My two favourite Dollarama products:
Macadamia nuts. Not only is the price the best I've seen in any retail outlet but the quality is the best: small potions vacuumed sealed makes for the freshest tasting product.
Figs. Best "dried" figs I've tasted anywhere. I put dried in quotations because they are the most moist dried figs I've ever had. Downside: seasonal. It seems they are only available for a month or so every year.
Two things we've constantly heard from the innocenti here:
Friction
So, I've gone back and read the depositions of Purton, Bidwell, Frost, Power and Hayward from the days following the murder.
And guess what? Except for one mention (about meeting somewhere), Amanda is never even brought up. And unless the police are specifically asking you about Amanda's and Meredith's relationship, there is no reason to even mention anything about friction between the two.
So for those innocenti who have cited these depositions as proof that everything was fine between Amanda and Meredith because no one mentioned friction in the depositions is misleading. And dishonest
Giacomo
And, curiously, as I read through the depositions I found these two tidbits about Meredith's relationship with Giacomo (Google Translate):
According to Jade Bidwell:
"Meredith said that her boyfriend wasn't very reliable, in the sense that he didn't seem like the faithful type in relationships, because she had once called him on an evening when he had told her he was staying home, but she had instead guessed he was out. From the way she spoke about her boyfriend, I think she didn't really consider him a 'boyfriend' " (my emphasis)
And according to Robyn Butterworth:
"Meredith said that even though it wasn't a serious relationship, there was a strong feeling between the two." (my emphasis)
More than three days without any contact between these supposed boyfriend and girlfriend
In his deposition, Giacomo says that he tried to contact Meredith starting on the 29th of October and Meredith never texted or called him back. Giacomo was back in his home town. So that's over three days that this supposed boyfriend and girlfriend were not in contact (until Meredith's death the evening of November 1, 2007). Hmm. Maybe they weren't so tight after all...
The moral of the story
You can't trust what many innocenti on this forum claim.
(sorry, I don't know how to add flair)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ldZUQFr_9k
and
I apologize in advance if this forum is not the appropriate one for these queries...but if it isn't, please direct me to the correct one!
I am on ChatGPT Pro. I've written a non-fiction book which I fed into ChatGPT in sections for grammar check and other recommendations. And I've completed that...and I found ChatGPT invaluable in both its editing ability and the recommendations it made.
Now I'm thinking: should I upload the entire first draft of book to ChatGPT and ask it other questions, such as:
"give me your brutal, non-glazing assessment of the book and any recommendations to make it better."
What do you think?
Is it a good idea to upload the entire book? What questions would you ask?
This is the first time I am doing this and would appreciate any suggestions anyone has.
Thanks in advance.
So, I remembered reading somewhere that Rudy's victim in the current case against him had a history of accusing someone else of sexual assault but I forgot where I had read it.
So I asked Claude...and here is what it came up with:
Question to Claude:
I am trying to find an article or reference to the victim in the following article (the link) in which it was mentioned that she had previously been involved in accusing someone else other than Rudy Guede in a sexual assault. Can you find such a reference or article:
https://www.tusciaweb.eu/2026/05/sapevo-rudy-guede-carcere-non-perche-la-vittima-26enne-ignara-dellomicidio-kercher/#gsc.tab=0
Claude's response:
Fetched: "Sapevo che Rudy Guede era stato in carcere, ma non perché", la vittima 26enne ignara dell'omicidio Kercher - Tusciaweb.eu
Fetched: "Sapevo che Rudy Guede era stato in carcere, ma non perché", la vittima 26enne ignara dell'omicidio Kercher - Tusciaweb.eu
I've read the article carefully. It concerns Rudy Guede's new trial in Viterbo for sexual violence, mistreatment, and injuries allegedly committed against his 26-year-old ex-girlfriend. The article does not mention anything about the victim having previously accused someone else of sexual assault. The article focuses entirely on her testimony about her relationship with Guede and his prior conviction for the Kercher murder.
