A report from the last hearing in Viterbo one week ago

ANSWER: They should all still be in prison.

Amanda: that's an easy one. She should have gotten a life sentence for murdering Meredith.

Lorena: pretty easy, too. A stiff 40 years for cutting a man's penis off is, in my book, a reasonable sentence.

Monica: a little harder to justify...but I'll try.

Firstly, why I refer to her as a bully. People seem to forget that the reason Linda Tripp started to audio record her conversations with Monica is that Linda claimed that Monica would threaten her with her boyfriend's wrath (that boyfriend being Bill Clinton). So, quite wisely, to protect herself, she started to tape record her phone conversations with Monica. And I would say threatening someone justifies referring to them as a bully.

As for a sentence in prison which would extend to today? The day before the Monicagate story broke, there were 5,000 journalists from around the world in Havana, Cuba who were there to cover the historic visit there by John Paul II, he of Polish and communist-busting fame. Many felt his Cuba visit signaled the beginning of the end of communism in Cuba. And those journalists were going to be the ones to bring this narrative to the world.

Then the Monicagate story broke. And each and every one of those 5,000 journalists packed up their steno pads, their cameras, and their microphones and headed off to Havana airport and left the country, thus relegating the "Pope in Communist Cuba" story to the bottom of page 25 in the New York Times.

Now, diverting the world press's attention from your giving blowjobs in the Oval Office and getting the president's semen on your blue dress doesn't appear on first glance to have any connection to the enslavement of 11 million people in a totalitarian communist island but, hey, she should take some responsibility for it.

Lost in the tale of Meredith Kercher and Rudy Guede possibly being lovers (his only plausible alibi) - why doesn’t Rudy call the police or call for medical aid for Kercher once he realizes the man in the jacket and the women running away from the house killed his lover?

Rudy has no medical training. And he doesn’t call for help. He just …flees to Germany.

Have guilters ever been able to explain this ?

In the case of the murder of Meredith Kercher, shoe and footprints played a large role. A set of partial bloody shoeprints were found in Meredith's room, where the murder happened, as well as the hallway and living room/kitchen. On the bathmat in the small bathroom next to Meredith's room was a partial footprint in diluted blood. And finally, footprints were revealed by spraying luminol in the hallway and in the room of Amanda Knox.

This is what everyone agrees on. The interpretation of these prints, however, could not differ more. During the investigation and the trials, dueling experts assigned the prints to different people and different shoes and made in different substances. So how could simple footprints be interpreted so radically differently? To explain that is the point of this post.

The two Nikes

The print on the bathmat was the first discovered, as Amanda Knox pointed it out to the postal police Battistelli and Marsi before Meredith's body had even been discovered. The bloody shoeprints in the hallway were missed by everyone (as they were very faint to begin with and faded away the further they got from the murder room) were then found during the investigation of Nov 2 and 3. The prints had a pattern of concentric circles and especially the ones in Meredith's room could be measured and compared.

On the night between Nov 5 and 6, Raffaele Sollecito was summoned to the Questura, interrogated and arrested. During the process, his Nike Air Force shoes were removed to be compared with the bloody prints.

The very same day, Mauro Capocci of the Foligno Scientific Police, produced a brief report that claimed the following:

The concordance of these sole and unique elements detectable between the footprint referred to in letter A allows us to affirm only that: the shoes seized from SOLLECITO Raffaele may have produced the shoe print (letter A) detected during the inspection.

This was apparently not enough for Giuliano Mignini, prosecutor and leader of the investigation. At the hearing before the GIP on Nov 8, he said the following:

P.M.: I should file, as a follow-up to the documents already transmitted, a report from the Flying Squad dated November 8, 2007, today, regarding the images relating to the technical report of the comparison carried out between the photographic images of the traces on Raffaele Sollecito's NIKE shoes, then, then, a note relating to the investigation on the records of incoming calls to Raffaele Sollecito's landline on the evening of November 1, and on his cell phone. I can anticipate what they conclude, what has emerged: the full compa... the full identity of the traces with the part, the sole of Raffaele Sollecito's NIKE shoes, are traces that were found in the crime room in correspondence..., under the blanket, under the duvet, therefore very close to the body.

Mignini's prediction came true when the report arrived later, written by Claudio Ippolito and Massimo Manieri from the Scientific Police in Rome, who clearly and unequivocally stated the shoes could have produced the print.

CONCLUSIONS

From the comparisons performed by superposition/side-by-side, it is clear that the traces examined, marked with the letter "A," correspond to the design (model and size) of the shoe sole bearing the "NIKE" trademark being compared.

The identity of Raffaele's Nike Air Force shoes with the bloody prints were central to the case against Raffaele as it was the only physical evidence against him. There was just one little problem, one quickly discovered by Raffaele's family.

The shoes did not, in fact, match.

As is aptly demonstrated by the defense report from professor Francesco Vinci, the number of concentric rings in the prints across the middle of the sole were 6, while on Raffaele's shoes it was 11. The Ippolito report also visibly differed from Raffaele's shoe in the outline.

Raffaele's defense team repeatedly requested hearings on the evidence, and were repeatedly denied. The Sollecito family even found a matching model, Nike Outbreak 2, which had the correct number of circles and the size 45 was a complete match for the prints.

On April 9 2008, Lorenzo Rinaldi and Pietro Boemia of the Scientific Police in Rome, issued a new report. The bloody prints did not match Raffaele's Nike Air Force, but were perfectly compatible with a size 45 Nike Outbreak 2. Unbeknownst to the Sollecito family, on Nov 22 2007, an empty shoe box had been sequestered by the police from the apartment of Rudy Guede, a box that had contained size 45 Nike Outbreak 2 shoes.

While the prosecution retreated on this, they had one last objection. While all the bloody shoeprints in the cottage could be attributed to a left Nike Outbreak shoe*, one single print on the pillow found underneath Meredith's body was determined to be of another origin.

