r/amandaknox

I have to ask - what do guilters get out of these delusions and fantasies vs just a frank discussion on murder theories.

Between complaining about documentaries, music videos, blogs, podcasts or social media none of this provides any value in the slightest to the Knox discussion.

But today takes the cake with posting about Rudy being Meredith’s “boyfriend” on the side.

What productive value does this allegation have to the Kercher murder?

As Meredith’s “boyfriend” you have an obligation to call the police or call for some aid if your girlfriend is injured

Rudy owns a knife so Knox and Sollecito would be of little to no threat to him

If your story is Knox and Sollecito fled well when did they come back and how would they do a cleanup not knowing whether Rudy had called the police

This doesn’t even begin to touch on all the problems of this fantastical tale, or of the irony of no guilter pushback, but beyond these questions, what in the hell does “blaming the victim” have to do with the actual Knox Reddit or murder case?

So Amanda says she wakes up at 10am (a lie, Raffaele was listening to hardcore music at 5:30am on his laptop and said Amanda woke up before him.) But I digress.

She leaves at approximately 10:30am to go back to her house to take laundry in a plastic bag, get a mop, shower, and change her clothes to a dress (so much cleeaaaninggg, someone needed to cleaaan).

Anyway. Meredith’s house is a 5 min walk from Raffaele’s flat. So that leaves us with Amanda arriving at the house at approximately 10:35am. She goes in (leaves the door open and unlocked for Meredith to re-enter, but I digress again), she gets changed in her room, walks nekked to the shower, spots the blood. This can’t be much later than 10:45am.

After the bloody bathmat sashay, she must have discovered the faeces in the bathroom (the one she didn’t flush while drying her hair) at say 10:55 latest So right there, at 11:00am, she has discovered the blood, the ****, and the open door.

How long do you think it takes Amanda to call the police? Well, she never does. But ok, how long does it take Raffaele to call the police? And what does Amanda do in that time?

I will answer after this list.

In between the discovery at 11:00am and Raffaele calling the police, Amanda:

Walks back to Raffaele's flat (and doesn’t call the police)

Eats breakfast with Raffaele (and doesn’t call the police)

Mops up Raffaelle’s wet floor (and doesn’t call the police)

Tells Raffaelle about the blood, the faeces and the open door (and doesn’t call the police)

12:07 PM: Calls Meredith's English cell phone (and doesn’t call the police)

12:08 PM: Calls Filomena (and doesn’t call the police)

12:11 PM: Calls Meredith's Italian cell phone (and doesn’t call the police)

12:11 PM: Calls Meredith's English cell phone again (and doesn’t call the police)

Walks back to Meredith’s flat (and doesn’t call the police)

(Note: Filomena tries calling Amanda back twice at 12:12 PM and 12:20 PM, but Amanda doesn't answer either call).

12:47 PM: Calls her mum in Seattle (and doesn’t call the police)

12:52 PM: Raffaele finally calls the police (112).

There is a massive, unexplained one-hour gap between 11:00am and 12:07pm where she allegedly did nothing but eat breakfast and mop. It also highlights a 36-minute gap between her frantic calls to Meredith/Filomena (12:11) and her call to her mother (12:47) where, once again, no one bothered to dial the authorities.

1 hour 52 minutes after discovering the blood, the ****, and the unlocked open door, Amanda still doesn’t call the police. Raffaele does instead.

I have been following this case for a while, and it must be said that there is a certain level of shaming and attempts to limit free speech on both sides of the debate, from people who think Amanda is guilty and people who think Amanda is innocent.

There have also been some excellent writers who have disappeared, lost for egregious use of bans.

Now, the rules of this subreddit are clear.

1. Civility. Be excellent to each other. No unwarranted or egregious personal attacks. Criticize the idea, not the user.

I would the to discuss rule no1. Civility, is something that should be expected from all sides of the debate. Not just, people who think Amanda is innocent, or guilty, but those who set the rules and moderate over them too. No one should be exempt. The idea should be criticised, not the writer. The people who set the rules must hold themselves to the highest standards, or risk looking like hypocrites, unable to fairly moderate and keep a balanced discussion due to their own temperaments and biases.

2. On topic. Keep discussion and links based around Amanda Knox.

Some of the fantastic writers of the past who we have lost through bans would write extensively about Amanda Knox and would keep the subject absolutely straight as an arrow on Knox. They were told to start speaking more about Mignini, or Guede, but they stayed true to the rules of the subreddit.

3. No spam.

You cannot fault a writer who feels passionate to write about a subject every day. If someone feels intimidated by their ideas, well then write your own post. Make your own contribution. Don’t fault someone because they like to write and feel passionate about the case. Communities like this one exist because both sides of the argument are represented. Those who think Amanda is innocent, and those who think Amanda is guilty. They are part of the ecosystem. If you start culling one side due to biases, the community will die.

