Amanda Knox - Is she guilty or innocent of murder in Italy?

[TheExpert]

Knox's lie in interrogation fingering Lumumba immediately after her boyfriend had lied about her is just one of many whoppers, most completely uncoerced.

It was the police who first named Lumumba - after they found an SMS on Knox' mobile phone and misinterpret the meaning of the message. They thought she met Lumumba on the night of murder because of a bad translated "See You" message. It is so obvious the police lied about the events during the interrogation. The statement was coerced. Read the Boninsegna motivation report. The court found as fact that the police account of the events during the interrogation is implausible and there is no reason to disbelieve Knox account.

She lied about when she first called her mother (at around 3:30 a.m. Seattle time, before there would have been anyone innocent thinking there might have been a problem).

She didn't lie, she just didn't remember have called her mother.

he lied about when she and Sollecito called the emergency number (it was after the postal police arrived, not before as she told the postal police).

Oh dear. This claim was already proved wrong during the Massei trial. The prosecution didn't bring it up in following trials. It was the time stamp on a footage camera that went 10 minutes early and let it look like the police arrived before the emergency call. But in fact the clock was wrong and the call was before the postal police arrived.

She lied about Kercher locking her door all the time (which was immediately contradicted by one of the other roommates).

How could Filomena (the other roommate) know that Meredith never locked her door? Filomena even admitted in court that Meredith closed her door occasionally (for example when she went to UK).

She lied about her relationship with Kercher (the other roommates said there was obvious tension centering around Knox's trashy behavior).

Conflicts about housekeeping is quite normal when you share a flat with others. This doesn't mean the relationship was bad. Did you ever read the SMS they sent each other the days before the murder? Did you ever read the witness statements regarding the relationship of these two.

PM Mignini: Listen, can you remember the things she said, what the relationship was between Meredith and Amanda?
Sophie Purton: I would say they had a good relationship but there were a few things that bothered Meredith, but I don’t believe they had many disagreements or arguments. Meredith just indicated some awkwardness she had with her.

a witness who saw her at his store at 7:45 a.m. heading for the cleaning supplies. This witness correctly identified the clothes she was wearing, which were found on her bed.

Lie. Police questioned the witness (Quintavalle) days after the murder. They showed him a photo of Knox and he said he didn't see her in the shop the morning after the murder. Only one year later he went to the police and told that he had seen her in the shop the morning after the murder. In court he said he can remember her one year later because of her blue eyes.

[Winston]

Knox's lie in interrogation fingering Lumumba immediately after her boyfriend had lied about her is just one of many whoppers, most completely uncoerced.

It was the police who first named Lumumba - after they found an SMS on Knox' mobile phone and misinterpret the meaning of the message. They thought she met Lumumba on the night of murder because of a bad translated "See You" message. It is so obvious the police lied about the events during the interrogation. The statement was coerced. Read the Boninsegna motivation report. The court found as fact that the police account of the events during the interrogation is implausible and there is no reason to disbelieve Knox account.

Ok fair enough. So it was the police and Mignini that pushed the Lumumba issue due to that text. Fair enough. But why then after Lumumba was arrested, did Knox let him sit in jail for two weeks? Why didn't she recant and tell them he was innocent? Wasn't that a horrible thing to do? If you let an innocent man sit in jail, it means that it is to your advantage because it deflects blame away from you right?

I agree that the police interrogation could have been harsh. There is no recording of it, so we can't know. However, an American author named Doug Preston who came to Italy to write about the Monster of Florence murders also reported that Mignini was overly harsh and tried to coerce a false confession out of him. Preston seems like a down to earth sincere guy so I would take his word for it rather than only Amanda's.

Btw, are you part of Knox's PR campaign started by her parents? It's interesting that you signed up to this forum just to comment on this particular case and defend Knox.

he lied about when she and Sollecito called the emergency number (it was after the postal police arrived, not before as she told the postal police).

Oh dear. This claim was already proved wrong during the Massei trial. The prosecution didn't bring it up in following trials. It was the time stamp on a footage camera that went 10 minutes early and let it look like the police arrived before the emergency call. But in fact the clock was wrong and the call was before the postal police arrived.

Ok. I doubt that it matters though. Why would they lie about having called the police? A lie like that has no purpose and only damages your credibility later. But why did Amanda call Meredith's phone and only ring a few seconds, as if she knew that no one would pick up but just wanted it on record that she did try to call her? And why was Meredith's phone in the bushes?

