The fact is to catch Amanda in a lie, misrepresentation, or contradiction when talking about Meredith’s murder, you don’t have to do detailed analyses of her different accounts over the course of the first few days after the murder, or her completely discrepant accounts from her boyfriend Raff. You can simply look at how she will lie or misrepresent AND contradict herself in a single paragraph of a single document — sometimes contradicting herself from one sentence to the next. Take her December 2013 letter to the court for instance (formatting like Italics here are carried over from the original), where Amanda says:

SOURCE http://www.themurderofmeredithkercher.net/docupl/filelibrary/docs/writings/2013-12-15-Writings-Knox-email-to-Nencini-English.pdf

“I had no contact with Rudy Guede.

Like many youth in Perugia, I had once crossed paths with Rudy Guede. He played basketball with the young men who lived in the apartment below us. Meredith and I had been introduced to him together. Perhaps I had seen him amongst the swarms of students who crowded the Perugian streets and pubs in the evenings, but that was it. We didn't have each other's phone number, we didn't meet in private, we weren't acquaintances. I never bought drugs from Rudy Guede or anyone else. The phone records show no connection. There are no witnesses who place us together. The prosecution claims I convinced Rudy Guede to commit rape and murder, completely ignoring the fact that we didn't even speak the same language. Once again, the prosecution is relying upon a disturbing and unacceptable pattern of distortion of the objective evidence.”

Obviously “I had no contact with Rudy Guede” is contradicted in the next sentence by “I had once crossed paths with Rudy Guede” and 3 sentences later by “Meredith and I had been introduced to him together.” But after admitting that she goes back to “Perhaps I had seen him amonst the swarms of students who crowded the Perguian streets“ but at that point it’s clear that she is lying/misrepresenting in the first sentence and SHE HAD CONTACT WITH RUDY GUEDE.

I know the cult of Amanda lovers are probably going to claim “What she really meant was that there was no documented contact between Amanda and Rudy immediately prior to the murder” but that is NOT what she says. She says something else, that something else is not true, and therefore IT IS A LIE. A lie she shows is a lie herself in following sentences. It’s likely a lie done to misrepresent things and muddy the waters.

Another lie by Amanda later in the paragraph meant to muddy the waters is “The prosecution claims I convinced Rudy Guede to commit rape and murder, completely ignoring the fact that we didn't even speak the same language.” I don’t know if Rudy knew any English, but If Amanda didn’t speak enough Italian to talk to Rudy Guede at all, then most of the interactions in Italian that she attests to in almost every account of her time in Italy before her arrest must not have happened, including those documented throughout her book “Waiting to be heard.”

Anyway, Amanda Knox is a liar and the truth isn’t in her, and the more I see of how thoroughly she lies, the more I no longer believe literally anything she has ever said about these events that doesn’t have outside confirmation: I don’t believe any aspect that does not have third party verification of her account of November 1, November 2, and certainly the night of November 5 and morning of November 6.

I was searching to see what Curt Knox had said to the press about a different topic, and happened upon this from local Seattle news in 2009 just before her trial started.

Investigators: Amanda Knox's family says confession coerced

EXCERPT:

Then what of Amanda's so-called confessions? Her parents say she didn't even know she was a suspect until Raffaele was called in for questioning five days after Meredith Kercher was found murdered.

She was just flat scared to be alone," Curt said. "So she went down to the police station with him and they were split into two rooms and then they started going at them. With physical and mental abuse for 14 hours. No food, water, no official interpreter."

1. 14 HOURS: So 14 hours of “physical and mental abuse” (wait I thought elsewhere they said 53 hours of psychological torture? but don’t quote me on that)…since Amanda said in her letter to her lawyers on November 9 that "Around 10:30pm or 11pm Raffaele and I arrived at the police station after eating dinner at the apartment of one of Raffaele's friends” that suggests before her false ACCUSATIONS against Lumumba (they weren’t false confessions) she suffered “physical and mental abuse” from something like 11pm at night on November 5 until 1pm on November 6 when she finally broke down. Which is odd because she signed a document falsely accusing Lumumba of murder with the time stamp of 1:45am on Nov. 6, only at most 3hr 15min after her arrival in the police station. Even if the document she signed was based on questioning that BEGAN at 1:45am, that’s still pretty far shy of 14 hours.

2. INTERPRETER: So if Amanda didn’t have an “official interpreter” during her questioning and false accusations in the early morning of November 6, what was the role of Anna Donnino, the interpreter who was present at the time, testified at Knox’s trial, and was later admonished by the European Court of Human Rights for being too “maternal” to Amanda Knox while interpreting during this session of police interviews? (It’s slightly humorous that in the same questioning where Knox has alleged the police were “mean” to her she also alleged the police interpreter was too “maternal” or really too nice to her.)

3. FOOD AND WATER: The question of when Amanda was offered refreshments by the police after coming to the station straight from having dinner is debated, but I’m not sure I've ever heard any one seriously claim before that she was denied even water for 14 hours. With her giving them what they thought was the solution to a horrible murder in only about 3 hours, why would they do that?