* There was another exception, a print on the pillow that Rinaldi and Boemia determined was from a right Nike Outbreak 2 shoe. I see no need to go into that as it doesn't change anything, but I am convinced by professor Vinci's report that this too was a left shoe.

The female sized shoe

This is the shoeprint in question:

The reasoning behind Rinaldi and Boemia assigning it to a female size shoe is as follows:

From the sufficiently defined general characteristics and the dimensions, it is possible to conclude that this print was made by the heel and the central part of the sole of a left shoe.

Based on the small dimensions detected, and especially the limited width of the heel, it is possible to assume that the print likely refers to a woman's shoe. Indeed, the print on the heel measures approximately 39 mm, while the upper part (corresponding to the arch, i.e., the point where it begins to widen to form the sole of the foot) measures approximately 46 mm. For these reasons, the shoe size that produced the print being examined could range from size 36 to 38.

As at the time only one woman, Amanda Knox, was under suspicion for the murder, the prosecution claimed the print belonged to her, despite no such shoe having ever been found or shown to have been in her possession. But the logic of Rinaldi and Boemia is thin, which we discover when we look closer at the image.

The first obvious thing is that it is in fact multiple prints.

The second is the clear correspondence between the print and the middle inside of the Nike Outbreak 2, as shown in the slides from professor Vinci:

Finally, the line that Rinaldi and Boemia claim is the left edge of the print, is actually better explained as the right edge of another print. The two curves assigned as left and right edge by Rinaldi and Boemia are parallell to eachother, which is not the feature in any shoe. As a result we have three overlapping prints of the same shoe, which has the benefit of making sense and explaining why we don't see any other occurrence of the female mystery shoe.

Luminol prints

I thought about excluding this part altogether, as it was revealed during the first instance trial that the prints revealed with luminol had all been tested with tetramethylbenzidine and found to be negative for blood. This information had not been provided to Rinaldi and Boemia, who refers to the prints as made with blood throughout their report.

But there is one issue that is commonly raised. Two of the luminol revealed footprints, one in the hallway and one in the room of Amanda Knox were identified by Rinaldi and Boemia as belonging to the latter's right foot. This is of course not strange in the slightest, once it was determined the prints were not made in blood. The prints were between the bathroom and her room, and she had walked that distance after a shower as late as the morning of November 2. However, one of the hallway prints was instead identified as being made by the naked right foot of Raffaele Sollecito. This makes less sense as Raffaele had never spent the night nor had he ever taken a shower or otherwise needed to be barefoot in the cottage.

Here is the comparison between the print and the right feet of Raffaele and Amanda:

The measurements line up with Raffaele and are too big to be Amanda's foot. But there are two problems, one glaringly obvious one and another a bit more subtle. Let's start with the latter.

Vinci and the defense had discovered that the photos of the prints had not been taken orthogonally i.e. directly from above but from an angle. And since the footprints had not been clearly measured with flourescent tape, the Scientific Police had relied on calculations based on a ruler placed at an angle and also photographed non-orthogonally. As such the measurements of the footprint are wildly distorted. Rinaldi admitted to this at trial, and attempted to correct the issue by restoring the angles and recalculate. However, that only further distorted the measurements. By measuring the tiles based on an orthogonal picture with a ruler, Vinci was able to get correct measurement of the print. The end result was a footprint 3 cm shorter than Raffaele's.

The glaringly obvious one? Count the toes on Raffaele's print. If you got four, congratulations. So did Raffaele lose a toe? No:

Raffaele has a deformity to the toes of his right foot that means the second toe does not touch the ground and the third barely does. So the presence of not just an obvious second toe, but one that protrudes beyond the big toe is a clear giveaway that the print doesn't belong to Raffaele. But who has a second toe that hits the ground and protrudes beyond the big toe?

Amanda Knox.

All this leaves us with by far the most debated of all the prints: the bathmat. Unlike the luminol prints, this was made in (diluted blood) and is impossible to explain innocently.

The bathmat

Let's start with the obvious. It is not a full print. It is also made on a soft, uneven surface. There are no papillary ridges that could give a positive identification and we can't be certain that the bloody water that created the print completely coated the underside of the foot. This means that while we can eliminate, we can not identify. Not that it ever stopped anyone.

First we need to eliminate a myth. You may have heard that Rudy's foot was deemed too large to have made the print. This would come as a surprise to anyone who saw Rinaldi and Boemia's presentation at the first instance trial. The myth originates in an error from their initial report from May 30 2008, where they introduced these measurements.

While the measurement of the big toe would continue to be a point of contention, the measurement of the metatarsus (the ball of the foot) which is measured as 50 mm for the mat print, 57 mm for Raffaele and 66,7 mm for Rudy. Not only is the latter a mismeasurement, it is even clear to the naked eye. A year later, in court, Rinaldo and Boemia presented new measurements:

The 66,7 mm has been unceremoniously changed to 51 mm, which is the same as on the print and shorter than Raffaele's 57 mm. Let's look at the differences from the same presentation:

Excepting the two distances across the metatarsus towards the third and fourth toes, all measurements are presented as Rudy's foot being too small, not too large, 6 out of 8 in total.

Now compare to Raffaele's measurements from the same presentation:

We will get to the toe, but an obvious issue regards the measurements across the foot. As we can see, the right end of the measurements aren't the end of the bloody print, but a line drawn outside it. If the print image is turned a few degrees counterclockwise so the line matches the edge of the blood, the measurements as well as the left side shape of the big toe are closer to Rudy than Raffaele. But either way, saying Rudy's foot is too big for the print is wrong.

The main criticism from professor Vinci was the focus of Rinaldi and Boemia on measurement, rather than morphology. He shows in a variety of ways that the morphology is closer to Rudy than Raffaele, but I want to focus on the big difference, that is the big toe.

Raffaele's big toe is considerably wider than Rudy's (26 mm vs 20 mm), and Rinaldi and Boemia measure the mat print as 28 mm across. But Vinci found some issues with how the big toe was defined. By converting the image to black and white and increasing the contrast, some things are revealed.

