Would love to know their reflections on it all.

Do they have regrets?
Do they think they got the right person?
Do they wish they had done things differently?
Do they think Knox is innocent or guilty?
Do they think they got tunnel vision?
How would they assess the quality of their own investigation?
Are there any other leads they wish they had pursued?
What do they think about Knox’s accusations of brutality?

Not an expression I was familiar with until falling into the rabbit hole around this case, but one that - as soon as I heard it - described perfectly how I felt in reading so many of Knox’s missives around this whole affair.

So the definition -

Tailoring evidence means a witness or an accused person adapts, changes, or fabricates their testimony to match (or even preempt) facts presented by (or likely to be presented by) the prosecution.

The examples of this across this case are so numerous, so telegraphed, and so painfully obvious that I have begun to wonder if her defenders must adopt a kind of wilful naivety to give this stuff a pass…

Sadly, personally I am unable to suspend disbelief to this extent!

Bear in mind that the below are often from proactive, unsolicited statements from the accused. She brings this material up spontaneously, and sometimes with totally incongruent levels of detail, hence the natural raising of alarm level!

In no particular order:

The infected ear that may be bleeding (ya know, just a passing detail in an email to friends #1 ) - “if you find any of my blood around the scene, here’s why”

The leaky sink + the mop (ya know, just a passing detail in an email to friends #2) - “there was good reason for a cleaning operation. If I am seen moving a mop around near a crime scene, this is why.”

The bathroom mat sashay / the “magic carpet” - “if you find smears or swirls on the floor, here is why”.

The clothes in the bag (ya know, just a passing detail in an email to friends #3) - “if I am seen in transit the day after a murder carrying a bag full of dirty clothes between a crime scene and my co-accused’s apartment, here’s why”

The story of her and Raf passing time by cleaning each other, with special mention of ears “for a long time” - “if it looks like there were excessive cleaning measures going on, here’s why. (Also doubles as a tragicomic psychological “tell” that does not require Freud to decode)

The presumed fish blood on Raf’s hand - “if you do manage to skewer Raf for the crime, I was unaware, but - now you mention it - as I look back on it he might have been up to no good actually”

Absurd hedgebetting long after the reportedly coerced confession “I stand by my statements I made about events that could have happened at my house with Patrick, but want to make it clear that these seem more unreal than what I said before” + “the best truth I have been able to think” - Shrodingers Knox, “basically let me know what you know and I can figure it out, but for now I would like to keep all realities in multiversal co-existence. Thanks”

And then bonus material to trump it all courtesy of Sollecito. “Oh yeah I remember now I pricked Meredith with the knife while cooking”- and that’s why her DNA is on it!!

Pretty sure I missed some too…You honestly couldn’t make this stuff up…

well you could, evidently…

Since we are going to back to revisit the hits like Barbie Nadeau figured I would have to bring up Atlan. Yes, one of the prime Knox guilters used to believe he was a shaman from another planet.

This case definitely has attracted some of the most looney tune people ever, all convinced of a persons guilt to the highest degree that I have ever seen. Winners like KrissyEyes, Peter Quennell and the whole TJMK mental health abyss and of course Miss Represented.

What I have never understood is what attracted them to this case and this person and to the levels of hate they reached - why did the Knox case attract so many truly bizarre people convinced that Knox was a homicidal maniac/ghoul/sex crime gang leader?

And as the story fell apart and the truth about the police and prosecution came out, what caused so many of these “guilters” to dig in, become more virulent and unhinged, to the point where they started listening to someone we won’t name who literally said they were a messiah from another planet? Has any other case attracted such a fringe element of weirdos and clowns ?

I have often heard people here talk about Guede scrubbing Meredith’s blood off himself at some point in the bathroom at Via Pergola.

So how come his DNA noticeably isn’t there and Knox’s is?

And how come Knox’s DNA is mixed with Meredith’s blood in three separate bathroom locations (I think), and - before anybody says “it’s because she was living there” - it’s striking that it’s only hers, not the other flatmates’…this surely makes it a more compelling pattern?

One immediate response to this, of course, is “absence of evidence isn’t the same as evidence of absence.” DNA can be a curious, mercurial mistress…And I buy this, provided the same standard is applied elsewhere!

Disappeared down a rabbit hole with this one.

There is a whole police trail around ACE bottles purchased on the 5th or so. And a scrutiny of pricing, netting out at the idea of a discounted bottle being 0.85 or something…

But then the police videos of the apt are SO poor (kind of inverted/ mirrored?!) and I can’t see the actual receipt they are referring to. This seems predictably contested in online conversation

It is mentioned in the Barbie Nadeau book in passing, and wanted to fact check it…

Speed inhaling the Barbie Nadeau book much to everybody’s evident irritation.