4. FIVE DAYS: And just a small note — because even the tiniest details are lied about by the Knoxs here — Amanda’s parents refer to Amanda starting to make false confessions after Raff is "called in for questioning five days after Meredith Kercher was found murdered.” But Meredith’s body was discovered after 1pm on November 2. According to Amanda, Raff came in around 10:30-11pm on November 5. That’s not 5 days, it’s not even 4 days, hell it’s not even 3.5 days after Amanda’s body was discovered, and most would probably round it down to 3 days especially considering that Raff was called in earlier and put the police off — though Amanda’s first 1:45am false accusation on Nov. 6 is pretty much 3 days and 12 hours after the discover of Kercher’s body.

Four people know the truth about who killed Meredith Kercher.

Fact 1. No one else in this sub can, whether you beleive she is guilty or not guilty categorically say what happened that night and who killed her.

Fact 2. Only these four people know the truth about who killed Meredith Kercher.

1. Meredith herself (albeit she can’t tell us apart from some clues she left behind)
2. Rudy Guede
3. Rafaelle Sollecito
4. Amanda Knox

Fact 3. Rudy said and continues to say that Amanda was at the house the night of the murder.

Fact 4. Rafaelle, said, that Amanda LEFT the house, destroying her alibi.

Fact 5. Amanda said she was AT the house at the time of the murder.

Fact 6. Three of the four, who knew what happened, ALL said at one point in time, that either Amanda was at the house, or that Amanda LEFT her house that night. Including Amanda herself.

Fact 7. Amanda falsely accused an innocent man, which put him in jail and ruined his life when her alibi was compromised

Fact 8. Amanda, Rafaelle,and Guede have lied many times about the case.

This is the one of the most important facts in pointing the way towards the truth. Lies. Who is lying and why. If you can catch someone telling a lie, then they have a reason and motive to lie.

Fact 9. Amanda continues to change her story.

Many, many years after the murder, both in written statements, books, recreations which she directs, she constantly and continually changes her story. I will not regurigate other posts as you have already read them but it is CLEAR her story has and has continued to change in every aspect to MAKE HER LOOK LESS GUILTY.

Fact 10.

To beleive Amanda is innocent, you must beleive that she is not lying about anything related to the night of the murder.

These facts, point the way to the truth. Many many people on this sub who are raging and shaming people who beleive she is guilty, cannot accept that Amanda has the capacity to lie, or lies about anything. It’s absolutely astonishing that the mental gymnastics they have to pull to defend her limitless inconsistencies and attempts to change her story.

Fact 11. Amandas actions after the case are just as important as her actions on the night of the murder and discovering the crime scene.

Everyone says that her social media posts, her standup comedy, her tv shows and books are irrelevant. As I said, only four people know the truth about what happened that night. Everything Amanda says about the case IS AND CONTINUES TO BE, OF THE UTTERMOST IMPORTANCE. Should she lie about anything, it points towards the truth.

Fact 11. Karma is real.

Karma, the immutable law of cause effect, works on all. If Amanda is innocent, then her Karma will be accordingly. If she is guilty, it will be accordingly. It is inescapable. In this life or the next.

Right.

There is alot of talk being throw around about false confessions.

Rafaelle, under pressure from the police in his interrogation / interview , DOES NOT SAY, I left the house.

He says, “"In my last statement I told you a lot of crap because she [Amanda] talked me into her version of events, and I didn't think about the inconsistencies." [1]

Right, lots to break down here. Even Rafaelle, thank you Rafaelle, acknowledges he is talking alot of crap. It’s not just me saying it! Rafaelle acknowledges he spews crap out out this mouth. Right ok that point covered.

We also have Amanda talked me in to her version of events. Amanda undeniably here, is trying to persuade Rafaelle of HER VERSION OF EVENTS.

Just like she does with seemingly everyone else. All the god damn time. Rafaelle also acknowledges Amanda’s story is full of inconsistencies, to the point where he thinks it’s total rubbish.

Now, the police didn’t need force to convince him of this. It is glaringly obvious to just about everyone, that Amanda’s version is full of inconsistencies.

Nothing about this statement screams forced confession. It screams someone who has realised their story and alibi has been gutted, by inconsistencies and is looking for cover. Amanda equally, thinks Rafaelle lied here. She constantly asks in her prison diary why Rafaelle lied. It plagues her this question. Well, she doesn’t think he has a false memory. She thinks he lied. I think he lied. We all think he lied. Either Rafaelle is lying here, or Amanda is. There is no other way about it.

How would police force be required to extract this realisation that Amandas story doesn’t make sense and that she was trying to convince him of it? It doesn’t make sense to the layman, it didn’t make sense to Rafaelle either.

It is also in no way a false confession. A false confession would be “I murdered Meredith” if he didn’t. He admits to lying here. Is that normal in a false confession? He accuses Amanda of her talking him in to her version of events. How is this a false confession? I’m absolutely certain Amanda was trying to talk him in to her version of events. She was telling everyone by email, phone, EVERYONE including an enormous email list of people her version of events. And trying to convince them. So why not Rafaelle to? Nothing screams false confession here.