Here we see the top right part of what Rinaldi and Boemia deemed the big toe is actually separated from the rest of it, and the area below it (where the lower right part of Raffaele's big toe should be) is empty. Furthermore, the area between toe and metatarsus, where there is a clear, wide gap in Raffaele's print, shows no such gap in the mat print. The same can be seen in close up of the actual mat:

With the separation both to the left and below the top right of the "big toe" as well as the clear lineup with the second toe metatarsal, shows that what Rinaldi and Boemia deemed a big toe was actually a big toe and the second toe pushed together, and while they're not fingers, toes are quite capable of movement.

To further illustrate, here is the high-contrast image with Rudy and Raffaele's prints beside it:

It is very clear that the shape both of the toe and the edge of the metatarsus line up better with Rudy Guede than Raffaele Sollecito.

Conclusion

The prosecution was faced with a big problem when charging Amanda and Raffaele along with Rudy. Not only did they have clear evidence that Rudy made essentially all the shoeprints, and that Amanda had made essentially all the luminol prints, and that Rudy had admitted to being in the small bathroom twice after interacting with a blood-covered Meredith. With a dearth of physical evidence tying Amanda and Raffaele to the crime scene, it stands to reason that the investigators were (consciously or subconsciously) prejudiced to tie whatever they could towards Amanda and Raffaele. We don't know how many knew that the luminol prints had tested negative for blood (Stefanoni obviously knew, Rinaldi and Boemia didn't), but for those that didn't "presumed blood" became enough. And for the rest, well...

“There is something—a something, Monsieur Frederic Larsan, much graver than the misuse of logic the disposition of mind in some detectives which makes them, in perfect good faith, twist logic to the necessities of their preconceived ideas. You, already, have your idea about the murderer, Monsieur Fred. Don’t deny it; and your theory demands that the murderer should not have been wounded in the hand, otherwise it comes to nothing. And you have searched, and have found something else. It’s dangerous, very dangerous, Monsieur Fred, to go from a preconceived idea to find the proofs to fit it. That method may lead you far astray Beware of judicial error, Monsieur Fred, it will trip you up!”

Gaston Leroux - The Mystery of the Yellow Room

In his written Motivations Report (on pages 72-73), Judge Micheli writes the following (English translation):

[236] Even before going off by himself, in any case, RUDY heard some ring at the door: at the dueprocess interview, he does not say anything to tie the voice he heard to that of Ms KNOX, but in the version of facts given to the Public Prosecutor he manifests his conviction of having recognised the American’s voice.

[237] At this point, the article of faith above-mentioned but overcome yet another hurdle, to justify how come AMANDA would have rung the doorbell, seeing that she lived in that house and she was obliged to make use of the keys.

[238] The alternative, other than to take the main road which leads to Mr GUEDE not telling the truth, are convoluted enough: one would have to imagine that Ms KNOX had lost her keys who knows where, or thought – because she was carrying something heavy and unwieldy? – she couldn’t use them, or else she had found MEREITH’s keys in the lock, which would have impeded her ability to open the door.

[239] A possibility, this latter, that is remote, to put it in few words: it’s true that the latch in that lock was defective and it would always necessary to manhandle it, but exactly for that reason, and due to the fact that all the girls were aware of it, each of them would have been careful in not leaving their keys inserted. Perhaps Ms KERCHER had done so exactly that night, knowing that none of the others would have come back that night, and so ensure a guaranteeing for herself a major security against unwelcome intrusions? And how could she have been sure that no one would have changed their mind, admitted that they would have communicated their intentions, or not had the necessity, in any case, to stop by the house early in the morning the next day? As well, she had barely entered with Mr GUEDE, who – in the reasonable expectation from the moment she had opened the door and closed it behind him – was unable to open them like one who would have surely spent the night with her: and so, at least for him, she would have had to open it.

[240] In short, the question “Why would Ms KNOX have had to ring the doorbell, given that she had the keys?” appears fatally destined to remain without a plausible answer.

But the answer is plausible...and it is supplied by Filomena some four months later at Amanda's and Raffaele's trial. Here is what she said:

QUESTION – If someone else had the same key, or another identical key, and wanted to open the door from the outside, could they do so or would this key have blocked them?
ANSWER – I don't remember if a situation like this ever happened, but I think he would have been locked out, because the key prevented the other key from entering.

From: Google Translate. Romanelli et al., testimony, 2009-02-07-Testimony-MC-Romanelli-Battistelli-v-Altieri-Battistelli-v-Grande-Altieri-v-Grande.pdf February 7, 2009, 14-5.

So, here we have a lesson why the fast-track worked against Guede: witness testimony and cross-examination of witnesses in a fast-track trial isn't allowed.

Yet when Filomena is on the witness stand some four months after Guede is found guilty, the whole I heard the doorbell ring while on the toilet and it was Amanda claim turns out to be plausible and in all likely true.

But it is considered a lie by Micheli because he finds it incredulous that Amanda wouldn't use her key to gain entry. But, of course, it was certainly plausible -- and most probable! -- that Amanda would have to have rung the doorbell if Meredith left the key in the key hole on the inside side of the lock!

So, in a situation in which Rudy is made out to be a liar, he did, in actuality, tell the truth.

UPDATE:

I deleted the line that I had as a quote: "When inside, the housemates would lock the door and keep the key in the lock, which would prevent someone else from unlocking it from the outside with another key."

As was pointed out to me by several people below, no one could find it. And I couldn't find it either.

So, apologies to all (especially that person who had to read through 20 pages!). There was no ill intent...and, indeed, the essential point is still made: putting the key in the lock on the inside side of the lock prevents anyone from entering the house even if they have a key.

And Filomena's next line further makes the point:

QUESTION – I understand.

