r/amandaknox

…is it true that the police actually asked her to go home? That they didn’t even want her in the station initially? But she insisted on coming in…

I am just trying to understand what’s valid vs not?

Amanda cannot be retried under double jeopardy laws (even if the Supreme Court were found to have acted unlawfully), so there is no further legal recourse in this case.

So do guilters want:

- to dedicate their lives to dismantling Amanda’s life and career with constant reminders of ‘the truth’

- to somehow trigger a new investigation despite there being no statutory apparatus for doing so

- to make Amanda confess to the murder and live a life of shameful penance?

Genuine question as I don’t understand what the ideal endgame for guilters is. It feels more like an aggressive hobby than something that’s ever going to drive change.

Hayden played Amanda in the 2011 American television film Amanda Knox: Murder on Trial in Italy.

Most of you are familiar with my mid-burgle confidential/pooping while burgling hypothesis. On the basis of the mid-burgle confidence alone I believe that it, at the very least, establishes reasonable doubt to the charge that Rudy murdered Meredith and, at most, completely exonerates him.

Then, on top of that, there is the incongruity of a burglar taking time out to poop…yet another reason that supports his claim that he was there as Meredith’s guest.

And I don’t have to go into details in this post about either of these reasons as I’ve already done so on this forum; those not familiar can look it up in the search engine for this sub and read about it (search “the rent, the witch, and the wardrobe”).

Well, after a lot of thought, I’ve now come up with what is a third reason for Rudy’s exoneration…and it’s something I’ve posted about before. So it’s nothing new being introduced here but I’ve noticed some nuances to it that I feel its status should be elevated to a third stand-alone reason to support Rudy’s exoneration.

And I’m talking about the doorbell incident.

Rudy claims that while he was on the toilet, he heard the doorbell ring and then the voice of Amanda Knox inside the cottage immediately after, indicating that it was she, Amanda, who rang the doorbell to gain entrance.

In his written judgement finding Rudy guilty, Micheli (if memory serves) put a lot of emphasis on the absurdity of Rudy’s doorbell claim, saying that by no stretch of the imagination should it be believed because how can anyone imagine that a tenant of their own home would need to ring the doorbell to gain access. In Micheli’s eyes, this dramatically reduced Rudy’s credibility and made him out to be a liar. It seems to me to be one of the reasons why Micheli decided to convict.

And yet a few months later once Amanda’s and Raffaele’s trial began and Filomena took the stand, we learn that it was very possible that that is exactly what could have happened. Because if a key was placed in and then left in the inside side of the key slot, even a tenant with a key returning home could not open the door…and would have to knock or ring the bell in order to gain entry. Meredith knew that one of the four tenants was still in town...and that was Amanda, so if she had a paramour over it only makes sense that she would have purposely left a key in the inside side of the front door’s key slot to prevent Amanda from interrupting intimate goings-on between her and Rudy.

So Rudy was in all likelihood not lying when he claimed that Amanda rang the bell; it was not only possible but, given the circumstances, quite likely that that is precisely what happened.

So why do I think this exonerates Rudy as a stand-alone reason?

Think about it: if you’re Rudy and you’re concocting a story that Amanda Knox came to the cottage while you are on the toilet, how stupid could you be to include the ringing of the doorbell? Rudy knew – as everyone knew! – that Amanda was a tenant at the cottage. A tenant with a key. Why in hell would Rudy invent such a stupid story such as her having to ring the doorbell to enter? It is obviously something that any person with a first-grade education could pick apart if it was a concocted tale: tenants don’t need to ring the doorbell to gain access to their own home. Who in their right mind would include that made-up absurd detail?

And yet that is part and parcel of his story.

That it turned out to be something that was not only possible to occur but, indeed, probable means that it wasn’t a stupid near-impossible story that no rational person would include in a made-up story. Instead, it was in all likelihood true. And if true, then Rudy – who couldn’t possibly know the secret of the inside-slot – was Meredith’s invited guest.

The incongruity of an absurd occurance that is very likely to be true goes a very long way towards giving credibility to the entire story.