She lied about Kercher locking her door all the time (which was immediately contradicted by one of the other roommates).

How could Filomena (the other roommate) know that Meredith never locked her door? Filomena even admitted in court that Meredith closed her door occasionally (for example when she went to UK).

This one is easy. Her roommates knew that she didn't usually lock her door because they were able to open it when she wasn't around. Like for example, if they were looking for her, they could open her door and see if she's there, and after a while realize that she usually left her door unlocked. Or Meredith could have told them that she usually left her door unlocked, if she trusted them. I'm sure you would know if a door in your house was locked or unlocked everyday, wouldn't you? After a while, you just know those things.

Btw, closing her door and locking it are different, and of course if you go abroad, then it's better to lock your door. But that doesn't mean she locks it every time she goes out. So again, why did Amanda lie about that? To delay the discovery of Meredith's body?

She lied about her relationship with Kercher (the other roommates said there was obvious tension centering around Knox's trashy behavior).

Conflicts about housekeeping is quite normal when you share a flat with others. This doesn't mean the relationship was bad. Did you ever read the SMS they sent each other the days before the murder? Did you ever read the witness statements regarding the relationship of these two.

Well this wasn't just about conflicts over housekeeping. The two didn't seem to get along or like each other much. They had little in common. And they were mostly acquaintances, not real friends. That's what their roommates testified. Why is that incorrect? If they were really friends, then why did they not take any pictures or selfies together like girls usually do? In fact, when Amanda filmed Meredith, Meredith did not even want to be filmed as though it were awkward to her. So she wasn't very comfortable around Amanda yet.

What SMS? Can I see it? Sometimes people are nice and polite in SMS but don't mean it. Fake politeness is a norm among westerners.

As far as I know, no witnesses claim that Amanda and Meredith were good friends. They were just roommates and acquaintances who didn't get along and had some personality conflicts. Did you read what Meredith's family and sister said? They can vouch for all this.

PM Mignini: Listen, can you remember the things she said, what the relationship was between Meredith and Amanda?
Sophie Purton: I would say they had a good relationship but there were a few things that bothered Meredith, but I don’t believe they had many disagreements or arguments. Meredith just indicated some awkwardness she had with her.

That doesn't mean they were good friends or close friends. Just that they tried to act amiable around each other to get along. It doesn't mean they liked each other much. They seem more like acquaintances. That's why Amanda did not grieve over Meredith's murder. They were acquaintances and she had no emotional investment in her.

a witness who saw her at his store at 7:45 a.m. heading for the cleaning supplies. This witness correctly identified the clothes she was wearing, which were found on her bed.

Lie. Police questioned the witness (Quintavalle) days after the murder. They showed him a photo of Knox and he said he didn't see her in the shop the morning after the murder. Only one year later he went to the police and told that he had seen her in the shop the morning after the murder. In court he said he can remember her one year later because of her blue eyes.

Why would that store owner lie about seeing Amanda that morning? Why would he falsely accuse her? Was he paid to do it? Wasn't there proof of bleach being used on the floor of Amanda's flat anyway?

Finally, if Amanda is innocent, then why did she change her story 4 or 5 times about where she was that night? Why did Raffaele change his story many times too about where Amanda and himself were that night? Innocent people don't do that. At one point, Raffaele even said he doesn't remember if Amanda was with him in his bed that night. Who fails to remember if his girlfriend was in his bed and room that night or not? lol

[gsjackson]

Virtually everything theexpert has to say is contradicted by anything I can find online. To take some of the issues:

Kercher's problems with Knox hinged around not just Knox's untidiness but her slutty behavior. Keeping condoms and lubricant in the common bathroom was a sore spot. Knox, by all accounts, was on a hedonistic binge of drugs and sex, making her a very unstable personality. She probably perceived Kercher as judging her.

The interrogation in which she fingered Lumumba lasted about an hour and a half. No one else there, including the translator, testified to this coercion, so I really don't see how a court could have made a finding that only Knox's account was plausible. Where is the source of that? Knox claimed that she had been hit, but could not identify who hit her. No one has argued that the police didn't first introduce Lumumba's name into the conversation because of Knox's ambiguous text message to him. As soon as they did, Knox, who is clearly a pathological liar, immediately latched on to him like a life boat, making it all up as she went along.

The store owner didn't identify Knox until a year later??? Interesting how he could have identified the exact clothes she was wearing, which the police found on her bed. The bleach was found in Sollecito's apartment. His maid said she had not purchased it. The previous maid for the property originally said she had not purchased it either, but then after a "meeting" with Sollecito's lawyer changed her testimony.