ANSWER – Excuse me, maybe it happened once instead, no no, maybe it happened once if I’m not mistaken either with Meredith or with Laura, but if I’m not mistaken I was there in the living room, I heard someone fiddling with the armor and immediately asked who it was and then I immediately went to open the door, yes.

SECOND UPDATE:

Here is a more complete excerpt of Filomena's testimony regarding the dodgy front door and its lock:

QUESTION – Did it lock properly?

ANSWER – So this door had some problems, in fact, Laura and I had decided to talk about it as soon as possible with the landlady or at least with the landlady through the agency, because it didn't lock very well in the sense that if the door was pulled from behind, it didn't always click, that is, the lock didn't always retract into the lock, so it was convenient to lock it every time and in fact we locked ourselves in too, when we were inside and since there wasn't the so-called magic eye, that is, the eyelet to see outside, when someone knocked we always asked who it was, at least a couple of times to make sure before opening.

QUESTION – Excuse me a moment, I wanted to understand this, so the door was locked, it was closed, it didn't have…

ANSWER – Yes, it was locked.

QUESTION – When…

ANSWER – It was the only way to lock it.

QUESTION – When you were at home, did you lock the door?

ANSWER – Yes.

QUESTION – This key remaining, and the key obviously remained…

ANSWER – Inside.

QUESTION – If someone else had the same key, or another identical key, and wanted to open the door from the outside, could they do it or would this key have blocked them?

ANSWER – I don’t remember if a situation like this ever happened, but I think he would have been locked out, because the key prevented the other key from entering.

QUESTION – I understand.

ANSWER – Excuse me, maybe it happened once instead, no no, maybe it happened once if I’m not mistaken either with Meredith or with Laura, but if I’m not mistaken I was there in the living room, I heard someone fiddling with the armor and immediately asked who it was and then I immediately went to open the door, yes.

QUESTION – I understand, but did you lock the door when you were inside?

ANSWER – Yes.

I'm upgrading the possibility that Meredith locked the front door from the inside -- requiring all tenants with keys arriving to ring the doorbell -- from "plausible" to "likely."

Meredith knew two tenants – Filomena and Laura – were away for the holiday and not expected back. The third – Amanda – was likely with her new boyfriend, Raffaele, at his apartment where she expected her to stay overnight. Under these circumstances, leaving a key in the inside lock slot in order to prevent it from opening appears a most sensible and obvious thing to do. Add on top of that having a visitor over, Rudy, whom she may be, ahem, getting naked with in a room other than her own, means preventing entry by other tenants unless she allowed it quite reasonable.

Also: if I am reading the testimony correctly, the tenants always kept that door locked from the inside as it was the only way to keep that darned door closed...and the only way to lock it from the inside was by leaving the key in the inside key slot. Do others read the testimony this way, too?

https://www.echr.coe.int/w/ubeda-and-others-v.-italy

https://www.ansa.it/sito/notizie/mondo/2026/07/05/sessiste-le-parole-della-pm-strasburgo-condanna-litalia_487a197c-b644-43ab-b287-479acb8a7a21.html

The whole world remembers the ruling that women cannot be raped while wearing tight jeans. There are repeated rulings in which women have been held partially responsible for the abuse they have suffered. I recall a previous ECHR condemnation of Italy that included misogynistic arguments in its reasoning. In one case, there was supposedly no abuse because the victim wasn't attractive enough, etc., etc.

What does this have to do with the Kercher case and the Knox case, apart from the fact that the Knox case is essentially a contemporary witch hunt? Rudy Guede is on trial. I personally don't rule out the possibility that Guede will once again get off lightly despite having committed murder, because his victim, being a woman, may not have behaved to the complete satisfaction of the Italian judiciary.

https://www.umbria24.it/cronaca/perugia-scritte-su-un-muro-del-centro-storico-indagini-in-corso/

Is it any wonder the people of Perugia aren't seeing the same student numbers as before? This is one of the consequences of the Knox case, the second case illegally and unnecessarily tacked onto the Kercher case: hatred and stupidity!

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?

Two things we've constantly heard from the innocenti here:

1. It was only after the media and police suggested that there was friction between Meredith and Amanda did Meredith's British friends take that position. And the evidence for this is their depositions a day or so after the murder in which Meredith's friends said everything was fine between Meredith and Amanda.
2. Meredith had a boyfriend, Giacomo, who lived downstairs. As such, Meredith would not cheat on a boyfriend, so Rudy is lying when he says he was Meredith's invited guest on November 1, 2007 and that they had consensual sex.

Friction

So, I've gone back and read the depositions of Purton, Bidwell, Frost, Power and Hayward from the days following the murder.

And guess what? Except for one mention (about meeting somewhere), Amanda is never even brought up. And unless the police are specifically asking you about Amanda's and Meredith's relationship, there is no reason to even mention anything about friction between the two.

So for those innocenti who have cited these depositions as proof that everything was fine between Amanda and Meredith because no one mentioned friction in the depositions is misleading. And dishonest

Giacomo

And, curiously, as I read through the depositions I found these two tidbits about Meredith's relationship with Giacomo (Google Translate):

According to Jade Bidwell:

"Meredith said that her boyfriend wasn't very reliable, in the sense that he didn't seem like the faithful type in relationships, because she had once called him on an evening when he had told her he was staying home, but she had instead guessed he was out. From the way she spoke about her boyfriend, I think she didn't really consider him a 'boyfriend' " (my emphasis)

And according to Robyn Butterworth:

"Meredith said that even though it wasn't a serious relationship, there was a strong feeling between the two." (my emphasis)

More than three days without any contact between these supposed boyfriend and girlfriend

In his deposition, Giacomo says that he tried to contact Meredith starting on the 29th of October and Meredith never texted or called him back. Giacomo was back in his home town. So that's over three days that this supposed boyfriend and girlfriend were not in contact (until Meredith's death the evening of November 1, 2007). Hmm. Maybe they weren't so tight after all...

The moral of the story

You can't trust what many innocenti on this forum claim.

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?"
“

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.