No one knows the truth about what Amanda did that night, other than Amanda, Raffaelle and Rudy. To assume otherwise is folly (Although the court rules she was at the house, by her own admission) it is strongly likely it is the truth.

”I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”

This quote, often attributed to Voltaire, would serve well as a rule in this subreddit.

Or perhaps this quote by George Washington

"For if Men are to be precluded from offering their Sentiments on a matter... reason is of no use to us; the freedom of Speech may be taken away, and, dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep, to the Slaughter."

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.

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?

Since we are now analyzing what people say and do, I figured we could start a new series called A Guilter Life - remembering the greatest hits from the Knox case guilter hall of fame and what they said and did - starting with a Tom Brady level “did he really compare Knox to a satanic witch?”

“Mignini always included witch fear in his murder theory, and only reluctantly relinquished it. 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.”
Eventually, Mignini’s No. 2, the chain-smoking, no-nonsense Manuela Comodi, persuaded him to drop the references to Satanism. But no one forgot about it, not the jury, not the judge, not the press, not the Perugians, not the court spectators, who could never look at Amanda without wondering whether a whiff of sulfur surrounded her.”

“Amanda Knox, an American exchange student, stabbed her British fellow student and flatmate Meredith Kercher in the neck at the culmination of a satanic rite, a prosecutor told a Perugia court yesterday.
Winding up his case against Rudy Guede, another suspect in the killing of 21-year-old Kercher last November, the prosecutor, Giuliano Mignini, added that Mr Guede then strangled her while the third accused, Ms Knox's boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito, held her down.”

Not that this wasn't Migninis first “Super Bowl”

“Nonetheless, in 2001, Perugia prosecutor Giulano Mignini decided that Narducci's death was part of the Monster of Florence case. Mignini claimed Narducci was a member of a satanic sect that killed women for body parts to be used in black masses, and the wealthy Perugia doctor was the keeper of those body parts. Mignini claimed Narducci was killed to keep him quiet.
Even though all the Monster's victims were shot with the same gun, Mignini told a court that it wasn't the work of a single serial killer. Rather, Mignini described an elaborate conspiracy of 20 people, including government officials and law enforcement officers, who made up a secret society behind the Monster killings.
Mignini indicted the 20 people and charged them with the concealment of Narducci's murder, and laid out a hard-to-follow plot that included body doubles and featured Narducci's body being swapped - not once, but twice!
If all of this sounds hard to believe, it is. Tuesday, in a preliminary hearing, Perugia Judge Paolo Micheli threw out the case against the 20. The judge found there was no solid evidence to back up Mignini's claim that Narducci was murdered, let alone the victim of a satanic sect.
"Mignini's malicious and completely unwarranted accusations ruined many lives and impoverished the defendants and their families," Douglas Preston, the author of "The Monster of Florence," told Crimesider. Added Mario Spezi, Preston's co-author in Italy, "The great question is: How was it possible that Mignini was able to pursue a case that everyone knew was crazy?"
“

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.

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?

Through breathless analysis of doors, handprints, diaries, music videos, social media, interrogations, poems, improv, etc... we are always promised "this is the key to the case!" "Why don't you see it?"

So what's staring you all in the face?

Rudy Guede is the key to the case. Because he is most definitely, without a doubt, the killer and rapist of Meredith Kercher.

It amazes me that in every "key case" scenario, he somehow gets ignored. He isn't named, he isn't added to the theory, any action or evidence he left is not "key" at all

It's just something Amanda said/lied about or some action she took.

Rudy is there. He doesn't dispute it. His evidence is on Meredith's dead body. It's also inside of Meredith's dead body. No court disputes his involvement. No court defends him. So any "key" has to involve him. You have to prove somehow someway that all 3 knew each other and were willing and able to commit a crime together. Things like:

• She was leading Raff and Rudy to commit murder and ran the show, leading the murder and the coverup.
• She let Rudy in, was there outside the room while Rudy was being Rudy and just....said or did nothing.
• Knox and Sollecito were "present" somehow by showing up in the middle of the rape/murder, or showing up after the fact and deciding to do...nothing

So the real key to the case is him. Not her.

And thats why every one of these keys just borders on the fantastical, with a complete lack of plausability, logic, or finding an actual key that unlocks the door to guilt. Every key somehow doesn't involve him. You won't talk about him, tie him into the theory, present any evidence tying them together.

It's ultimately why the comedy show must go on. So keep posting more keys, more "lies", more "rulings". Good luck finding the actual key to the case staring at you right in the face.