American propaganda -- the Jewish art -- has devolved to the point of simply telling flagrant lies on the assumption that the vast majority of people won't bother to ascertain the facts. American life is shot through now with great big lies.

[Contrarian Expatriate]

Whenever you have a murder without any credible witnesses, there will always linger questions.

In this case, Rudy Guede sits in prison for having his DNA, bloody footprints, and palm prints on the scene coupled with this multiple change of stories which indicates consciousness of guilt.

This reminds me of the OJ case. There was no credible witness to the murders so the court must evaluate the physical evidence. Some of it points to OJ, but there is nothing to refute that OJ did not have someone helping him.

Years later, cases like this are resolved in jailhouse confessions or when the accused confide in a trusted person who later go to the police.

Whatever the case, Knox hated Kercher, Kercher ended up dead, and Knox's behavior betray her story that she just does not know anything about the murder. Knox was a drug user and could have enlisted the dark forces around her to do it, or she could have done it herself under the influence. Whatever the case, she is a liar and DOES know what happened to Kercher even if she did not commit the crime herself.

[Winston]

You guys,
If Amanda Knox was into drugs and promiscuous sex, then how come all her friends say she was not like that at all? Seattle girls are kind of prudish anyway. They act cold and sterile. Like this girl for example. She flew all the way from Seattle to Italy to defend Amanda. Wow I wish I had friends like that.

So the question is: Don't Amanda's friends know her best? Here is the testimony of one of her friends who said that Knox was not "a wild child" but an honor student. She said the real Amanda Knox is the exact opposite of what the Italian media portrays.



And Judge Mike Heavey said he knew Amanda and his daughter is friends with her too, and that she's an honor student with good behavior. See below.

[Contrarian Expatriate]

You guys,
If Amanda Knox was into drugs and promiscuous sex, then how come all her friends say she was not like that at all?

Because in her book she says she was into one night stands and drug use. You can Google it.

[TheExpert]

But why then after Lumumba was arrested, did Knox let him sit in jail for two weeks? Why didn't she recant and tell them he was innocent? Wasn't that a horrible thing to do? If you let an innocent man sit in jail, it means that it is to your advantage because it deflects blame away from you right?

It was the police who arrested Lumumba and let him sit in jail for two weeks without any evidence. Amanda already recanted the next day in her memorial, one example from the memorial (7th November):
I'm sorry I said I could have been at the house when it happened. I said these things because I was confused and scared. I didn't lie when I said I thought the killer was Patrik. I was very stressed at the time and I really did think he was the murder. But now I remember I can't know who was the murder because I didn't return back to the house.

Btw, are you part of Knox's PR campaign started by her parents? It's interesting that you signed up to this forum just to comment on this particular case and defend Knox.

No. I believe her innocent but understand when people have doubts. But from a legal point of view I 100% agree with the acquittal as I think there was no good evidence to prove her guilty.

But why did Amanda call Meredith's phone and only ring a few seconds, as if she knew that no one would pick up but just wanted it on record that she did try to call her? And why was Meredith's phone in the bushes?

The duration of a call is measured once you have a connection. Since Meredith's phone was turned off and the answering service activated I don't see any reason why the call should have lasted more than 3 seconds. Don't tell me that you don't hang up after 3 second when the answering service is responding.

Here the call records:
12:07:12 (duration of 16 seconds) Amanda calls the English phone number 0044784******* belonging to Meredith Kercher. (at Sollecito's)
12.08.44 (lasted 68 seconds) Amanda calls Romanelli Filomena on number 347- 107**** (at Sollecito's)
12:11:02 (3 seconds) the Vodafone number 348-46***** belonging to Meredith (this is the one [i.e. SIM card] registered to Romanelli Filomena) is called and its answering service is activated (at Sollecito's)
12:11:54 (4 seconds): another call is made towards Meredith’s English mobile phone number (at Sollecito's)
12:12:35 (lasting 36 seconds) Romanelli Filomena calls Amanda Knox (No. 348- 46*****) (at Sollecito's)

It was in the bushes because Guede dropped it there.

This one is easy. Her roommates knew that she didn't usually lock her door because they were able to open it when she wasn't around. Like for example, if they were looking for her, they could open her door and see if she's there, and after a while realize that she usually left her door unlocked. Or Meredith could have told them that she usually left her door unlocked, if she trusted them. I'm sure you would know if a door in your house was locked or unlocked everyday, wouldn't you? After a while, you just know those things.
...
So again, why did Amanda lie about that? To delay the discovery of Meredith's body?