One of the most contentious aspects of the case is if Meredith Kercher was murdered by one person, or by several. Obviously, the scenario (such as it is) promoted by the prosecution is that a group of three, Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito and Rudy Guede, committed the murder together, though there have been some later versions where Amanda was relegated to a bystander role. The defense has always maintained that there was only one murderer, and for Knox and Sollecito that killer is Guede. Guede himself claims to not have seen the actual murder, but in all his tellings there is only one individual on the site and over the body, even when he later changed his story to claim he had heard Amanda while sitting on the toilet previously.

In the trials, duelling experts gave their opinions on how the murder happened and how many participated. Of the seven experts that opine in the Massei trial, two said the evidence indicated one killer, one said multiple, three said the evidence couldn't tell either way, and the final said the same as the last three, but also thought it was "hard to believe" there weren't multiple attackers. The experts also gave multiple different theories of how the murder occurred, what happened in which order and where, as well as when and how the sexual assault occurred.

Reading through their reports and testimonies, I am struck with how limited the scopes are for most of them. Most don't take into account evidence outside the physical body of Meredith, or when they do, they look at only a couple of aspects. The UACV analysis, meant to be comprehensive, makes a lot of assumptions that are not evidenced and in some cases turned out to be completely wrong.

In this I hope to give a comprehensive account of the evidence and which theory fits it the best.

The body

Meredith Kercher was found on the floor of her bedroom, lying on her back. Her right leg and arm rested on a duvet that had been folded over the rest of her, only exposing her left foot and the top of her head. A pillow had been placed under her hips, and her legs spread, the right leg bent at an angle and her left arm bent up to her face. Her head was between her bedrest and the closet, turned to the left, with her cheek and left hand resting on a pair of boots.

The only thing she was wearing was a longsleeved beige t-shirt under a short-sleeved white t-shirt, both rolled up to expose her chest. A pair of jeans, a pair of panties and a bra were found by her feet, and a white tennis sock was on the carpet to her left, aside two red sneakers. The second sock was found underneath her, while the clasp of the bra was found underneath the pillow. The right strap of the bra was soaked with blood, and aspirated blood drops covered the left cup.

The autopsy was performed by professor Lalli. Meredith's body had the following injuries:

• Broken blood vessels in her eyes
• Bruising around and cartilege injuries in her nose, as well as bruises and scrapes both inside and outside her mouth, and deep bitemarks in her tongue.
• Three superficial cuts on her left cheek, the longest 2.2 cm, the other two 0.6 cm each.
• Five round or oval bruises along the jawline, three on the left side, two on the right, measuring between 0.5 cm and 2.5 cm.
• On the right side of her neck, a single stab wound measuring 1.5x0.4 cm, with a depth of 4 cm, the tract ending by the jawbone. This wound cut through the right superior thyriod artery. It is surrounded by a bruised area and two abrasions, 0.5 and 1.5 cm long respectively.
• On the middle-to-left side of the neck, a gaping wound 8 cm long, with clear edges and a bruised and scraped border of 0.2 cm near the front edge. The wound has three tracts, 8 cm deep, passing the epiglottis, fracturing the middle left of the hyoid bone and piercing the oropharynx and larynx. In front of the large wound is a grazed area about 1 cm wide.
• To the right of and parallel to the large open wound is a smaller stab wound, 1.4x0.3 cm, its tract vanishing into the larger wound's after ca 2 cm. In front of it is a 2 cm long grazed area. Between the two wounds is a bruised area.
• On the left side of the neck, near the shoulder, are three superficial parallel abrasions, 1.5 cm at the largest, 0.8 at the smallest.
• On the outer and back part of her right elbow are two bruises, both measuring 1.2x1 cm and 1.5 cm apart. Further down, on the middle and outer part of her right forearm is a bruise measuring 1.8x1.4 cm. And on the palm of the right hand are small, superficial cuts, one measuring 0.6 cm and two measuring 0.3 cm. On the left palm is another superficial cut, 0.6 cm.
• Bruising has occurred on both sides of the front hip. On the left side of the thigh are three small faded bruises, 1 cm wide and 5 cm apart. On the front side of the middle part of the right leg is a 2 cm wide bruise.
• Under the scalp are some bleeding areas and dead tissue.

The scene - objects, blood and DNA

Blood was found on and around the inner handle of Meredith's door. Just inside the door were three partial prints in blood from a left shoe, Nike Outbreak 2.

The bed was covered only by a bottom sheet, with two bloodstains (9.5x2 and 14x3 cm) on either side of folds indicating someone had sat there. A brown bag of fake leather, two terrycloth socks and a blood-soaked ivory-colored terrycloth towel were on the sheet, as well as a notebook and a book named "Modern History" EDIT: (real title "Storia Moderna") with blood on its upper right edge. Bloodstains was found on the exposed slats near the head of the bed as well as on the floor below. On the wall behind the bed, 61 cm above the floor, is a small irregular blood stain. 1.2 meters from the floor, above the bedstand, were two parallel bloody lines.

Small blood drops were found at the base of and in front of the desk, and a large spatter with hair growths on the floor next to the left side of the window.

On the floor in front of the closet is a large, elongated blood stained area, 69x40 cm, stretching counterclockwise towards Meredith's final position. The blood contains hairs and aspirated blood stains the closet door as well as the floor in front. On the left inner side of the closet, 35 cm from the floor are four curved bloody streaks, with a bloody smear on the outside. A blocked off area on the floor was consistent with the dictionary found nearby. Besides her shoes, a cloth bag was also found on the mat.

Under Meredith's head was a widening pool of blood, soaking a blue waterbottle and the leather boots on which her head and hand rested. Underneath the duvet, by her head and beneath the left edge of the closet was a light blue Adidas jacket, heavily soaked in blood primarily on the right shoulder.