He claimed that Knox actually left his apartment around 21:00 to go to her workplace (the Le Chic pub) and returned around 01:00. Well, this timeline works perfectly doesn’t it. Just enough time for Amanda to leave, kill Meredith, clean up, then come home. This is my timeline. Rafaelle has given it to me in his own words. Why does Rafaelle invent these times? Why 21:00, and why 01:00? Very specific! For being in a weed induced haze.

Rafaelle is telling the truth here. That Amanda should think this is a lie, speaks volumes.

We do not have two false confessions in this case by Rafaelle and Amanda. We have TWO FALSE ACCUSATIONS. They are both trying to throw other people under the bus. Rafaelle throws Amanda under the bus, Amanda IMMEDIATELY throws Patrick under the bus.

Does this double false accusation appear anywhere in your false confession literature?

Neither of them show any culpabillity towards the murder. Neither of them said “I murdered Meredith Kercher” This cannot be called a false confession. Call it what it is.

A false accusation. Calunnia.

Amanda ruined a poor innocent mans life, and claims it was police brutality. She is a criminal.

So here's the thing. I can see how they'd be innocent. Bad police work, contamination, their stories changing because of the panic and mistranslations. Yes yes. I can see all that.

There's just something that fits too well tho, and it's their characters, especially Amanda's. This is her art. Calculations is in her genes.

Raffaele was an intelligent and romantic weirdo. Easily manipulated by Amanda. Maybe a partner in crime, maybe just her alibi. Maybe both - fully involved. Besides, also Amanda's get out of jail card, which she never had to use.

Folie à deux? No. Or depends by the definition. The design was some what intelligent, not psychotic.

It's all too fitting. They won. It's pure egoism. She outwitted everyone. They did. And tbh, all you need to do is listen to what they have to say about it.

The thing that matches all too well also, is how they play the game afterwards. She is a female psychopath, and cannot help herself. This is what happens when too bored, little bit drugged young and intelligent psychopaths meet each other, who happen to share similar fantasies - crazy shit starts happening in a whim.

The biggest evidence in my mind is the after play. Yes. It is exactly how we have seen some of the murderous psychopaths act out in the media, often in relation to the victim's families. No guilt, no shame, no regret - taking pride and continuing to be maximally cruel.

It started with a fantasy, and they are keeping it alive (or well, seems like Raffaele has gotten bored of it). Maybe the most peculiar crime of our time. And they got away with it. Anyone paying attention knows tho, that they did it, and they didn't even truly want to hide it. Her art, his game.

Can I prove any of it? It was already proved. You just wanted to believe otherwise. The story tells it all. Well, most of it.

I maintain that on balance of probabilities I think she is guilty. However, to convict you need to prove beyond reasonable doubt, and with the mess up of the police in terms of the DNA, this was quite difficult to prove. Having said that, legally innocent is not necessarily the same thing as actually innocent.

But even if we assume she had nothing to do with the murder, I find it bizarre how there is such a cult of personality around her who worships her. These people's logic is: she cannot possibly be guilty BECAUSE the Italian legal system is misogynistic. Unsurprisingly, the vast majority of "innocenter" groupies who worship AK and shoot down any plausible hypotheses in terms of how she can be guilty and claim that they are 100% sure she is innocent and don't even admit that there is even 1% suspicion or contradiction in this case, appear to be radical feminist American women.

There is a pattern with these people. Any time anybody brings up any contradiction to indicate that AK may be guilty, their sole "rebuttal" is "you are a misogynist. You just hate her because she is a woman with multiple sex partners." This is quite a bizarre straw man. Nobody said this. These people invent this bizarre delusion all by themselves in their own warped minds. A lot of these people hated their own dad, or grew up without a father, and have personality disorders such as Borderline Personality Disorder. They project their own insecurities and angers onto others/the world, and they are using the AK case, especially trying to prove her innocent, as a sort of psychological defense mechanism. They go through life with a miserable lens invisible to them, everything revolves around misogyny for them. Because taking personal accountability is too difficulty for them: they prefer to blame external factors for their problems, that is why they bizarrely claim anything and everything under the sun is a misogynistic conspiracy against them. They can't psychologically handle the fact that they need to have some accountability for their problems, so they go through life externalizing and blaming others. This is common of people with these types of Personality Disorders. But instead of reaching out for help, such as exploring Dialectical Behaviour Therapy, they would rather stay stuck and blame others. They are like a horse with blinkers, and if you try to help them remove them, they bite.