Why delay the discovery? It was Knox who first called Filomena and then the police. If she tried to delay the discovery she would have gone to Gubbio as planned and let someone else discover the body.
I can only speculate about the thing with the closed door. But keep in mind that Knox didn't speak Italian very well at this time and the conversation with the police was in Italian. How could Filomena know that Meredith never locked her door? Did she check all the time? Anyway, there is too much speculation about this point, but for sure I don't believe she tried to delay the discovery.

Well this wasn't just about conflicts over housekeeping. The two didn't seem to get along or like each other much. They had little in common. And they were mostly acquaintances, not real friends. That's what their roommates testified. Why is that incorrect? If they were really friends, then why did they not take any pictures or selfies together like girls usually do? In fact, when Amanda filmed Meredith, Meredith did not even want to be filmed as though it were awkward to her. So she wasn't very comfortable around Amanda yet.

What SMS? Can I see it? Sometimes people are nice and polite in SMS but don't mean it. Fake politeness is a norm among westerners.

As far as I know, no witnesses claim that Amanda and Meredith were good friends. They were just roommates and acquaintances who didn't get along and had some personality conflicts. Did you read what Meredith's family and sister said? They can vouch for all this.

They knew each other for a few weeks. Of course there are not best friends in a way that they share every secret and do everything together. But they had a friendly relationship, went out together and sent kind SMS.
You can find the testimonies regarding their relationship and SMS exchange here (sorry I am not allowed to post links yet):
amandaknoxcase.com/amanda-knox-behavior-myths/

Regarding missing selfies: The hard drive of their (3!) laptops were destroyed by the forensic police - they probably contained the pictures you are looking for. Mobile phones didn't have cameras at that time.

Why would that store owner lie about seeing Amanda that morning? Why would he falsely accuse her? Was he paid to do it? Wasn't there proof of bleach being used on the floor of Amanda's flat anyway?

There was no proof of bleach in the flat.
I don't know what's his reason for lying/false memory but it is well known that witnesses are often wrong. What we know is that he told the police 2 days after the murder that he didn't see Knox in his store and a year later that he was sure he saw her. There were other people working in the store and nobody else saw her. It also doesn't make sense that she would wait in front of the store for the opening, then go in and leave without buying anything. They had 2 bottles of bleach at Rafaele. She wasn't caught by any CCTV outside.

Finally, if Amanda is innocent, then why did she change her story 4 or 5 times about where she was that night? Why did Raffaele change his story many times too about where Amanda and himself were that night? Innocent people don't do that. At one point, Raffaele even said he doesn't remember if Amanda was with him in his bed that night. Who fails to remember if his girlfriend was in his bed and room that night or not? lol

She only changed the story once during the 6th November interrogation where she was pressured and stressed.

[gsjackson]

So, we're going to ignore the fact that the store owner correctly identified the clothes Knox was wearing? OK.

"No proof of bleach in the flat?" How about the Luminol's illumination of blood that had been cleaned up?

And really, if you can't discern a chronic prevaricator making shit up as she goes along, I don't know what to say. She thought "at the time" Lumumba "was the murderer?" Sure. Knox hardly seemed pre-traumatized during her waiting sojourns at the police station -- sitting on Sollecito's lap making out with him, doing cartwheels, etc.

[Winston]

But why then after Lumumba was arrested, did Knox let him sit in jail for two weeks? Why didn't she recant and tell them he was innocent? Wasn't that a horrible thing to do? If you let an innocent man sit in jail, it means that it is to your advantage because it deflects blame away from you right?

It was the police who arrested Lumumba and let him sit in jail for two weeks without any evidence. Amanda already recanted the next day in her memorial, one example from the memorial (7th November):
I'm sorry I said I could have been at the house when it happened. I said these things because I was confused and scared. I didn't lie when I said I thought the killer was Patrik. I was very stressed at the time and I really did think he was the murder. But now I remember I can't know who was the murder because I didn't return back to the house.

You misunderstood me. I didn't mean recant as in her own private diary. I meant why didn't she recant by telling the police, "I'm sorry. Patrick wasn't there. He is innocent. You have the wrong man in jail." Do you see what I mean? Would you knowingly let an innocent man sit in jail? Isn't it because it was to her advantage to allow the police to have other suspects too? To deflect blame from herself?