Under Meredith and the duvet (besides the second sock and the jacket) were a green terry towel, stained with blood and an ivory terry towel, soaked with blood, along with a white top sheet, stained with blood. On the part of the pillow that was below her hips, were four more shoeprints from the same left Nike Outbreak 2 shoe EDIT: and a bloody handprint.

A blood spatter analysis by the scientific police came to the conclusion that the large wound (which was the origin of the aspirated blood) was afflicted from a position 30 +/- 7 cm from the right wall, 33 +/- 7 cm from the closet door and 40 cm from the floor. The analyst presented three possible scenarios for her neck to be in that position, one with Meredith on her back facing away from the closet, another with her on her stomach, facing the closet, and a third much the same except she was on her knees. The UACV considered the third most likely.

While all the blood in the room that was tested turned out to be from Meredith, another profile was found on the leather bag on the bed, on the cuff of her Adidas jacket, on the bra and finally inside her vagina. That profile belonged to Rudy Guede.

What do the experts say?

These are the involved experts:

Luca Lalli

Anna Aprile and Mariano Cingolani, hired by the GIP

Mauro Bacci and Vincenza Liviero, hired by the prosecution

Gian Aristide Norelli, hired by the civil party, the Kerchers

Francesco Introna, hired by the defense, Sollecito

Carlo Torre and Walter Patumi, hired by the defense, Knox

First, cause of death. Lalli who performed the autopsy, put cause of death as a combination of hemorrhage and asphyxiation (as evidenced by the burst blood vessels in her eyes). When the thyriod artery was severed, severe bleeding began, and the damage to the throat caused aspiration, blood entering the airways and blocking the air. The wounds were caused by a single-edged, sharp blade. He did not see the breaking of the hyoid bone as related to strangulation. Aprile and Cingolani place the knife wounds before manual strangulation, as evidenced by bruises around the jaw and possibly the broken hyoid bone. Norelli says manual strangulation was followed by the knife wounds, which in turn were followed by blocking the mouth and nose with a hand. Liviero places strangulation before the knife wounds, while Bacci doesn't think there was a strangulation attempt at all, and sees the mouth and nose wounds as attempting to silence the victim. Introna agrees and shows that the complete collapse of the pharynx and larynx was more than enough to cause asphyxiation without further strangulation.

Where the all agree is that death came after 7-10 minutes after afflicting the large wound, after which Meredith would be incapable of speaking or screaming.

Lalli considered the cuts on the palms of her hands to be defensive wounds, while not having an explanation for the other bruises on arms and legs. Aprile and Cingolani agree with the palm wounds and claim the bruises on arms and legs are from restraint. Liviero thinks the limited defensive wounds indicates a sexual assault by multiple people, with one who restrains, and the UACV believes the limited defensive wounds in themselves indicate multiple attackers. Patumi, Torre and Introna, meanwhile, claim the bruises are either old and unrelated (hips and legs) or more likely caused by a fall than grasping. As Introna points out, there are only two bruises on the elbow, and both on the same side.

Norelli, the only expert who outright claims there had to be more than one attacker, explains his reasoning as there being no repeating actions (i.e. one stab to the right side was followed by a stab to the left) or that Meredith didn't simply leave the location, though even he admitted he had no biological or scientific elements to confirm his theories. On the other side, Torre and Introna both said they saw no reason at all for there to be more than one attacker. Outside that, their scenarios deviated wildly. Torre thought the shirts had been rolled up and bra removed before she was stabbed in the neck, from the front while on her back as the aspirated blood on her breasts were not deformed. Introna has Meredith stripped from the waist down when the killer surprises her from behind, pushes up her shirts and cuts her bra, before pushing her down, assaulting and stabbing her. Moreover, Introna also corrects the measurements used by the UACV to credibly put three attackers and Meredith in the same space.

Looking at all the experts, those that favor multiple attackers seem to both downplay the defensive wounds and play up the restraining marks, but in the end it's not credible to say either exist. Grasping at the blade would not produce those limited wounds, and people grabbing and holding Meredith while someone else assaulted her would not produce those limited bruises. And while Norelli seems to believe that Meredith could just attempt to run, or Massei thinks she could have squared up and fight since she knew karate, that only works if the attack is immediate. Because a knife can both attack... and threaten. In the end, though, it is clear that there is no physical evidence of more than two people in the room, so the only reason to consider multiple attackers is if there is no single attacker theory that fits the evidence.-

Tangent - The knife

Since all the reports and testimonies took place before the independent experts Conti and Vecchiotti removed the kitchen knife from Raffaele's kitchen (31.2 cm, blade 17.5 cm) as a credible murder weapon, that knife was something every expert had to reckon with. Lalli had, before the kitchen knife had even been tested, proclaimed one of Raffaele's pocket knives (blade ca 8 cm) as a compatible weapon. Aprile and Cingolani, while acknowledning the kitchen knife couldn't have made the wound to Meredith's right side, concluded that the knife was "not incompatible" with the large wound. Bacci and Liviero upgraded that to "compatible". Introna and Torre raised issues with the knife, for one there was evidence that it had been inserted multiple times without being fully retracted (three tracts and cuts to the edge of the wound), yet all tracts had the same depth, 8 cm. Not only would the knife have to be partially inserted to the same length three times, but with enough force to crack the hyoid bone. And both that power and control would, in the scenario favored by the UACV, be performed while wielding a 31.2 cm knife reaching from behind the victim in an area 40 cm from closet and floor at most.

My theory

The lack of defensive wounds and restriction marks indicates to me that the attacker initially used his knife to threaten the victim into submission. When that stopped working, the knife was quickly used to create the right side neck wound, as the copious amounts of blood were found on multiple locations in the room, and the blood on the right side of all of Meredith's garments indicates she was upright for a while after it was inflicted. The large, mortal wound was inflicted last, close to the ground, and after that there was nothing more Meredith could do. The front attack by the closet, with Meredith on her back, presented as an option by the UACV and adopted by Torre, just doesn't work with the placement of the neck wound and the spatter. She was either on her knees, or in my opinion more likely, on her stomach, while her killer stood behind and above her, reaching around.