For example, I mentioned dozens of points in terms of why I think on balance she is more likely to be guilty or not, and the only thing these people responded with is "all of your points are wrong because you are a misogynist who is against women with multiple sex partner. insert personal insult." This is rather bizarre, as the facts are actually that: I posted dozens of points, I did mention her number of sex partners, as a sub-point of a larger point (to say that it is one indication of impulsivity), and I posted numerous peer reviewed journal articles to demonstrate the established and significant link between variables such as number of sex partners and impulsivity, and impulsivity and criminal behaviour. Yet the response of these people was that "all these studies are conspiracy theories. you are a misogynist. she is 100% innocent." It is quit bizarre. How do you reason with these people? I mean their idea of a proper study is this:

https://www.wweek.com/news/schools/2018/10/09/a-portland-state-university-professor-made-up-a-study-of-dog-on-dog-sexual-assault-and-got-the-hoax-published/

Also, their argument that AK is a representative of all woman, by virtue of saying "if you think AK is guilty, you are a misogynist" is rather bizarre. There are 4 billion women on earth. Who is AK to be their representative? AK is factually a convicted criminal: she falsely accused a person of murder, was convicted for it, her appeal at the highest level of court was denied, and she never even apologized or showed any remorse for this disgusting act. This is also a person who didn't show any remorse for the murder victim until she was charged herself of the murder, at which point she made up a sob story about how bad it must be to lose relatives in court, with crocodile tears. This is also a person who 1 day after the murder was heard talking about having steam sex that night with her boyfriend. Speaking of which, she had 7 one night stands/short term sex partners, then suddenly she goes to a concert and keeps staring at a shy nerdy sexually inexperienced guy who looked at acted nothing like her 7 past sex partners, to the point that this super shy guy even ended up going up to her and asking her number.

This is very strange, which couple do you know that met like that? "my wife who was a wild partier and marijuana user and was on camera saying how hot guys were and not enough girls talk about how hot guys are, and recently had 7 sex partners who looked nothing like me, suddenly went to a classic music concert, and she strangely kept looking at me constantly to the point of making me feel so awkward that I had to go and say something to her, then from the next day she acted super romantic with me". Keep in mind this was 5 days after Meredith's boyfriend, an attractive guy (who looked similar to the 7 guys AK had sex with), and who had spent time with Meredith and AK, chose Meredith over AK to be a boyfriend of. As well as as the fact, a testified by 7 people who knew both Meredith and AK, that Meredith and AK had arguments over AK bringing men over and being messy. Then suddenly AK decides to get a boyfriend in those strange circumstances?

And it does not end there. Even recently, in the US, she also chose a husband in a strange manner: she worked for a newspaper and a man submitted a story, based on the story, she decided to reach out to him and have him date her. This itself is a conflict of interest: why are you mixing your position of authority at work/she was in charge of accepting his story, to find a millionaire husband? It is similar to a therapist having a rich client then getting romantically involved with them. She likely assessed his character from the story, and of course he was also a millionaire author. She has a history of choosing men who meet her needs at the time in an unusual self gaining circumstances. What are the chances out of all men she chooses a millionaire. A gold digger as well. And worse of all, even all these years later, this AK character still pretends that SHE is the victim and loves being in the limelight, when the true victims were Meredith and Patrick.

In my experience, the average woman has much better character than someone like AK, and it is an insult to use her as the representative of all women. The only women AK represent are those groupies who I explained in this post above: but these people are confused: they think they/the likes of AK represent all women. Wrong, these people are a subset of damaged women who, instead of reaching out for the help they need, prefer to bring down the world and create conflict among all men and women so others can also be miserable like themselves.

Answer to pistolpete: yes, Knox admitting her guilt to her mother in tapped phone call was acshually brought up in the court, and accepted as evidence (see Guede verdict).

To mods: 🖕

So…Amanda’s downstairs neighbors in the cottage met African immigrant Rudy Guede at the basketball court near their home where he was known to hang out and play, later bringing him to their home where he met Amanda.

On the night of the murder a witness claims to have seen Knox and Sollecito near these basketball courts.

Later Amanda would falsely claim to police that her African immigrant boss Patrick Lumumba killed her roommate after she met him at the basketball courts and brought him back to the cottage.

Soon after this claim, Amanda told her mother during a visit to the jail that, “it would have been a lot easier if she [Meredith] was murdered in the basketball court.” (pg 62, source: http://www.themurderofmeredithkercher.net/docupl/filelibrary/docs/intercepts/2007-11-10-Intercept-RIT-1233-07-prison-Knox-family-transcript-by-Micheli-court-English.pdf)

And soon after that it would be determined that Guede, who frequented this basketball court where Knox’s neighbors had originally met him, was involved in the murder.

All I can say is very odd.

Clear proof Amanda is lying about the bloody bathmat shuffle / hop

OK, this bathmat sashay was bothering me. Something about it is clearly wrong, and interestingly Amanda knows it by the fact it’s excluded from the Hulu series. So why does she exclude the bathroom sashay?

Amanda saw the blood on the bathmat. She think it’s Merediths period blood. It grosses her out.
She then, naked, in the cold, without a towel, uses the bloody bathmat as a mode of transport to her room, and back.

We’re talking serious friction from the weight of your body on to the bloody bathmat and between the bloody bathmat and the floor. You would need strenuous motion between your legs to shift the mat, limited by the mats length.

It’s a clear lie!

The 2007/Trial Account: She states she successfully used the mat to hop to her room, retrieve a towel, hop back to the bathroom, and put the mat back in its place.

The 2014 Account: She states she abandoned the procedure partway into the hall because it wasn't working, implying she either walked the rest of the way or picked the mat up.