Also, Lumumba said later in an interview that Amanda "has no soul". Why would he say that unless it were true? Why would he say that if she was a good girl?

But why did Amanda call Meredith's phone and only ring a few seconds, as if she knew that no one would pick up but just wanted it on record that she did try to call her? And why was Meredith's phone in the bushes?

The duration of a call is measured once you have a connection. Since Meredith's phone was turned off and the answering service activated I don't see any reason why the call should have lasted more than 3 seconds. Don't tell me that you don't hang up after 3 second when the answering service is responding.

Here the call records:
12:07:12 (duration of 16 seconds) Amanda calls the English phone number 0044784******* belonging to Meredith Kercher. (at Sollecito's)
12.08.44 (lasted 68 seconds) Amanda calls Romanelli Filomena on number 347- 107**** (at Sollecito's)
12:11:02 (3 seconds) the Vodafone number 348-46***** belonging to Meredith (this is the one [i.e. SIM card] registered to Romanelli Filomena) is called and its answering service is activated (at Sollecito's)
12:11:54 (4 seconds): another call is made towards Meredith’s English mobile phone number (at Sollecito's)
12:12:35 (lasting 36 seconds) Romanelli Filomena calls Amanda Knox (No. 348- 46*****) (at Sollecito's)

It was in the bushes because Guede dropped it there.

You misunderstood me again. I meant the phone company said that she only rang Meredith's number for a few seconds and then hung up. Not that she hung up when she got a voicemail. The phone never picked up. If you were trying to call someone, wouldn't you let it ring for a while, rather than a few seconds?

Why would Guede steal Meredith's phone and throw it in the bushes? What would be his aim to do that?

This one is easy. Her roommates knew that she didn't usually lock her door because they were able to open it when she wasn't around. Like for example, if they were looking for her, they could open her door and see if she's there, and after a while realize that she usually left her door unlocked. Or Meredith could have told them that she usually left her door unlocked, if she trusted them. I'm sure you would know if a door in your house was locked or unlocked everyday, wouldn't you? After a while, you just know those things.
...
So again, why did Amanda lie about that? To delay the discovery of Meredith's body?

Why delay the discovery? It was Knox who first called Filomena and then the police. If she tried to delay the discovery she would have gone to Gubbio as planned and let someone else discover the body.
I can only speculate about the thing with the closed door. But keep in mind that Knox didn't speak Italian very well at this time and the conversation with the police was in Italian. How could Filomena know that Meredith never locked her door? Did she check all the time? Anyway, there is too much speculation about this point, but for sure I don't believe she tried to delay the discovery.

Well if you live with someone, you know if they lock their door or not because sometimes you knock on their door or try it out of curiosity. Or they tell you. Come on. It's pretty simple.

It is to Amanda's credit that she and Raffaele were standing outside when the police came. If they were trying to cover up the murder they would be inside the flat trying to clean up everything, including the bathroom.

Well this wasn't just about conflicts over housekeeping. The two didn't seem to get along or like each other much. They had little in common. And they were mostly acquaintances, not real friends. That's what their roommates testified. Why is that incorrect? If they were really friends, then why did they not take any pictures or selfies together like girls usually do? In fact, when Amanda filmed Meredith, Meredith did not even want to be filmed as though it were awkward to her. So she wasn't very comfortable around Amanda yet.

What SMS? Can I see it? Sometimes people are nice and polite in SMS but don't mean it. Fake politeness is a norm among westerners.

As far as I know, no witnesses claim that Amanda and Meredith were good friends. They were just roommates and acquaintances who didn't get along and had some personality conflicts. Did you read what Meredith's family and sister said? They can vouch for all this.

They knew each other for a few weeks. Of course there are not best friends in a way that they share every secret and do everything together. But they had a friendly relationship, went out together and sent kind SMS.
You can find the testimonies regarding their relationship and SMS exchange here (sorry I am not allowed to post links yet):
amandaknoxcase.com/amanda-knox-behavior-myths/

Regarding missing selfies: The hard drive of their (3!) laptops were destroyed by the forensic police - they probably contained the pictures you are looking for. Mobile phones didn't have cameras at that time.

Ok I'll look. But as far as I know, they only went out once or twice when they first met. Then when they realized that they were too different, they stopped hanging out and only became friendly acquaintances. Many people are like that. When you meet someone and have nothing in common, you don't hang out again. You merely become friendly acquaintances, and become polite and distant. But not real friends. We've all experienced this.