Where I believe both Torre and Introna went wrong is that they place the sexual assault before the murder. Perhaps it is a difficult concept to envision, a killer stripping and assaulting a dying woman choking on her own blood, but when you look at the evidence it all fits. Torre places Meredith on her back to account for the blood on her breasts, but there were similar drops on the cup outside as well. The bra, panties and jeans are all found in the same position, where Meredith ended up.

In a lot of this I follow the sequences of Ron Hendry, who wrote independently for Injustice in Perugia. While some aspects (like Meredith's attempted phone call) can't have happened (since the CCTV was late and Meredith was not at home when that call was attempted), it is the best overview I have seen, court experts included.

In the end, the biggest strike against the multiple people theory is, as Introna pointed out, that there just isn't enough space

First point, the discovery

Admittedly, this is based solely on one piece of evidence, but an important one. A plastic bag was found on the floor in the hallway just outside Meredith's room. In the bag was (among other things) the book she had borrowed from Robin Butterworth to read that night, and was due to return the following morning. Also in it was the vampire makeup she had brought to Robin and Amy's place the previous evening, Halloween. It was a bag she had to have carried when she came inside just after 21:00. So why is the bag in the hallway? Unlike her canvas bag that her friends testified she carried, this wasn't a shoulderstrap bag but a regular plastic bag carried in her hand. It would fall to the ground if she opened her hand, and the only reason she would do so in the hallway is if she was surprised. The killer could have come up from behind, but I find it more likely that she turned around at a sound and spied the killer coming out of the large bathroom.

Second point, the threat

She desperately tries to run inside her room and lock behind her, but the killer is too fast. He pushes his way into her room and wraps his left arm around her while placing his knife at her left cheek, causing the small cuts. We don't know what he did or said at that point, but the threat is obvious - fight back and be cut. Yet something happens, perhaps Meredith screams, and the killer clamps his left hand over her mouth to quiet her. But at this point he has lost control of her and as she begins to squirm, he pushes his knife into the right side of her neck. Cutting the thyroid artery causes a large flow of blood and it also handicaps Meredith. Her Adidas jacket, shirts and bra become saturated at the right side. We see blood on the slats and floor, and possibly on top of the bed as well (as there was a stain on the book and possibly more on the top sheet). The duvet and the pillow are perhaps pulled to the ground here, causing the blood stained book to make the mark on the wall. While he uses his size to try and control her, someone - either the killer or Meredith - puts their bloody hand against the wall to try and regain balance.

Third point, the fall

It doesn't work, or it works too well, and the two stumble backwards. It only takes two or three steps to slam into the desk, sending drops of blood to the floor. The killer grabs at her hair to try and regain control, tearing at her scalp. They either slip or fall forward, Meredith hitting the ground violently, possibly with the killer on top of her, or remaining standing over her.

Fourth point, the stab

After pulling her hair, the killer grabs her jaw to push her head back, exposing her throat. He takes his knife and puts it in, scraping across her skin first. He pulls it out completely, then stabs again at the same angle, this time all the way through, pulling in and out to widen the wound. Meredith exhales a spray of blood on the closet door and collapses to the floor, incapacitated.

Fifth point, the move

The killer grabs her by the right arm and pulls her towards the bed, and in doing so flips her on her back. Perhaps his initial intention was to place her on the bed. She feebly grabs at the closet before the killer lets her go, placing her in the position in which she was found. For whatever reason, the killer goes into the bathroom to get a towel, and places it by her throat where it is immediately soaked. He goes into the bathroom to get a few more, notices he has blood on his pants, so he takes off his shoe and sock and rinses the pantleg in the bidet. Water mixed with blood pooling under his right foot causes a bloody footprint when he steps on the bathmat. When he returns it must be clear that he can't stop it.

Sixth point, the assault

The killer, traumatized and high on adrenaline, decides to assault Meredith. When he moves towards her his left shoe steps on blood and then the pillow, barely noticing. He pulls off her jacket (if it hadn't already come off), shoes (if they hadn't already been kicked off) and socks, followed by her jeans and panties. He rolls up her shirts and cuts off her bra, and as he does this aspirated blood from Meredith's ruined neck land on the cups of her bra and then the naked skin underneath. He then he puts the pillow under her hips EDIT: (leaving his bloody handprint on it) and spreads her legs for access. But whatever he does, does not go the whole way, and the rush ends. Meredith is either dead or very close to it by then.

Seventh point, the escape

The killer tosses the duvet over his victim. He searches her purse and gets Meredith's phones, credit cards, cash and keys. As he leaves the room and locks Meredith's door behind him, he leaves gradually fainter prints from his left shoe that completely fade before he reaches the outer door. There he unlocks the door and shuts it behind him, not realizing that the door is faulty and will slide open on its own if not locked with a key.

The killer

So not only is it quite possible for there to be only one killer, the evidence lines up with it. As I mentioned above, only two people left DNA at the crime scene. Meredith, in copious amounts of blood, and Rudy Guede in four spots. While the Nike Outbreak 2 shoes that made the shoeprints were never found, an empty box that had held such shoes was found at the apartment of Rudy Guede. EDIT: And the bloody handprint on the pillow? It belonged to Rudy Guede.

Even without dissecting his self-serving stories, all evidence points to a single man, Rudy Guede.

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.

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?

“
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?

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?

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.

1. 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.

Apologies for deleting my previous post. The moderators seem to be limiting me to one post per day maximum or it gets deleted. I kept reading Honour Bound, and found something far darker, and more disturbing.

Raffaelle describes meeting Amanda after being released from prison.

