Interestingly she knocks, but “didn’t check if they were locked”. So she is making a noise at the door, not hearing a response, and not trying the open door and therefore doesn’t discover if it’s locked. Ok weird. You would have thought that after knocking, Meredith would wake up. This is the logical moment for Amanda to try to open the door and discover it’s locked.

By that same logic, she says she saw Filomena’s door closed in her first deposition on Nov 2nd. Anyone finding blood, shit, open door to the house would enquire as to who is in the house. But, Amanda never says she knocks on Filomena’s door. She just says that it is closed. Why does she knock on Meredith’s door but not on Filomena’s?

Well, Raffaelle then says that when he discovered the flat, “the room used by Filomena had the door wide open”, and that Amanda hadn’t previously noticed this as the door to the room “was ajar, and did not allow her to see what was inside”.

So now, Raffaelle discovers the door OPEN. Meaning, it was OPEN when Amanda first discovered the flat, and Amanda admits the door was AJAR.

So, Amanda changes her story from the door is SHUT to the door is AJAR. Raffaelle says the door is WIDE OPEN. Wide open and ajar are pretty considerably different.

To believe Amanda isn’t lying about this, you have to believe:

Amanda discovers blood, feces, and an open front door.

Amanda thinks EVERYONE WHO HAS A CLOSED DOOR IS ASLEEP.

Amanda is consciously checking the status of the open and closed doors.

Amanda is checking on people’s doors, particularly Meredith’s closed one.

Amanda is prepared to wake up sleeping people.

Amanda knocks loudly to wake up Meredith.

After knocking gets no response, Amanda does not check if Meredith’s door is locked, despite making a noise explicitly intended to wake her up.

Amanda sees Filomena’s door ajar, meaning AMANDA THINKS FILOMENA HAS THE POTENTIAL TO BE AWAKE, but entirely ignores it and doesn’t look inside the room (despite Raffaele saying the door was actually wide open).

That the door moved from being ajar when Amanda visited, to completely wide open when Raffaelle visited.

Which brings us to the ultimate contradiction:

If the door was open like Raffaele said, and Amanda was wrong about it being closed, and it was really ajar like she claimed later, yhen she inquires about a closed door where she thinks someone is asleep, but DOESN’T INQUIRE ABOUT THE DOOR BEING AJAR.

If it was closed like Amanda said the first time, then Raffaele is lying about finding it wide open. Furthermore, if it was closed, Amanda should have knocked on it like she did on Meredith’s door. Why give Meredith’s door special treatment?

Ultimately, for their story to work, and for both Raffaelle and Amanda to be telling the truth, Filomena’s door has to exist in a quantum state of being both completely wide open, ajar and closed.

Why does Amanda knock on Meredith’s door (who she assumes is asleep), but completely ignore Filomena’s ajar/open door?

And to anyone who asks, this isn’t a lie without motive, there is clearly a motive, because it covers up another lie which is that had she seen Filomena’s broken window, she would have raised the alarm and called the police, making her story even more unbelievable that she didn’t call the police 1 hour and 52 minutes later.

Raffaele Sollecito made two calls to the Italian emergency number 112. The first one was at 12:51:40 pm and lasted 169 seconds and the second one was at 12:54:39 pm and lasted 57 seconds.

When the Postal police arrive, Raffaelle immediately states that he had called them. The postal police, confused, reply that they hadn’t been called by Raffaelle but had arrived in response to the discovery of Meredith’s mobile phones in the garden of Elisabetta Lana, a short distance from the cottage.

Did the postal police arrive before 12:51PM? The evidence says yes.

The Nencini Court concluded that Raffaele Sollecito called the Carabinieri about 15 minutes after Inspector Battistelli and Marsi arrived. The Court concluded that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were surprised by the unexpected arrival of the postal police, lied about calling the Carabinieri and then later placed the two 112 calls.

The Evidence for "the postal police arriving before the 112 calls" (The Established Timeline)

Postal Police Arrival (12:35 PM): Inspector Battistelli testified he explicitly checked his watch when he entered the cottage,it was 12:35 PM. They were there to investigate Meredith's discarded phones, completely unaware of a break-in or murder.