Why would that store owner lie about seeing Amanda that morning? Why would he falsely accuse her? Was he paid to do it? Wasn't there proof of bleach being used on the floor of Amanda's flat anyway?

There was no proof of bleach in the flat.
I don't know what's his reason for lying/false memory but it is well known that witnesses are often wrong. What we know is that he told the police 2 days after the murder that he didn't see Knox in his store and a year later that he was sure he saw her. There were other people working in the store and nobody else saw her. It also doesn't make sense that she would wait in front of the store for the opening, then go in and leave without buying anything. They had 2 bottles of bleach at Rafaele. She wasn't caught by any CCTV outside.

There was traces of cleaning material on the flat floor. It's in the report. See the link below. But of course, every building get cleaned occasionally. Have you seen this site?

http://www.themurderofmeredithkercher.com

Finally, if Amanda is innocent, then why did she change her story 4 or 5 times about where she was that night? Why did Raffaele change his story many times too about where Amanda and himself were that night? Innocent people don't do that. At one point, Raffaele even said he doesn't remember if Amanda was with him in his bed that night. Who fails to remember if his girlfriend was in his bed and room that night or not? lol

She only changed the story once during the 6th November interrogation where she was pressured and stressed.

But that's not the whole story. Even after the interrogation, she and Raffaele changed their story several times. Please study the link above. It documents all their changing stories.

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/R ... %27s_Alibi
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/A ... Confession

[TheExpert]

So, we're going to ignore the fact that the store owner correctly identified the clothes Knox was wearing? OK.

"No proof of bleach in the flat?" How about the Luminol's illumination of blood that had been cleaned up?

And really, if you can't discern a chronic prevaricator making shit up as she goes along, I don't know what to say. She thought "at the time" Lumumba "was the murderer?" Sure. Knox hardly seemed pre-traumatized during her waiting sojourns at the police station -- sitting on Sollecito's lap making out with him, doing cartwheels, etc.

- "correctly" identified clothes? Everyone saw the picture of Knox and Sollecito kissing in front of the house - so easy to 'identify' the clothes. But the funny thing is: the store owners poor identification was: "She was wearing jeans, a gray coat, a scarf, a hat.", but when the postal police arrived at via Pergola she was wearing a white skirt with a green sweater.
The store owner is unreliable in many other points, read here:
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/marco-quintavalle/

- Luminol is a presumtive test for blood (e.g. to find cleaned up spots), but requires a follow up test because it reacts to many other substances than blood. They did a follow up test on the Luminol highlighted prints with TMB and the result was: negative for blood. Also no DNA of Kercher found in these prints.
Have you ever seen a picture of a blood print that was cleaned up and then highlighted with Luminol? The print will look smeared and you can't recognize the shape of a foot. The total opposite of the prints found in the Kercher murder.
BTW: Bleach reacts with Luminol. The whole floor would have glown if they cleaned it with Luminol. I don't get your point. If there was a clean up then for sure not with bleach.

[TheExpert]

You misunderstood me. I didn't mean recant as in her own private diary. I meant why didn't she recant by telling the police, "I'm sorry. Patrick wasn't there. He is innocent. You have the wrong man in jail." Do you see what I mean? Would you knowingly let an innocent man sit in jail? Isn't it because it was to her advantage to allow the police to have other suspects too? To deflect blame from herself?

Also, Lumumba said later in an interview that Amanda "has no soul". Why would he say that unless it were true? Why would he say that if she was a good girl?

It was her memorial. And the police had it the same day. And she said it on many other occasions (wire taped prison conversation with her parents / letter to her lawyer). After her arrest her lawyer will immediately ask her not to talk to the police and media without his presence. That's why she wrote the letter to her lawyer mentioning that she couldn't know if Patrik is the killer.

Of course Lumumba is pissed after she accused him of murder. He didn't know/understand the circumstances of the interrogation. In his first interview after his arrest he mostly blamed the police.

But why did Amanda call Meredith's phone and only ring a few seconds, as if she knew that no one would pick up but just wanted it on record that she did try to call her? And why was Meredith's phone in the bushes?

The duration of a call is measured once you have a connection. Since Meredith's phone was turned off and the answering service activated I don't see any reason why the call should have lasted more than 3 seconds. Don't tell me that you don't hang up after 3 second when the answering service is responding.

You misunderstood me again. I meant the phone company said that she only rang Meredith's number for a few seconds and then hung up. Not that she hung up when she got a voicemail. The phone never picked up. If you were trying to call someone, wouldn't you let it ring for a while, rather than a few seconds?