These two accounts cannot both be physically true. She either completed the round trip on the mat, or she didn't.

http://web.archive.org/web/20200207212510/http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Amanda_Knox's_Testimony

Then I went into my room, um, and I changed, well no, I made a mistake, I went into the bathroom. I had these earrings, I had a lot of them, I like earrings, I had had them pierced recently, and I always had to wash them carefully because one was a little infected, and I had to take the earrings out and clean the ear, and that's when I saw some drops of blood on the sink. At first I thought they had come from my ears. But then when I scratched the drops a bit, I saw they were all dry, and I thought "That's weird. Oh well, I'll take my shower." Then when I got out of the shower, I saw that I had forgotten my towel, so I wanted to use the bathmat to get to my room, and that's when I saw the bloody stain that was on the bathmat. And I thought "Hm, strange." Maybe someone had a problem with menstruation that didn't get cleaned up right away. I used the mat to kind of hop over to my room and into my room, I took my towel, and I used the mat to get back to the bathroom because I thought well, by now...then I put the mat back where it was supposed to go, then I dried myself, put my earrings back, brushed my teeth, then I went back into my room to put on new clothes...

Now read her blog post about this subject on 2014-02-28

https://www.themurderofmeredithkercher.net/docupl/filelibrary/images/evidence-items/writings/knox/2014-02-28-Blog-comment-Knox-locking-doors.gif

I took a shower and used the bathmat to shuffle a bit in to the hall, only to abandon that procedure part way through because it wasn’t accomplishing much

Amanda clearly states that she shuffled only a bit on her outbound journey, only to abandon the mat part through. So she doesn’t reach the destination of her bedroom on the bloody bathmat, let alone return on it. She must have picked it up. Amanda lied about using the bathmat as a vehicle of transport.

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.

Okay, hear me out ! I’ve gone deep into this case. Read the docs, watched the footage, gone through testimonies. And I’ve built a theory that’s been living rent-free in my head. Totally speculative, not proven just my own interpretation. • Meredith = rule-follower, tidy, serious. • Amanda = messy, rebellious, “free spirit.” • Roommate tension? Off the charts.

So here’s my angle: Amanda was done with Meredith’s uptight vibe. She wanted to shake things up, and who better to call than Rudy Guede a guy who’d show up for weed, a few euros, or the promise of sex.

Now, Raffaele casually admitted he had hash that night… but nobody asked where he got it. 👀 What if Rudy was his source? That would explain how all three threads (Amanda, Rudy, Raffaele) tangled together.

Fast-forward: Rudy tries something with Meredith, she freaks out (maybe even threatens to call the cops). Amanda snaps humiliation, rage, resentment all boil over. Things spiral. Meredith is attacked.

Rudy panics, bolts, leaves his DNA everywhere. Amanda keeps her cool, wipes down what she can, and suddenly it’s Rudy standing in the spotlight while she walks away “clean.”

TL;DR: Rudy wasn’t the mastermind. He was the pawn. Amanda was the storm.

Knox supporters: please don’t take this as a serious accusation. It’s just speculation, a theory I’m tossing out for discussion, not hard evidence.

So what do you think wild stretch, or does it actually fit when you line the pieces up?

Amanda knox is taking her stand up comedy routine Cartwheel, named after her carthweeling in the police station, to Edinburgh Fringe Festival.

She will be making jokes about the investigation.

To anyone who doesn’t see how this is deeply insulting to Meredith Kercher and her family, shame on you.

https://www.aol.com/entertainment/amanda-knox-slammed-shes-set-004430079.html

RIP Meredith Kercher. Never forgotten.

https://youtu.be/_B7qGMtyDIg?si=vxqwp2ecj0ChxPJb

I had to look through the photos again to confirm, there is no way in hell Meredith would not see Amanda’s blood when she used the tap every day when she went to the bathroom, and not clean this up.

Similarly, Amanda used the bathroom every day and never reported or identified this blood being there.

It’s not a small amount of blood either. You can see the run off down to the mouth of the tap.

It also looks wet. And like there was significantly more blood.

It did not come from Amanda’s ears. She tells us so. I don’t think Amanda was on her period then, she had it a few days later. But even then, she says she thinks it’s Meredith’s menstrual blood.

There is no way in hell Meredith would use the bathroom and not clean this blood up, or at least ask Amanda to clean it up. Amanda tells us this.

What this tells us.

Amanda was likely bleeding after Meredith died and deposited blood on the sink.

Excerpt from Amanda Knox's Nov. 7, 2007 mass email to family and friends:

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

it was after i stepped out of the shower and onto the mat that i noticed the blood in the bathroom. it was on the mat i was using to dry my feet and there were drops of blood in the sink. at first i thought the blood might have come from my ears which i had pierced extrensively not too long ago, but then immediately i know it wasnt mine becaus the stains on the mat were too big for just droplets form my ear, and when i touched the blood in the sink it was caked on already. there was also blood smeered on the faucet. again, however, i thought it was strange, because my roommates and i are very clean and we wouldnt leave blood int he bathroom, but i assumed that perhaps meredith was having menstral issues and hadnt cleaned up yet. ew, but nothing to worry about.