The 112 Calls (12:51 & 12:54 PM): Sollecito's phone records firmly place the emergency calls 15+ minutes after the Postal Police were already inside the cottage.

Witness Corroboration: Seven different people present that day gave time estimates that strongly align with the 12:35 PM police arrival.

So, Raffaelle lied on the day that the phone calls were made before the postal police arrived TO the postal police themselves, and continues to lie about what time he made the calls.

Why would he lie in the first place? Because he was caught off guard by the postal police at the house with Amanda. They both knew It looked suspicious to be seen at the scene of a crime WITHOUT having called the police.

Interestingly, you can tell Raffaelle was panicking during the first call, where he most likely hangs up when the officer starts asking him difficult questions. POLICE:

POLICE: So listen, they entered... they broke a window... and how do you know they entered?
RS:
It can be seen by the signs... that there are drops... there are blood stains in the bathroom.
POLICE:
So they entered... because the [window's] broken... did they cut themselves breaking the window?
RS:
Ehmm... this...
[The call is cut off.]
POLICE:
Hello?

What a brilliant police officer. What a question, which Raffaelle absolutely fumbles. How do you know someone broke in to the house through the window. Rafaelle’s answer is that there are signs, drops, blood stains in the bathroom. This clearly does not explain how he knows someone broke in through the window. The right answer would have been something like well I saw shoeprints on the wall, or, I saw blood where they cut themselves when they climbed. Through the window. Which is exactly what the police officer then asks… and guess what. Raffaelle fumbles it and hangs up. In both calls, he says there has been no theft, and no one took anything. Perhaps he hung up because he had already lied to the officers about calling the police and perhaps they were near.

Lying to the postal police in the first place is damning, continuing to lie about making the call before the postal police arrived is equally damning.

Amanda Knox in her book free says she was prepared to sue a movie because it showed Raffaelle calling 112 calls being made after the police arrived. Her reasoning was because it made her look guilty. Amanda and Raffaelle fully understand that if the calls were made after the postal police arrived, they look guilty.

Amanda as creative director in the Hulu series changes history again by showing her calling the police before they actually arrive.

The calls were made after the postal police arrived. Amanda and Raffaelle, have both lied about this, and both look very guilty.

This is another instance of Raffaelle and Amanda lying. When they lie so many times, you have to wonder why? What could they possibly be hiding…

Amanda put a video out on her instagram talking about the practice of metta, and how she applied metta to her prosecutor, (Mignini), her kid, and herself. In a trio.

Undeniably, practicing generating “metta” is a noble act.

But, where is her practice of “metta” for Patrick? The person whose life she ruined by falsely accusing him of rape and murder.

For Meredith’s family? The people who she continues to insult with comedy shows about the investigation and murder.

For Meredith? Whose memory she trashes by commercialising the murder with all these books, Hulu series, and documentaries.

Now, Buddha admittedly let in a murderer in to his sangha. Angala Mala. In the noble discourses, there is a scene where after killing so many people, Angala Mala approaches Buddha to kill him. But he can’t catch Buddha, because Buddha is still. Eventually, the stillness gets to Angala Mala who breaks down crying and repents, after which he joins the sangha.

Interestingly, in this clip, the monk is completely silent. And Amanda is ranting and raving about her infinite compassion.

Silence can speak volumes!

And, it makes me ponder over the 5 precepts. I wonder what Amanda thinks of them?

1. No killing.
2. No stealing.
3. No misuse of sex.
4. No engaging in false speech.
5. Not indulging in intoxicants.

** **Ok, let’s hypothetically assume that the burglar theory is true, and Rudy was the sole killer.

He is taking a ****, Meredith comes in, he attacks Meredith, and rapes and kills her.

At what point is he taking off his shoes and getting his foot covered in blood to leave a print on the bathmat? And why?

⁠He is not taking his shoes off when he is taking a ****. No burglar is that stupid. You need your shoes in case someone enters the house and you need to run.