I didn't misunderstand. You don't get the point. If you call someone and while it rings on the other phone you hear on your phone a "tuut...tuut...tuut" noise. But if the phone you try to reach is turned off and the answering machine (voicemail) is active then it doesn't ring and you don't hear a "tuut...tuut" noise, you immediately hear the answering machine saying "The number can't be reached at the moment. Please leave a message after the signal...".

So Kerchers phone was turned off and the answering machine (voicemail) active. Knox calls Merediths phone and immediately hear Merediths voicemail (without ringing). So Knox calls and immediately hear the voice saying "The number can't be reached at the moment...". There is no reason why this call to Meredith should have last more then 3 seconds. When you hear the answering machine you hang up immediately and that's what Knox did.

Try it yourself: Call a phone that is turned off and has voicemail active. You will see that it doesn't ring and you immediately hear the answering machine. All within 3 seconds.

BTW: This was not even brought up as evidence in any of the trials.

Why would Guede steal Meredith's phone and throw it in the bushes? What would be his aim to do that?

I don't know, I could only speculate. But there is less reason for Knox and Sollecito to do so.

Well if you live with someone, you know if they lock their door or not because sometimes you knock on their door or try it out of curiosity. Or they tell you. Come on. It's pretty simple.

They lived together for a few weeks. Ramonelli said that Meredith never locked her door. How can she know? Did she check all the time if the door was locked. Knox may saw Meredith lock the door on some occasions. She lived next door to her room, the rooms of the other two roommates weren't that close. And as said Knox and Sollecito reported the locked door to the police in the call and at the police arrival. They initiated the discovery of the body. Why would they try to delay it at that point?

It is to Amanda's credit that she and Raffaele were standing outside when the police came. If they were trying to cover up the murder they would be inside the flat trying to clean up everything, including the bathroom.

The whole idea of the clean up when the postal police arrived is stupid. It was Knox and Sollecito who called first Ramonelli and then the police. They would never do that if they are in middle of a clean up.

There was traces of cleaning material on the flat floor. It's in the report. See the link below. But of course, every building get cleaned occasionally. Have you seen this site?
themurderofmeredithkercher.com

This site was created by the hardest guilters of this case. It has so many factual errors, false claims and untruths. They bring up 'evidence' but leave out important facts just to let them look guilty.
An example: They claim that no DNA of Sollecito was found in his own car. It reads like this was proof of a cleaned up. But in fact the forensic police didn't even search for Sollecitos DNA in his own car (why would they do that?) so of course there was none of his DNA found.

Regarding clean up in the appartment, that's from the guilter site you posted the link:
Myth: There was or wasn't a bleach cleanup
A few clarifications on the use of bleach as it relates to the different sites: In the very early days after the murder there was often talk of a bleach cleanup while evidence of this at the cottage gradually failed to materialize. On entering Sollecito's apartment, however, detectives were struck by a very strong smell of bleach and two bottles (one opened, one unopened) were recovered from under his kitchen sink....

But that's not the whole story. Even after the interrogation, she and Raffaele changed their story several times. Please study the link above. It documents all their changing stories.

themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Raffaele_Sollecito%27s_Alibi
themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Amanda_Knox%27s_Confession

Except of the evening of the 5th November interrogation I don't see how they changed their story. Take version 1 and it is still the same today. There was never a need to change their story just because new evidence came forward that disproved their story. And that they don't remember all details of a day that had no importance to them is absolute comprehensible. Version 1 is their story. Version 2 is the interrogation. Version 3 is again Version 1. Version 4 is again Version 1. Version 5 was before the final trial when Knox was already back in the US and had nothing to fear. It was a tactical thinking that if he distance himself from Knox they have no evidence against him.

[Winston]

Magi Tarot card reading about the Amanda Knox case by Joseph Magi. His readings tend to be accurate and this one indicates that Amanda Knox is innocent of the murder, though she may know more than she's telling.

[Winston]

I think I'm going to change my mind and my vote about Amanda Knox. I now think she is innocent. After watching her new interview below, I've come to realize she is not a violent person at all (even if she's dishonest sometimes) and just doesn't have it in her to commit a violent crime against an innocent person. If you look into her eyes in this interview and at her face, you can see that she just doesn't have it in her to have brutally murdered someone like that. Very far from it. And her body language is a lot better in this one too. Her body language comes across as being very sincere this time, unlike previous interviews. But then again, guilty body language is not conclusive proof of anything, some people may display guilty body language simply because they feel nervous or uncomfortable. So we cannot rule that out.