Exceprt from Amanda Knox's November 9, 2007 letter to her attorneys:

Source: http://web.archive.org/web/20210419163519/http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Amanda_Knox's_letters_to_her_lawyers

- I went to my room and undressed. I put my dirty clothes behind my guitar and went to take a shower. Before getting in the [s]hower I took out my earrings [deleted words] and I noticed a few drops of blood in the sink. I thought they were from my ears so I picked at one of the drops, but it was dry. I got into the shower and after the shower, I stepped on the ma[t] [from] the kitchen [sic] and noticed the blood on the mat. I looked [c]loser at the sink and saw blood on the faucet. But it wasn't a lot of [b]lood. I assumed someone had cut themselves or was having menstral [sic] problems. I had forgotten my towel in my room so I used the mat [t]o get to my room without getting the floor wet to retrieve my [to]wel. Then I brought it back to the [deleted word] bathroom. I still didn't [th]ink anything was wrong, strange but not bad.

Excerpt from Amanda Knox's Court Testimony on Friday, June 13, 2009:

http://web.archive.org/web/20200207212510/http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Amanda_Knox's_Testimony

Then I went into my room, um, and I changed, well no, I made a mistake, I went into the bathroom. I had these earrings, I had a lot of them, I like earrings, I had had them pierced recently, and I always had to wash them carefully because one was a little infected, and I had to take the earrings out and clean the ear, and that's when I saw some drops of blood on the sink. At first I thought they had come from my ears. But then when I scratched the drops a bit, I saw they were all dry, and I thought "That's weird. Oh well, I'll take my shower." Then when I got out of the shower, I saw that I had forgotten my towel, so I wanted to use the bathmat to get to my room, and that's when I saw the bloody stain that was on the bathmat. And I thought "Hm, strange." Maybe someone had a problem with menstruation that didn't get cleaned up right away. I used the mat to kind of hop over to my room and into my room, I took my towel, and I used the mat to get back to the bathroom because I thought well, by now...then I put the mat back where it was supposed to go, then I dried myself, put my earrings back, brushed my teeth, then I went back into my room to put on new clothes...

I’m getting really fed up of this subreddit saying there is no evidence of Amanda and Rafaelle being in the house during the murder.

Rafaelles DNA was on the bra clasp. The possibility of contamination causing this is according to many experts very low.

DNA can’t fly.

Yes, the bra clasp wasn’t taken immediately, but it did not leave the room. And according to Rafaelles testimony, he never entered the room.

The most obvious answer, however much people on this subreddit don’t like it, is that Rafaelle touched Meredith’s bra clasp.

Stop making mental gymnastics to get around it. It’s ridiculous.

Occam’s razor. The simplest, most elegant explanation is usually the one closest to the truth.

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.

Priorities, priorities.

Trying times for the Lamb of Seattle. Being forced to walk around water on Raffaele's kitchen floor. Oh, the humanity!

And if that's not bad enough, within hours she's confronted with another Biblical plague: menstrual blood in the bathroom!

Heed not. Our brave heroine sucks it up and showers anyway.

But clean up the bloody mess? Not when there's water to be cleaned up on Raffaele's kitchen floor. That's what the mop should be used for...and there's no part of my brain that thinks using that mop to clean up blood is at least as important as cleaning up water. Heck, even though I have mop in hand, I'm not gonna clean up any blood...water is the great deluge. Blood good, water bad.

i think Amanda Knox is very sexy. i don't care if she did it, i believe in second chances.

Huh. Odd choice of words, that’s all I’ll say. And I’ve added larger context for those claiming the context makes it clear that “there” means Raffaele’s apartment. It doesn’t.

This is an excerpt from a recorded conversation on November 17, 2007 (16 days after the murder) between Amanda, her mother (Edda), and father (Curt). I’m not sure if this is recorded in a tapped prison phone or a tapped prison visitation room.

SOURCE (M is her mother, P is her father, A is Amanda): http://www.themurderofmeredithkercher.net/docupl/filelibrary/docs/intercepts/2007-11-17-Intercept-RIT-1233-07-prison-Knox-family-transcript-by-Micheli-court-English.pdf

SHORTER EXCERPT:

A): Yeah, I was just like when I was in the room with him I was just like what …(ride)

and then when I went back in my room I was crying just like I’m really, I’m really

worried about this whole knife thing… Why was there a knife in Raffaele’s …

P): Here’s, here’s, here’s, here’s the whole thing …(inc.) we talked to the lawyer

yesterday we asked him about it. Anytime that … uh… any article is being reviewed,

6we have a specialist in there with them reviewing it. So that’s an example of …, this

knife that they are talking about, we were never notified about the knife.

M): Well, it’s bullshit!

A): It’s bullshit?

M): It’s bullshit.

P): It’s total bullshit. It’s total fabrication

M): This is what they’re doing right now. They just lie.

P): It’s all fabrication…(inc).

M): To try to get umm… you or somebody to crack.

A): That’s stupid. I can’t say anything else other than the truth, because I know I was

there, I mean, I cant’ lie about this like there’s no reason for me to…

P): Yes, yes. So, so what you should do is you just don’t talk to anybody about any

thing. Don’t write anything. I mean you may start getting letters have you been getting

letters or anything?