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

“
But that ignores the fact that reasonable people, including courts at different points, have concluded she bore some level of involvement or responsibility. Given the convictions, the acquittals, and the final Supreme Court language, I don’t see how anyone can reasonably claim she’s simply beyond reproach in this case.”

So let’s discuss - have at it - Amanda and Rudy raped and killed a woman - let’s discuss it. Do you actually want to have that debate or are we going to do more mop and social media analysis? Can you say his name ? Does he exist to you?

One believes Rudy is innocent of the murder and rape of Meredith Kercher.

One believes Rudy is a stone cold criminal and rapist:

Approx. 9:00 PM – 9:30 PM: At the basketball courts, Amanda and Raffaele encounter Rudy Guede. Without revealing their violent intentions, they invite him back to the cottage. Amanda manipulates the situation, suggesting to Rudy that Meredith is interested in him. Rudy, attracted to Amanda and believing he has a chance with Meredith, agrees to come.

Approx. 9:30 PM – 10:30 PM: Amanda, Raffaele, and Rudy enter the cottage. Meredith is already home. Rudy begins to make overly sexual advances toward Meredith. Amanda orchestrates this to make Meredith feel as uncomfortable as possible. Meanwhile, Amanda and Raffaele smoke marijuana in the flat.

Approx. 10:30 PM – 11:00 PM: Rudy, suffering from an upset stomach, goes to the bathroom and puts his earphones in. While he is on the toilet, an argument erupts between Amanda and Meredith, primarily because Amanda brought both Raffaele and Rudy into the home.

The Attack:

The argument turns physical. Meredith punches Amanda, causing her nose to bleed.
Meredith retreats to her room, locks the door, and begins dialing numbers on her phone for help.
Rudy, hearing the commotion, rushes out of the bathroom without flushing, his pants down. He forces entry into Meredith's room and wrestles the phone away from her.
Both Rudy and Amanda draw knives. While Raffaele watches, Rudy molests Meredith, and Amanda begins to cut and torture her.
Under Amanda's orders, Rudy stabs Meredith while Amanda makes the fatal cut to her throat.

Approx. 11:30 PM: A loud, agonizing scream is heard by multiple witnesses (including neighbors like Nara Capezzali). The attackers realize they have been heard and panic.

Approx. 11:40 PM – 11:50 PM: The trio flees the house. Rudy removes his blood-stained shoes in the bathroom before escaping. During the frantic exit, Amanda realizes she lost an earring in the struggle. Believing it to be under Meredith's bed, she retrieves a lamp from her own room to search for it, but leaves the lamp behind in the panic. She grabs Meredith’s two cell phones to prevent anyone from calling them.

Approx. 11:50 PM – 12:00 AM (Nov 2): While fleeing back to Raffaele's flat, Amanda tosses Meredith’s phones into the garden of a nearby house (where they are discovered the next morning).

Now they have formed the greatest tag team since Dennis Rodman/Hollywood Hogan joining the NWO.

Excited to see how this fairy tale guilter alliance ends. And to be clear it’s a simple question - why do guilters support commenters who are directly contradicting their stated theories of the case? Do you all hate Knox that much?

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?

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.

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.

See we are starting down the Supreme Court path of "well they said they were there". Gems like this:

• It shows me you wouldn’t respect any judgment which doesn’t follow your own biased, narrow view of the case.

So in the interest of discussion and comments, lets examine this decision for other "key highlights" we need to respect in the Supreme Courts judgement....Such as these...

Seems...well bad for your girl Stef

• Just consider, in this regard, the modalities of retrieval, sampling and conservation of the two items of major investigative interest in the present judgment: the kitchen knife (item n. 36) and the brassiere hook of the victim (item n. 165/B), regarding to which, during the process, the conduct of the investigators was qualified as lacking in professionalism (f. 207). The big knife or kitchen knife, retrieved in Sollecito’s house and considered as the weapon of the crime, had been kept in a common cardboard box, very similar to the ones used to pack Christmas gadgets, like the diaries normally given to local authorities by credit institutes.
• More singular – and unsettling – is the fate of the brassiere hook. Observed during the first inspection of the scientific police, the item had been ignored and left there, on the floor, for some time (46 days), until, during a new search, it was finally picked up and collected. It is sure that, during the period of time between the inspection in which it was observed and when it was collected, there had been other accesses by the investigators, who turned the room upside down in a search for elements of evidence useful to the investigation. The hook was maybe stepped on or moved (enough to be retrieved on the floor in a different place from where it was firstly noticed). And also, the photographic documentation produced by Sollecito’s defense demonstrates that, during the sampling, the hook was passed hand in hand between the operators who, furthermore, wore dirty latex gloves. Questioned on the reasons for the absence of a prompt sampling, the official of the scientific police, doc. Patrizia Stefanoni, declared that, initially, the collection of the hook was not focused on because the team had already collected all the clothes of the victim. Therefore, no importance was attributed to that little detail, even if, in common perception, that fastening is the part of major investigative interest, being manually operable and, therefore, a potential carrier of biological traces useful for the investigation.