Assuming he is caught off guard on the toilet as this burglar theory goes, he is not taking his shoes off during the fight, rape and murder. No murderer does that. Just not happening. You need shoes to grip the floor for traction when hitting, punching, attacking.

We know he was wearing shoes at the time of the murder because there were bloody shoeprints through out the house meaning he was tracking blood and had been in the bedroom with his shoes.

So, perhaps he takes his shoes off to clean them. BUT**, this doesn’t explain how he gets such a significant amount of blood on them that he leaves a big bloody footprint in the bathroom**. Why? Because the crime was in the bedroom, not the bathroom. The blood was in the bedroom, not the bathroom.

He would have taken his shoes off after the murder, re-enter Meredith’s room without shoes, step in her blood, and run the risk of leaving bloody footprints.

Someone, without shoes, was in Meredith’s room.

There is no other explanation.

And that person could not have been Rudy for the reasons mentioned.

Conclusion.

There was another person other than Rudy and Meredith in the house during the murder.

You guys really blow my mind. It’s so shocking how much evidence can be staring you in the face and you still can’t see it. She is hiding in plain sight. It’s right there.

What would it take to make you see the truth? Wake up!!!

Changing Alibis & Lies

1. Amanda’s changing alibi, placing herself at the scene of the murder with Patrick
2. Amanda’s lies about everything
3. Raffaelle’s

alibi which changed four times

Physical Evidence & DNA

1. Amanda’s blood on the sink, mixed with Meredith’s

and the likelihood Meredith would have cleaned it up if it was there the day before

1. Amanda’s footprints in the house with Meredith’s DNA
2. Raffaelles DNA on the bra clasp
3. Amanda’s DNA with Meredith’s on the knife
4. Coroners report that at least two knife’s were used to kill Meredith

The Break-In Theory Flaws

1. The unlikelihood of the window jump and burglar theory
2. The missing footprints in the garden soil underneath the window
3. The missing footprints / marks up the wall
4. The fact everyone who burgled the house since has not used filomenas window to get in.
5. The False Accusation of Patrick Lumumba
6. Amanda’s false accusation of Patrick for rape and murder, saying he was evil and she was scared of him despite saying he is a kind, special and wonderful man the day before
7. Amanda’s failure to apologise directly for falsely accusing Patrick
8. Amanda previously staged a break in at her university.
9. Amanda previously wrote a short story about rape

Suspicious Actions on the Night of the Murder

1. Both amanda and Raffaelles phones simultaneously being turned off, something they had never done before, and something killers routinely do
2. Complete amnesia from both Raffaelle and Amanda, despite them having otherwise perfect memories
3. Amanda’s lamp and only light source being left in Meredith’s room
4. Multiple eyewitnesses of Amanda and Raffaelle at

Meredith’s house that night

5.

1. Amanda and Rudy both testifying they knew each other and Patrick saying they met at Le chique

Bizarre Morning-After Behavior
1.Amanda’s ridiculous story with infinite inconsistencies about her return to the house

2. The bloody bathmat sashay

3. Amanda didn’t immediately call the police after discovering the bloody bathmat, or shit in the toilet

4. Amanda just casually carrying a mop back from her flat.

5. Amanda doing lots of cleaning that morning.

6. Amanda’s lie about Meredith locking her door

7. Raffaelle calling the police after the postal police arrived and lying that he called them first

Police Station Behavior & Testimonies

1. Rudy’s identification of Amanda being present at the murder
2. Amanda doing yoga at the police station to distract from Raffaelles interview
3. Amanda’s weird behaviour at the police station, repeating words like “threat” over and over to Raffaelle
4. Amanda joking about how she could “kill for a pizza”

Post-Trial Media & Career

1. Amanda constantly rewriting the story in every media format possible (Hulu series, books, comedy shows)
2. Amanda saying she wanted to write music and make jokes about the murder immediately afterwards… then making a career out of exactly that.
3. Amanda’s crazy music video with references to Meredith’s death
4. Amanda’s comedy shows about the murder and investigation
5. Raffaelle speculating that he stabbed Meredith accidentally with a knife while cooking
6. Amanda spotting blood on Raffaelles hands
7. Amanda identifying that Raffaelle could have been with her at Meredith’s that night.