Let me now search to see if there are other articles in this case that mention such a prior accusation by the victim.
Searched the web
Searched the web
I found exactly what you were looking for. The reference is in a separate Tusciaweb article from November 5, 2025, titled "Guede a processo per violenza sessuale, la difesa: 'Parte offesa inattendibile'" (Guede on trial for sexual violence, the defense: "The complainant is unreliable").
Here is the key passage from that article:
The defense requested — and was denied — the acquisition of the testimony of a teacher related to one of the proceedings arising from the young woman's complaints, as she had also filed a complaint against her father, which in 2018 ended with an order of dismissal (archiviazione).
Additionally, the defense raised the existence of an acquittal ruling in which the young woman had been the complainant for similar offenses allegedly committed by a family friend. The defense attorney described it as "an important ruling, also examined by the investigating judge (GIP) in this proceeding." tusciaweb
So the specific reference you were looking for is in this companion Tusciaweb article: https://www.tusciaweb.eu/2025/11/guede-processo-violenza-sessuale-la-difesa-parte-offesa-inattendibile/
In summary, Guede's defense attorney raised the point that the victim had previously been the complaining party in a sexual assault case against a family friend, which resulted in an acquittal — not an accusation against Guede. The defense presented this as evidence relevant to her credibility, noting the ruling was already part of the preliminary investigation file. The prosecution countered that credibility should be assessed after hearing her testimony. Additionally, the article notes she had previously filed a complaint against her own father, which was archived (dismissed) in 2018.
Claude Fable 5 is currently unavailable.
https://youtube.com/@therealamandaknox?si=c4Nnl47x7oBad834
The above link is to Amanda Knox's youtube channel. Although it appears to have been started 6 years ago, there is only one video from that period...and although there are some short form videos from a few years ago, virtually all the long form videos are a year or so old or less.
But if you look at the views for each video, few break the thousand-view threshold; most seem to hover around 200 views, with some embarrassingly with less than 100 views.
By any standard of measurement, this is an abject failure.
But it's a failure even for someone unknown; for a famous -- or, in this case, infamous -- person, it's devastating.
Why do you suppose this is?
I have only seen a few videos. And they aren't horrible. They're not great but they do manage to hold my interest. But I cannot imagine even some random, unknown person getting such horrible numbers.
Is Amanda being sent a message? Are people sick of her?
Hulu just released a full series on her; it may not have been a blockbuster in terms of ratings but it still got a respectable audience, as I understand it. So the Amanda Knox story is still compelling. It just may be that the actual person isn't.
Is this one more in a long line of failed ventures? She got millions for her first book, although I have no idea whether the publishing company got their money back. But how did her podcasts do? And how will the stand-up comedy venture fare? Will it go the way of the YouTube channel?
Amanda claims she was physical hit during her interview/interrogation of November 5-6, 2007. "When I didn't remember correctly, they would hit me in the back of the head," says Amanda
Everyone else present at the time -- in other words, the police and interpreter -- say she was never hit. Well, if she was hit, that is of course what you would expect them to say.
But how credible is Amanda's claim? One indicator of credibility is how she has described this physical abuse...and the changes that her description has taken over the years:
But there’s been an evolution in how she describes what those horrible piggies did to her. On November 10, 2007 – a mere nine days after the murder, while Amanda was in prison – “torture” was not the word she first used to describe what she endured at the hands of the police; instead, she called it “badgering.” By November 29, 2007, this had evolved into “they brainwashed me.”And by 2024, seventeen years later, it had become “psychologically tortured,” which then evolved into outright “torturing”.In 2025, she claimed she was “brutally abused” by the police.
If badgering can morph into brainwashing and then into being brutally abused and then into psychological torture and then into torture, what else is Amanda describing today that has undergone a similar evolution? How credible are her claims to being hit while in custody if her descriptions of the incident vary so wildly?