There goes your guilter magic cleanup theory...

• To overcome the inconvenience of such negative element - unequivocally favorable to the current appellants – it has been sustained, in vain, that, after the theft simulation the perpetrators of the crime carried out a “selective” cleaning of the environment, in order to remove only the traces referable to them, while still leaving those attributable to others. The assumption is manifestly illogical. To appreciate, in full, the amount of disparity it is not necessary to carry out an expert investigation ad hoc, even if requested by the defense. Such a cleanup would be impossible according to common-sense rules of ordinary experience, an activity of targeted cleaning capable of avoiding luminol examinations which are in commonplace use by investigators (also used to highlight different traces, not just hematic ones). After all, the same assumption of an asserted precision in the cleaning is shown to be wrong in point of fact, considering that “in the little bathroom” hematic traces on the bathmat, on the bidet, on the faucet, on the cotton buds box, and on the light switch were found. And also, in a case of guilt of the current appellants, certainly they would have had enough time for an accurate cleaning, in the sense that there wouldn't be any reasons for hurry that would have animated any other perpetrator of the crime who would probably be worried about the possible arrival of other persons. In fact, Knox, was well aware of the absence of Romanelli and Mezzetti from the house and she knew that they would have not returned home that night, therefore there would have beenall the necessary time for an accurate cleaning of the house.

Oh no, there goes your luminol....

• Also manifestly illogical, in this regard, is the argument of the trial judge who (at f.186) assumes that he could overrule the defense objection in relation to circumstances in which the luminescent bluish reaction caused by the luminol is also produced in the presence of substances different from blood (for example, detergent residues, fruit juices and others), on the assumption that that, even if theoretically exact, would have to be “contextualized” in the sense that if the fluorescence manifests itself in an environment involving a homicide, the luminol reaction can only be attributed to hematic traces. The weakness of this, even at first sight, doesn’t require any notation, and it would furthermore require the assumptions that the house in via della Pergola was never subject to cleaning or that it was not ever lived in. This analysis permits us therefore to exclude, categorically, that hematic traces were removed on that particular occasion.

Now there goes your screaming...

• Within the reconstruction of the crime, then, it was not taken in account that witnesses Capezzalie and Monachia located the harrowing scream that they heard at a time around 11 11.30 PM. However, Ms. Capezzali was contradicted by other witnesses, residents of the area, who declared they didn’t hear anything

You are respecting and cheering the Supreme Court while at the same time they are totally eviscerating the police and prosecution as a bunch of incompetents. You also are cheering them on for releasing 2 people you believe are homicidal maniacs out into the wilds of America and Italy to commit more homicides, which strangely and coincidentally they have never done again.

So if you demand "respect" for judgments, make sure you "respect" the whole judgment of an acquittal, and why they were acquitted. Please and thank you.

It pains me to say that I can consider myself somewhat of a "Guede" expert by way of constantly reminding guilters about him - since they won't mention his name, his role in the rape and murder of Meredith Kercher, or his new "accusations".

But I see we now have a new strain of "why would Rudy do such things in the first place"?

Look, folks, most crooks don't get out of jail and commit a new crime right away. They don't want to make it that obvious that .... you know ... they are an actual criminal. They especially try to avoid committing the same crime they went to jail for in the first place. So .... it doesn't show much for the power of rehabilitation when you get out of jail and immediately commit a crime (rape and sexual assault), which you were previously accused and convicted of. As Rudy did.

Just like it doesn't make any sense for the homicide investigator in the Kercher case to be accused of being a bully in interrogations.....and then go bully their child's therapist.

Or the prosecutor in the Kercher case to be accused of spouting incoherent Satanic theories or murder.......in multiple cases.

This is your crew. This is who you have to account for in your theory, and defend, and "fit in" to your story.

When your argument with Rudy is "why would he do this," just remember - the dude says he wrote on the wall in Meredith's blood. The dude told his friends he used to walk around in fugue states. The dude's story is that he was there for a booty call of the woman he killed. The dude literally tried to save a woman's life (his words) with towels and then went disco dancing and then fled to another country.

Asking "how is Rudy a burglar?" is up there with history's dumbest questions. So stop pretending you don't know the truth.