There’s failed alibis, there’s tonnes of evidence, I am beginning to think that if Amanda was caught on cctv with the knife in her hand, you would still say she’s innocent because Rudy just handed it to her and she was stoned and forgot everything because she’s traumatised and her memory is bad.

I mean, what more do you need? If Amanda said she killed Meredith, would you believe her? Probably not! Same with Raffaelle. You guys would probably just say oooh they’re so traumatised, they’re both being bullied by police.

You are defending two murderers.

Sollecito changed his alibi a grand total of 4 times. 4. (Edit, actually it was 5)

No weed in the world is going to make you think that one night you were eating fish and making love with your girlfriend at home, or at a party with your girlfriend, or eating fish without your girlfriend, and then you realise all along you really were eating fish, and making love with your girlfriend at home.

Why should anyone believe him when his story has changed this many times? Why believe anyone who’s story has changed this number of times?

For the Amandists. Were this another case, would you believe someone who’s alibi changed four times? If you would, you would make terrible detectives. Especially when the only other person who can confirm that alibi also changes their story.

Nov 3-4, 2007: The ‘I was at a party’ Journalist Interview

Shortly after the murder, Sollecito spoke to Kate Mansey, a reporter for the UK's Sunday Mirror. He told her that he and Knox had gone to a party on the night of the murder before returning to his apartment. 

https://web.archive.org/web/20110414134407/http://www.mirror.co.uk/sunday-mirror/2007/11/04/italy-murder-details-emerge-98487-20058122/

Nov 2-4, 2007: The ‘I was smoking weed all night, eating fish and making love’ Initial Police Statement

In his early formal statements to Italian investigators, Sollecito provided a different story. He stated that he and Knox spent the entire evening and night together at his apartment. He claimed they cooked fish, watched the movie Amélie, smoked marijuana, made love, and went to sleep.

Nov 5, 2007: The Raffaele throws Amanda under the bus statement

During a police interrogation, Sollecito changed his story again. He told police that Knox left his apartment around 9:00 PM to go to Le Chic (the bar where she worked), and that he stayed home alone. He stated he could not remember exactly when she returned, estimating it was around 1:00AM.

Post-Nov 2007: The return to the ‘I was smoking weed all night, eating fish and making love’ statement

Sollecito later retracted his November 5th statement. Throughout the ensuing trials, he reverted to his initial police alibi: that he and Knox were together at his apartment the entire night, eating fish, smoking weed and making love together.

Proof of the intention to deceive.
Rafaelle turned off his phone the night of the murder, an act of hiding his location with the intent to deceive. 

 Motive to lie 1. Actual Involvement: The most obvious motive for Sollecito to deceive is self-preservation. He was there at the murder and helped to kill Meredith.

 Motive to lie 2. Infatuation with Amanda: Sollecito was by all accounts, deeply infatuated with Amanda. Lying about what he was doing that night protected Amanda by giving her an alibi.

Sollecito is a liar, and lied about his alibi.

From the book arrested by Analogy by Patrick Lumumba

“I've been often asked if Amanda tried to contact me to apologize, and I always said no, because she never did so directly. Perhaps these were her attempts to establish contact or attempts attributable to her relatives or her lawyers. At any rate, she never came forward to say the accusation against me was a lie, or even to apologize for trying to ruin my life.”

Amanda has had 19 years to apologise to Patrick directly for falsely accusing him of murder and rape.

That she hasn’t, speaks far louder than any of her professions to innocence.

She has had ample time and opportunity including going back to Italy to confront Mignini, a pointless endeavour given the man was just doing his job.

A far better use of her time would have been to formally apologise for falsely accusing Patrick of the murder and rape of Meredith and for placing him in the crime scene, leading to his business and life being ruined. If she truly wanted peace and redemption, Patrick is the one who can give that to her, not Mignini.