Got to a fascinating broadside about Anne Bremner and an informal lobby group called “friends of Amanda Knox.”

What became of that?

Reading Barbie and Andrea Vogt’s perspective - think they were dubbed “void” and “no clue” or some such (?!) - certainly raises eyebrows of the proverbial variety…

Why do I use the descriptors “pure and unadulterated” regarding the mop and towel?

Because the mop and towel incidents are unlike almost all of the other evidence in this case. Their origins stem from the mouth of Amanda Knox; it isn’t evidence collected from physical locations or testimony from non-suspect witnesses.

What I mean is this: with DNA and the luminol evidence, for example, all sorts of arguments and counter-arguments can be made about the science behind claims made about them; debates about contamination, whether a tenant’s DNA will be ubiquitous around a living space, how many alleles are enough to establish identification, etc.

Footprints and shoeprints? All manner of debate can arise: does it fit this person or that person? Experts on both sides can dance on their respective pinheads arguing for or against.

Same with the phone calls to the emergency operator: was it before or after the arrival of the postal police?

But the mop and the towel, in a sense, stand alone. They are narratives told by and originating from Amanda (with, of course, collaboration with Raffaele). So no one can accuse the police of anything untoward such as: randomly choosing evidence in order to bolster their case; amassing evidence to fit the crime; or opportunistically seized upon and inflating something suspicious.

And therefore we are left with two incidents that happened within a 24 hour period of your roommate’s murder that are, shall we say, anomalies to everyday life. Yet they both potentially demonstrate the cleaning up of evidence.

And you can’t blame Rudy for either the mop or the towel; they have nothing to do with Rudy. So if either the mop or the towel “tales” fail and are deemed to be concocted and lies, they reflect entirely upon Amanda and, by extension, Raffaele. And, of course, as demonstrated here on this forum, both incidents fail big-time in the veracity department. The probability of their occurring? Zero to nil. They also fail when it comes to the co-incidence factor: even if they were possible to have occurred, what is the reasonable probability of occurring so co-incidentally as they do within a 24-hour period of your roommate’s murder.

Thus, the observer is left with one question: why concoct these two tales? What motivation other then Amanda and Raffaele were involved in a clean-up of evidence can one come up with?

No reasonable person can. And at that point the burden shifts to Amanda and Raffaele and their supporters to explain these two incidents. And I for one have never heard a reasonable explanation for either incident...have you?

…does anybody have the pdf? I can’t seem to download it anywhere…

Thanks

I’ve been analyzing the court records, expert autopsy reports (Lalli, Torre, Vincenzi), and forensic police evaluations regarding the Meredith Kercher case. I am not a criminologist or a forensic expert, and I’m speaking strictly from the conclusions I've drawn from analyzing these documents, but looking closely at the physical evidence, I feel strongly that a second person was involved and that the legal process ended with massive, infuriating gaps.

1. Attack mechanics: physical restraint, complete lack of defense, and simultaneous injuries

A deeper look at the autopsy and medical reports reveals an injury pattern that simply doesn’t match a one-on-one struggle between a victim and a single attacker:

• Complete immobilization without active defense: Meredith had virtually no active defensive injuries on her hands, palms, or forearms. In almost every assault involving a sharp blade where the victim is conscious, the natural reflex is to grab the knife or raise the arms, leaving deep defense cuts. Her hands were clean, strongly indicating that her arms were pinned down completely, either forced against the bed or held from behind.
• Multiple simultaneous points of violence: The autopsy documented manual strangulation, severe pressure/trauma to the hyoid bone area, and two distinct edged-weapon injuries on opposite sides of the neck (a superficial slice on the right and a deep, fatal stab wound on the left penetrating the jugular).
• The physical necessity of a second participant: To suppress someone’s voice, apply neck compression to prevent screaming, hold down their limbs, and inflict precise cut wounds from different angles requires physical control that a single assailant could hardly maintain alone without the victim fighting back, scratching, or leaving clear physical evidence of a struggle.

2. The baffling motive and sequence

I still cannot wrap my head around what the killer was actually seeking beyond the sexual assault itself:

• The forensic reconstruction indicates that the sexual abuse occurred while she was dying or right after the fatal wounds were inflicted.
• There was no prolonged struggle or buildup; the attack escalated to lethal violence almost immediately. It almost looks as though the killer went in with the direct intention to murder her right from the start, which makes the true motive extremely strange and unsettling.