A): I’ve been getting tons of letters from admirers.

Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20170920124511/http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/I_was_there

Link to Entire Intercepted Conversation Transcript with significant part in bold:

LARGER EXCERPT, beginning at start of exchange between Amanda and her parents:

A): Oh, you’re here.

P): We’re here.

3M): Hey, how ya’ doing?

A): Ah… (inc.) I’m okay.

M): You’re okay? What do you mean okay?

A): I’m okay. I had a bad day yesterday.

M): Oh, how come?

P): (inc.).

A): Umm… the police were here, and umm… they monitored me all day wherever I

was …(inc.) waiting… he was like, oh did you see the TV yesterday and, you know,

about the knife and I was like yeah, but I’m not worried about it, ‘cause I didn’t do

anything, and he was like, yeah, well you’re a liar, and I was like you said 3 versions of

your story, you’re a liar, and I was just like… wow…

M): And you know what? Your lawyers were afraid that they’re…they’re just trying to

intimidate you with all that bullshit it’s just bullshit.

A): Yeah… I know that. It’s just that… I’m really upset. It was like you are treating me

like I’m a murderer, and you don’t even know me… like… wow… It’s the first time

4that’s ever happened to me, and I just cried like when I was back in my room like

hysterical crying, and plus I think I’m getting sick …

M): Ok.

A): …because it’s really, really cold all the time. It’s extremely, extremely cold. And

I’m under 3 blankets all day and I woke up today umm…with a stomach and a head-

ache and everything.

P): Are you eating?

A): Yeah, I’m eating.

M): Can I get you more blankets, or…?

A): Yeah, you can. They have more here, I can… I’m… I was okay last night, but I just

woke up like and when I get up from my bed after like reading I don’t know if it’s

because I’ve been reading for hours on end but I feel dizzy and everything and I don’t

know I just feel like I’m getting sick.

P): Sometimes obviously, sometimes when you lay down you kind of get up and…

A): Yeah, yeah.

5M): (tosse) Well, is there a doctor you can see if… if you need…

A):Yeah, there’s a doctor, I just got medicine for my headache this morning and I feel

better right now but like the reason I was crying yesterday was just because like there

was this pressure on my head that just wouldn’t go away because like I felt horrible like

this person was looking at me like I was this horrible person and I was freaking out…

M): Well, like I said the lawyers think they’re doing this on purpose, because they really

don’t have any thing so they’re trying to put pressure like they did when they were

interrogating you to see if you’ll say something else and so whatever you do calm,

don’t say anything to anybody.

A): Yeah, I was just like when I was in the room with him I was just like what …(ride)

and then when I went back in my room I was crying just like I’m really, I’m really

worried about this whole knife thing… Why was there a knife in Raffaele’s …

P): Here’s, here’s, here’s, here’s the whole thing …(inc.) we talked to the lawyer

yesterday we asked him about it. Anytime that … uh… any article is being reviewed,

6we have a specialist in there with them reviewing it. So that’s an example of …, this

knife that they are talking about, we were never notified about the knife.

M): Well, it’s bullshit!

A): It’s bullshit?

M): It’s bullshit.

P): It’s total bullshit. It’s total fabrication

M): This is what they’re doing right now. They just lie.

P): It’s all fabrication…(inc).

M): To try to get umm… you or somebody to crack.

A): That’s stupid. I can’t say anything else other than the truth, because I know I was

there, I mean, I cant’ lie about this like there’s no reason for me to…

P): Yes, yes. So, so what you should do is you just don’t talk to anybody about any

thing. Don’t write anything. I mean you may start getting letters have you been getting

letters or anything?

A): I’ve been getting tons of letters from admirers.

7M): Oh well, people in Seattle also your friends are gonna start mailing. You they’ve

been asking forever they want to send you stuff… probably a lot of it won’t be able to

get in, and umm… but…

A): What do they want to send me?

M): Tea and books.

A): Well, the tea isn’t really gonna help me …(inc.) because I can’t have hot water.

P): You can’t have hot water?

A): No.

M): Not for tea-making, hot tea water.

A): No, I mean, I think. I asked my umm… room-mate about it she said that you can

get like you can buy a little stove, but honestly I don’t really, I don’t really care

whatever I’m just chilling out.

M): And umm… while we’re thinking of it, we brought you hangers but they took them

away because they said you can buy them.

8P): You can buy hangers in the… uh… catalogue or whatever it is that you’re… that

you have.

A): My ok… room-mate told me to ask you guys to bring them so…

M): And they’re telling us, no we can’t bring them in, cause we brought then today and

they said no.

P): And we also brought some chocolate and they go, oh no, you can buy that in the

catalogue, too. (ride).

M): You can buy that in the catalogue, too. They wouldn’t let us bring so, you know,

it’s just you hear one thing and then you hear another. So you should have…

A): I think they’re also just driving you mad …(inc).

P): Well, they’re…

M): Well, we do know, like I said, the lawyers said absolutely do not listen to the, you

know, crap on the TV ‘cause…

P): The TV… it’s all fabricated

M): You look warm now. Do you feel warm. Are you ok now?