Just as it’s improbable that Rudy could have known that Meredith’s palm print was on Amanda’s wardrobe door – thereby serving as independent corroboration of his claim that Meredith told him she suspected Amanda of stealing her rent money and then seeing Meredith enter Amanda’s room to search for it – so, too, does not knowing about the inside-key slot thing and claiming he heard the doorbell corroborate his claim to be on the toilet as an invited guest.

The bottom line: something that was used, in part, to justify Rudy’s guilty verdict turns out to be the exact opposite: it’s a reason to exonerate him.

My apologies to those for whom this is just a repeat. However, I would like to provide a post so that those blocked by corpusvile2 can respond.

I personally believe that mass-blockers like corpusvile2 should not be allowed to do original posts since doing so runs the risk of preventing any casual readers from hearing both sides of any argument. Seriously look at the comments. The only innocentisti appear to be the mods. Let corpus start their very own "Amanda Knox is Guilty" subreddit if they want.

It also demonstrates mass-blocker narcissism. Corpusvile2's post has the highest up vote count seen in this subreddit for quite some time. Well not a surprise when anyone who would disagree is blocked from voting. It's like scoring a touchdown when the opposing team is still on the bus from the airport.

Now if you disagree and don't mind blockers doing original posts, then feel free to say so here.

I'm not afraid of debate.

Edit: Upon more careful review there are a *few* innocentisti pushing back in that OP. Apparently they haven't been blocked *yet*. But apologies for not acknowledging you.

>"Mr Sollecito, now 42 and a computer engineer, criticised the gig and said he found it 'puzzling' that the tragedy was being used as a 'draw for a comedy show'. 

>He said: 'I haven't seen it, so I cannot pass judgment on its content. However, based on how it has been presented and promoted, I find it puzzling that a tragedy is being used as a draw for a comedy show. 

>'Personally, it is not an approach I agree with. I am trying to process and move past what happened in a different way.' "

>Hmmm.....

Would love people’s views on this.

Loosely Amanda related, since she has recently produced a podcast around it.

>More power to her for peppering this account with several adroit jokes – even if they elicit more rueful smiles than laughs. She’s an inexperienced comedian, this isn’t a “show” – but she shapes and performs this umpteenth telling of her story well. I found its spirit of defiance stirring, I found it respectful to the memory of her murdered roommate, and as well judged an effort by Knox to reclaim her awful story as we have any right to expect.

Why start a discussion about Lucy Letby here when there are already two discussion groups on Reddit, r/LucyLetby and r/LucyLetbyTrials?

Why not let Amanda Knox speak for herself, because her perspective is remarkable:

She has firsthand experience as a victim of a miscarriage of justice.

She understands the power of public opinion and the media.

As a young mother, she has empathy for the parents, partly because she suffered a miscarriage before her first child!

She was mistaken in her hasty support of Jens Söring as an alleged victim of a miscarriage of justice, whose presumed innocence she now considers far from certain after closer examination.

This is also why she invested more than two years of thorough research into this 15-part series before she felt she could justify its publication, unlike some dwarfs who quickly voice their opinions.

Guess the British audience got bamboozled by Curt’s PR offensive again.

Still no word from the Guede camp on his “respect” for women or for Meredith’s memory

"Mr Sollecito, now 42 and a computer engineer, criticised the gig and said he found it 'puzzling' that the tragedy was being used as a 'draw for a comedy show'. 

He said: 'I haven't seen it, so I cannot pass judgment on its content. However, based on how it has been presented and promoted, I find it puzzling that a tragedy is being used as a draw for a comedy show. 

'Personally, it is not an approach I agree with. I am trying to process and move past what happened in a different way.' "

Hmmm.....

Gave it two stars. This bit was rather salient.

>So do Kercher’s sister Stephanie and the more than 10,000 people who have signed a petition to stop Cartwheel from being performed have a point? Really, no: not only does Knox not make fun of “rape and murder”, as Stephanie suggested, she only mentions her friend fairly briefly, and very earnestly. Kercher’s name, for good or for ill, doesn’t get mentioned until halfway through the hour.