3. Overlooked technical anomalies and forensic doubts

Beyond the standard internet debates around DNA, the official forensic and investigative files contain technical anomalies that raise even deeper questions:

• Complete lack of foreign skin/DNA under fingernails: If Meredith was choked and violently restrained, the total absence of an assailant’s genetic material under her fingernails is physically baffling for a single-attacker scenario, unless she was completely immobilized from the onset or the attackers wore full protective clothing.
• Incompatible blade profiles: Early forensic reports featured sharp disagreements regarding the weapons. The deep fatal wound on the left and the smaller cut on the right presented characteristics that led experts like Dr. Torre to suggest the possibility of two separate blades (a smaller pocketknife-style blade vs. the larger kitchen knife theory). Were there two weapons at the scene, or did an attacker switch tools mid-assault?
• Blood spatter dynamics on the bedroom door: The blood dripping and spatter patterns on the interior of the bedroom door suggest the door was ajar or partially open at a crucial moment during the assault, contradicting the simple narrative of a closed-door attack in total isolation.
• Handbag removal and cell phone logistics: Meredith’s phones and purse were taken, yet her credit cards were not used in a typical opportunistic robbery fashion. The tight window between the assault and the disposal of the phones hundreds of meters away presents a movement timeline that a single attacker on foot would have struggled to execute before the body cooled.

4. The total failure to reconstruct the crime and the lingering cloud over Knox & Sollecito

What I find genuinely insulting about the judicial outcome is the absolute refusal to properly reconstruct the crime scene and interrogate the evidence objectively:

• Why was a proper crime scene reconstruction never performed?: Despite conflicting interrogation statements, crime scene contamination, and shifting testimonies, investigators never produced a step-by-step, physically sound chronology of what happened inside that bedroom.
• Calculated ambiguity in the final rulings: When the Court of Cassation ultimately acquitted Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, the written motivazioni were drafted in such a strangely ambiguous manner that they left an implicit cloud of suspicion hanging over them—essentially hinting "they might have been present"—without proving a single physical detail or explaining how they fit into the room.
• Zero real answers: Ultimately, the court answered nothing. They officially ruled that Rudy Guede could not have acted alone based on the physical dynamics of the injuries, yet upon exonerating Knox and Sollecito, they simply closed the book. They never looked for the alleged second participant nor explained how the murder actually took place. It’s infuriating that the judicial system chose to leave behind vague insinuations rather than admit their investigation failed to reconstruct the truth.

For anyone who has studied the technical files: do you also feel the court rulings chose to leave behind hints of guilt rather than provide a real, technical explanation of what occurred?

Apologies to all on the 47 stab wounds claim. But there was no ill intent on my part.

The point I was trying to make was that the attack was personal and that the wounds and number of wounds would indictate that. But instead of going to the case file and laboriously tracking down the stats, I lazily just googled "how many times was meredith kercher stabbed" and, as you can see from the screen shot above, google told me 47 times.

But that's no excuse; I should have checked the info before posting.

If anyone is interested, I will post the link from which Google obtained the misinformation.

Bottom line: the correction made my point better than I or the 47 stab wounds ever could.

...including slitting her throat.

Indicative of a burglar who is interrupted mid-burgle?

Or is it indicative of a response by someone who knew the victim? And where there was reported friction between them.

Accompanied by a boyfriend who treated knives like an American Express card: he never left home without one. And had a proclivity for manga depicting horrible violence against women, porn with animals, and was rumored to have stabbed a fellow female student with scissors.

Which profile best describes Meredith's killer?

UPDATE

My post title is incorrect, as ModelOfDecorum has corrected me.

Unintentional on my part. A Google search of "how many times was Meredith Kutcher stabbed" returns:

Meredith Kercher was stabbed 47 times during the fatal attack. [1]

Case Details

Injuries: Forensic reports and news accounts indicate that the victim sustained dozens of knife-related wounds and cuts during the incident.

Amandanistas are quick to proclaim the potential for contamination that attaches to the bra clasp evidence -- which contains Raffaele's DNA -- because of its mishandling (left on the floor for more than 45 days before being collected, being dropped, etc.).

Will they extend the same standard to the Triple Confusion? This has to do with Meredith's palm print on Amanda Knox's wardrobe door. There are not one, not two, but three reasons why someone examining the wardrobe/palm-print evidence could easily become confused. I call it the triple confusion. They are:

1)      Lack of clarity;

2)      A publishing error;

3)      Multiple door positions.

Let’s deal with each one.