Preempting the argument from the “Amandists”, a phrase Patrick coined, well why should someone who made a false accusation apologise if it was under police pressure?

Well, all police apply pressure, nor was Amanda’s interrogation particularly long or strenuous. it is an obligation of basic human decency to tell the truth and not lie. And certainly, should someone lie, to make an effort to make amends, particularly with the person who the lie has hurt.

Which, Patrick says she has not.

One can infer that she is not sorry for accusing him of rape and murder, and that she feels that she it was justified under the circumstances.

Sometimes, silence speaks far louder and is more telling than any book, Hulu series or comedy show.

Why don’t we listen to what Amanda has to say about 50 words for snow.

Snow, what a beautiful, pure, thing. Surely nothing dark here?

https://amandaknox.substack.com/p/fifty-words-for-snow-04d

Just some very interesting words I picked up from her use of language.

Premise 1. Amanda is a bad liar and doesn’t want to lie.

Premise 2. Amanda really wants to tell us the truth!

Premise 3. To find the truth we must listen to her every word!

Premise 4. Repeated words show sensitivity.

1. Japanese has yomigaeru, for a memory coming back to you, which sounds gentle until you find out the literal meaning is “to return from the land of the dead.
2. it’s a resurrection
3. meaning the intense, wistful yearning or deep emotional longing for something unattainable.
4. It has schadenfreude, the feeling of pleasure derived from another’s pain, as well as glücksschmerz, the feeling of pain derived from another’s pleasure.
5. hyper aware that they are psychologically fucked up
6. suspiciously
7. Carefully hiding
8. bone-deep belief
9. obvious explanation is never the real one, because there’s always something hidden behind the version of the story you were handed.

10.Nothing and no one is what they appear to be! All stories are coverups. But you won’t catch any Italian screaming

11.obsessed

12. If there is a confession

13. I’m seriously fucked up

14. My own confession

15. what I’m actually after, every time I find a new word, is the proof that someone else got there first

The word “confession” is repeated 3 times! In an article about untranslatable words.

Nothing to see here but pure, beautiful words for snow! Move along quickly please!

In Patrick’s new book, he’s describes walking down the street and bumping in to Amanda.

This is on Monday November 5th, one day before Amanda accuses him of murder.

“Just as I was talking to some students, I saw Amanda walking down the sidewalk across the street toward me. She saw me too, waved, and then crossed the street toward meet me in front of the university. I asked her how she was. “good” she replied, “but I’m tired of the police; they interrogated me for hours without interruption”

“After saying this, Amanda pulled me close, giving me a tight hug and saying, “Oh Patrick, you are very special to me. You’re a wonderful person and you’ve helped me a lot. You can call me anytime.”

Ar the time I didn’t realise it… I couldn’t imagine that Amanda would later come back under investigators scrutiny as a murder suspect. But thinking back, perhaps it was at that very moment, as she clung to me, that she decided to sacrifice me to save herself. Less that 24 hours later , the police from the flying squad would raid my home and take me to their offices where I would remain for hours - before being ordered in to pre trial detention at cappane prison”

Now, there is a lot going on here.

1. Amanda sees Patrick, and doesn’t identify him as the killer the day before the accusation. Her memory isn’t jogged despite seeing him physically in person.
2. Amanda says Patrick is a very “special to her” and a “wonderful” man. This is incongruent with her statement the next day that he raped and murdered Meredith. Both can’t be true. He is either a rapist, or special to her and a “wonderful” man. You don’t forget how wonderful a special man is during the course of a short police interrogation the next day. You don’t imagine a kind, special, wonderful man, committing rape and murder.
3. Patrick was in Amanda’s head while she was being investigated. He had seen her after her interrogation that day and before her interrogation the next day when she accused him of murder.
4. Patrick thinks this is the moment Amanda decided to throw him under the bus.
5. Look into this man’s kind eyes. In what world is he a rapist and a murder, and in what world do you go from calling him one day “special to me” and a “wonderful” man and to the next day, to accuse him of rape and murder? He was an easy target because he is black.