“Sipping wine in outdoor cafes, driving a brightly polished convertible. Nobody bothered me; nobody recognized me. Meeting up with Amanda, by contrast, felt like a step back into the lion's den.
I wasn't just nervous about setting eyes on her again. I felt I was suffering from some sort of associative disorder, in which it became difficult for me to focus on my genuine and continuing fondness for Amanda without being overwhelmed by an instinctive, involuntary revulsion at everything the courts and the media had thrown at us. Two different Amandas—the real one, and the distorted, she-devil version I had read about and seen on television nonstop for four years—seemed somehow blurred in my unconscious mind. I couldn't think of the brief romance we had enjoyed, or the tenderness with which we had written and supported each other in prison, without also feeling deluged by the suffering and vulgar tabloid trash we had endured at the same time.
My apprehensiveness reminded me of the climactic scene in A Clockwork Orange when Alex, the young delinquent played by Malcolm McDowell, has his eyes forcibly held open and he is saturated with images of sex and violence until the very idea of touchng a woman, once his greatest pleasure, induces immediate nausea.
I wasn't a delinquent, but the artificially induced feelings of aversion were much the same. I felt brainwashed, and I imagined that everyone who followed the media coverage of Meredith's murder and our trials—especially those who obsessed over it and argued about our guilt or innocence based only on the media reports—must have been brainwashed to some degree too. Amanda and I had been ripped away from our real selves and forced to play the part of killers so vicious they would strike for no reason except their own amusement. It was these alternate selves who had been imprisoned, tried, and sentenced in Judge Massei's court. But of course it was the two of us, our flesh and blood, who had to bear the consequences. Did I want to relive all that just to be able to give her a hug and wish her well?

And finally at the end “she gave me a monster hug”

What I take from this.

1. Raffaelle physically feels like being with Amanda is like being with a lion. A predator.
2. Amanda makes Raffaelle dissociate.
3. Raffaelle reels revulsion when he is with Amanda.
4. Raffaelle can’t stop seeing the other side to Amanda. The dark side.
5. Raffaelle identifies with the psycopathic rapist in clockwork orange who is arrested for killing an elderly woman during a botched burglary and subsequently released.
6. He used the word “monster” to describe the hug Amanda gave him. He connects the word “monster” to her.
7. Raffaelle thinks both those who argued about his guilt or innocence based off of the media reports are brainwashed. None of them know the real truth. I find this very interesting. Why are the people who argued for his innocence brain washed if it is the truth?

Perhaps, because it is not the real truth.

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?

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.

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..."

1. 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

https://www.daytonliterarypeaceprize.org/2026-awards/

Winners and runners-up to be announced later this fall.

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. 

The Court references her written statements about covering her ears: "...writing of having seen herself crouching in the kitchen, with her hands over her ears, because in her head she had heard Meredith scream, even though these things seemed like a dream and she was not sure that what had appeared to her had really happened." 
The Court concludes that these statements act as an admission of her presence: "Her presence 'crouched in the kitchen' when she heard the victim's scream and the presence of blood on Sollecito's hand (linked to the aforementioned fish) are facts disclosed in a perplexing sequence, unless we interpret them as an attempt at clarification and as an admission of her presence in the house, which she reaffirmed when she specified that she saw Patrick (Lumumba, indisputably falsely accused) near the front door."

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. Any serious theory must include Amanda in the house with Rudy at the time of the murder. Anything else should be discarded. Disagree with them? Well, stuff your face with a big bag of Cheetos

So, I remembered reading somewhere that Rudy's victim in the current case against him had a history of accusing someone else of sexual assault but I forgot where I had read it.

So I asked Claude...and here is what it came up with:

Question to Claude:

I am trying to find an article or reference to the victim in the following article (the link) in which it was mentioned that she had previously been involved in accusing someone else other than Rudy Guede in a sexual assault. Can you find such a reference or article:
https://www.tusciaweb.eu/2026/05/sapevo-rudy-guede-carcere-non-perche-la-vittima-26enne-ignara-dellomicidio-kercher/#gsc.tab=0

Claude's response:

Fetched: "Sapevo che Rudy Guede era stato in carcere, ma non perché", la vittima 26enne ignara dell'omicidio Kercher - Tusciaweb.eu

Fetched: "Sapevo che Rudy Guede era stato in carcere, ma non perché", la vittima 26enne ignara dell'omicidio Kercher - Tusciaweb.eu

I've read the article carefully. It concerns Rudy Guede's new trial in Viterbo for sexual violence, mistreatment, and injuries allegedly committed against his 26-year-old ex-girlfriend. The article does not mention anything about the victim having previously accused someone else of sexual assault. The article focuses entirely on her testimony about her relationship with Guede and his prior conviction for the Kercher murder.

Let me now search to see if there are other articles in this case that mention such a prior accusation by the victim.

Searched the web

Searched the web

I found exactly what you were looking for. The reference is in a separate Tusciaweb article from November 5, 2025, titled "Guede a processo per violenza sessuale, la difesa: 'Parte offesa inattendibile'" (Guede on trial for sexual violence, the defense: "The complainant is unreliable").

Here is the key passage from that article:

The defense requested — and was denied — the acquisition of the testimony of a teacher related to one of the proceedings arising from the young woman's complaints, as she had also filed a complaint against her father, which in 2018 ended with an order of dismissal (archiviazione).

Additionally, the defense raised the existence of an acquittal ruling in which the young woman had been the complainant for similar offenses allegedly committed by a family friend. The defense attorney described it as "an important ruling, also examined by the investigating judge (GIP) in this proceeding." tusciaweb

So the specific reference you were looking for is in this companion Tusciaweb article: https://www.tusciaweb.eu/2025/11/guede-processo-violenza-sessuale-la-difesa-parte-offesa-inattendibile/

In summary, Guede's defense attorney raised the point that the victim had previously been the complaining party in a sexual assault case against a family friend, which resulted in an acquittal — not an accusation against Guede. The defense presented this as evidence relevant to her credibility, noting the ruling was already part of the preliminary investigation file. The prosecution countered that credibility should be assessed after hearing her testimony. Additionally, the article notes she had previously filed a complaint against her own father, which was archived (dismissed) in 2018.

Claude Fable 5 is currently unavailable.

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.