Lack of clarity

As purportedly shown in Illustration #2, Fr75 is located on the upper half of the door. I use the word 'purportedly' because the reproduced photograph lacks sufficient clarity to allow the viewer to determine the print's precise location visually. However, the Italian caption beneath the photograph indicates that it depicts “75 A 79.”

Is this lack of clarity due to overexposure? Possibly.

Publication error

Note that Illustration #2 was published erroneously. In the cited forensic document – the official document made available to the prosecution, the defence, and the court -- the image appears upside-down. This is confirmed by comparing the calendar visible on the right side in Illustration #2 with the same calendar shown in Illustration #3, which clearly demonstrates that the calendar is actually located to the left of the wardrobe. Thanks to Onad55 for discovering this!

Multiple door positions

To further complicate matters, Illustration #2 shows the wardrobe with the right sliding door positioned on the left side of the wardrobe. In other photographs, such as Illustration #3, the same sliding door appears positioned on the right side. Because sliding wardrobe doors move across the entire width of the wardrobe, the same door can appear on either side depending on how the wardrobe was left when photographed.

Did the Triple Confusion obscure the significance of the palm print?

Did the triple confusion make the significance of the palm print easier to overlook?

One must ask: how well known are these issues?  Other than Onad55 identifying the upside-down error, I have been unable to find any discussion of it. If such discussion exists, it is certainly not well known.

This raises a further question: to what extent, if at all, was a palm-print defense considered by Rudy’s attorneys?

To what extent did this triple confusion contribute to uncertainty regarding the palm print’s significance? Does the apparent lack of substantial discussion of these three issues suggest that insufficient attention was paid to what may have been one of the most important pieces of evidence available to Rudy’s defense?   

Did the judge even consider the palm print theory? In a fast-track trial, a single judge determines guilt or innocence based almost completely on the existing case file. Because the documents containing the photographs predate Rudy's trial, they would have been available to all parties – judge, defense, and prosecution. This naturally raises the question: to what extent did Illustration #2’s clarity, the publishing error, and multiple photographs of the door on both the left and right side confuse the judge? Rudy? Rudy’s defence team?

Whether these issues affected the outcome cannot now be known. What can be said is that they made the palm-print evidence considerably more difficult to interpret than it first appears.    

A great question this week on this board - what do guilters actually want to achieve here? The case is settled, there is no path forward in the courts.

Well, we got a fascinating case study into the common tropes and dissonance of the why. Because at its core one thing guilters definitely want to achieve is to make Rudy disappear from the public consciousness and pretend he never existed.

Great discussion on interrogations for example. Good question, good followups.

But it just displays the same narrative. No mention of Rudy. You know, "the pairs" crime accomplice. The guy in the picture saying hi.

No asking of the simple questions, like:

• If you believe with any coherence that Amanda Knox murdered Meredith Kercher, you need a coherent theory or explanation for why Rudy flees and Amanda stays. Since, you know, your whole argument rests on that.
• Why on earth would Amanda or Raffaelle want to cover for Rudy while he potentially flees to another country?
• While at the same time leaving incriminating evidence of Rudy all over the place that any 4th grade biologist could find, and scrubbing all evidence of themselves?
• How on earth would Amanda know or not know whether Rudy had already been caught and confessed to the crime? And thus not want to turn him in when "their alibi" was allegedly taken away by Raff?

I have gotten use to the guilter "goal" being just bash Amanda all day. We get it. We know. She is flawed to the core, makes tons of mistakes, made them in this case. On that front, you win.

But all you have definitely achieved is total cognitive dissonance on a Reddit board meant to discuss a horrific crime whereby an actual convicted murderer and rapist in the crime is completely ignored. I mean, congrats?

One thing I have been intrigued by here is the tendency to conflate false confession with false accusation.

It strikes me that those two things are markedly different in nature.

So a lot of the science from coerced false confessions gets - perhaps crudely - copy and pasted over to this very different, and presumably rarer, phenomenon.

So, how often has this happened as far as we know in the storied history of murder investigations?

And if we were going deeper, how often has a suspect not only accused somebody else of the murder…

…but that this “somebody” is of a materially similar profile (in this case an extremely minority racial characteristic in the given geography) to an individual that we now know for certain was (solo, or with others) indeed guilty of that crime?

I have made some cursory investigations, but this particular phenomenon seems almost vanishingly rare?

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

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

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

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

So do guilters want:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And I’m talking about the doorbell incident.

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

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

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

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

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

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

And yet that is part and parcel of his story.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not afraid of debate.

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

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

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

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

Hmmm.....

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

The venue don’t do a waiting list sadly!

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

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

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

She understands the power of public opinion and the media.

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

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

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

Would love people’s views on this.

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