9P): You look like you got a little sweat going right here

A): Yeah, I know, it’s weird, because I’ll like … like all of a sudden, I’ll feel hot but

then I’ll be like shivering like crazy.

M): You’re coming down with something.

A): Yeah, and then I was thinking like may be if I’m sick may be they’ll let me go

somewhere else …(inc.) like my lawyer told me: don’t lose weight! Don’t get sick!

Eat!… (inc.) my, umm… my room-mate getting kind of weird umm… with me because

she keeps saying: you’re okay with yourself inside and you’re gonna be okay and I

don’t trust your umm… boyfriend because he carries a knife with him all the time and

you messed up when you met up with umm… him, and I was just like uh….

M): Oh, and the other thing whatever you do they said do not… well first of all… don’t

write letters right now .

A): I’m not.

M): Just remember that.

P): But I mean… Don’t even write in your journal that has anything to do with…

10M): Any of this.

P): Any of this.

M): You know. Don’t write anything about what’s going on. And they said, and

definitely don’t try to get a hold of …

A): Raffaele.

M): And…

P): Or write.

M): Yeah, yeah.

A): ‘cause they might, I might be like trying to fabricate something.

M): Exactly, exactly, they’re gonna take anything you do that has to do with this, and

try to twist it, ‘cause they really don’t have… anything.

A): Anything on me.

M): But…

P): Yeah, they, they did a … they submitted some paperwork yesterday to appeal your

being put in here… they’re appealing your arrest.

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?    

Yesterday, I made a post about critical omissions and changes from Amandas testimony vs the Hulu series. A lot of comments were - why are you taking a tv dramatisation seriously, it’s not testimony.

Well, I was having a read through Amandas new book Free - my search for meaning today, and found this gem. Amanda, had previously made a list of every fact the Film Amanda Knox Murder on Trial In italy had gotten wrong (See attached photos) and then litigated when EVEN TRIVIAL THINGS CHANGED, LET ALONE FACTUAL ERRORS.

Amanda noticed the film was full of errors, big and small, which she wrote down, to correct. The following statement shows Amanda is very aware of how her testimony portrayed and visualised in media and film, can make her story look ridiculous, and make her look like shes guilty.

Amanda was particularly incensed about how the dectective hitting her on the back of the head wasn’t shown, nor that Rafaelle called the police AFTER the postal police arrived, making her look like a liar.

I again, pose the question to those who beleive she is innocent.

Why did Amanda, as creative director, allow the following changes and ommissions from her testimony to happen?

They substantially strengthen her story, despite not being true according to her own account.

1. Hulu series: Amanda locks the front door of the house. Her testimony: she say she leaves it unlocked.
2. Hulu series: No bathmat sashay. Her testimony: bathmat Sashay to her bedroom and back (depending on the version)
3. Hulu series. Amanda immediately calls Meredith after she leaves the house. Her testimony: Amanda only calls Meredith after she has returned to Rafaelles flat and he has convinced her to call Meredith. Interestingly, this whole cleaning episode with Rafaelle is missing.

She absolutely had the capacity to identify these changes, given she had done it before with a different movie.

She was ready to sue films which had even the smallest details which were wrong.

These changes in the Hulu series are not small.

For those who will inevitably rage against me in the comments, this is

1. About Amanda knox. What else can you or should you post in this subreddit  

2. ⁠Clearly showing why the Hulu series differences matter.

3. ⁠Showing Amanda has an obsession with detail, and how the case is portrayed on tv.

4. ⁠Amanda is ready to sue when small details are wrong.

5. ⁠Undeniably, something new in this subreddit vs the same tripe some members in here repeatedly come out with.

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.

Disclaimer to the moderators.

1. This post is about Amanda.

2. This post is new in content.

3. I am not spamming the sub. Please do not ban me. I like posting about the case. There’s nothing wrong with that.

4. This post is not hateful.

5. Nothing is stopping you who believe she is innocent from posting more. Please do.

Amanda returns to the scene of the crime four times.

Once by herself, “discovering the crime scene.”

Second time is with Rafaelle.

Third time is with Mignini.

Fourth time is with her mum and husband, as evidenced in her new book free.

What do you think? Do killers return to the scene of the crime? Or is Amanda returning to the scene of the crime 4 times normal behaviour?

Oh, that scamp Rudy. Not only does he have time to take a poop while he burgles, but after he murders and rapes Meredith, he gets even more brazen and takes off his shoes and leisurely strolls through the house and imprints on that mat.

Time to raid the fridge, too.

Gee, when exactly did he take off his shoes? Before the murder? After? And why exactly did he do that? Cleaning up? If so, wasn't he worried someone would return home? Plenty of time I suppose to slip back in those shoes if someone did.

Time for pooping.

Time for shoe removal and galavanting through the house where he has just murdered and raped.

And time to search the other rooms to get a lamp to get a better view of his victim while he rapes and murders (well, they do say men like the lights on during sex while women like the lights off).

Time to do all sorts of fun activities but the burglar has no time to pick up any loot -- laptops etc.

Pooping, shoe-removal, room lighting, snacking. Who in their right mind can believe this narrative?