For anyone interested in this case, or still thinks Amanda Knox is guilty, I'd definitely recommend you see this interview and hear her out. Also her nice middle class background and history would not incite her to be violent at all. She seems the furthest thing from a violent girl as you can get. If you agree, feel free to change your vote above too, since I've set the poll to allow re-voting. @Contrarian Expatriate what do you think? @TheExpert what do you think?

[Winston]

I just saw a new interview with rudy guede on italian tv. It has english subtitles. There are 11 parts. He doesnt start talking about the night of the murder until part 5.

Here is part 1:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCaO1pY5QBE

The thing is the italian interviewer lady is very annoying. She talks too much and wastes too much time beating around the bush. Who is she?

She is also very sympathetic to him and tries to make him look innocent. Why is that?

Rudy comes across as a sweet guy here too. He is more educated and intelligent than I thought. I thought he would sound stupid or cold. But he can smile warmly. You almost believe he may be innocent. He certainly doesnt look like a violent man at all.

Anyway watch the interview if u have time and let me know what u think. Start with part 5 where he talks about the night of the murder. The parts before that are just about his background and the lady interviewer wastes a lot of time. Shes a terrible interviewer.

But Rudy's story in the interview is full of holes and doesnt make sense. He didnt explain why amanda needed to ring the doorbell if she lived there and had keys. And the interviewer lady didnt ask him tough questions to explain the holes in his story.

Here is part 5 where rudy explains what happened the night of the murder.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWahMFz-KR0

What do you all think?

Why did that italian lady try to make rudy look innocent and sweet?

He is also likely to be released from prison soon.

He also acts sweet and harmless and educated. I thought he would sound stupid.

Here is a critical analysis of Rudy Guede's interview by a team of forensic experts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Us4KtLSeUqI

[Contrarian Expatriate]

For anyone interested in this case, or still thinks Amanda Knox is guilty, I'd definitely recommend you see this interview and hear her out. Also her nice middle class background and history would not incite her to be violent at all. She seems the furthest thing from a violent girl as you can get. If you agree, feel free to change your vote above too, since I've set the poll to allow re-voting. @Contrarian Expatriate what do you think?

All of us have intellectual blind spots for whatever reason. No one is talented in everything, and for all of your unique insights, business acumen, and visionary talent, I think that women and your lack of understanding of their true nature is one such blind spot of yours Winston.

In the words of the great philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer:

"For as lions are furnished with claws and teeth, elephants with tusks, boars with fangs, bulls with horns, and the cuttlefish with its dark, inky fluid, so Nature has provided woman for her protection and defence with the faculty of dissimulation, and all the power which Nature has given to man in the form of bodily strength and reason has been conferred on woman in this form. Hence, dissimulation is innate in woman and almost as characteristic of the very stupid as of the clever. Accordingly, it is as natural for women to dissemble at every opportunity as it is for those animals to turn to their weapons when they are attacked; and they feel in doing so that in a certain measure they are only making use of their rights. Therefore a woman who is perfectly truthful and does not dissemble is perhaps an impossibility. This is why they see through dissimulation in others so easily; therefore it is not advisable to attempt it with them. From the fundamental defect that has been stated, and all that it involves, spring falseness, faithlessness, treachery, ungratefulness, and so on. In a court of justice women are more often found guilty of perjury than men. It is indeed to be generally questioned whether they should be allowed to take an oath at all. From time to time there are repeated cases everywhere of ladies, who want for nothing, secretly pocketing and taking away things from shop counters."

I would ask you to ask yourself, if you were also so emotionally swayed by:

-Elizabeth Blasey Ford's tearful, girlish, and contrived testimony about Justice Brett Kavanaugh?

-Jody Arias' delusional take on her murder of her boyfriend? She too blames society for bloodthirst for poor suspects like her, but unlike for Foxy Knoxy, there WAS damning physical evidence of her crime.

-Casey Anthony's interview which closely approximates Knoxy's in terms of dissimulation tactics? Anthony was acquitted despite the tangled web of lies she told and her convenient "lack of memory."

-Susan Smith who tearfully told investigators that a black man drove away in her car with her toddlers still in it? Later it was discovered that Smith drove them into a local lake to get rid of her kids.

So my advice to you Winston is to read up on how female psychopaths use dissimulation to emotionally wiggle their way out of heinous crimes. Also, read up on how lying to police is consider by law to be consistent with consciousness of guilt, and begin to take note of how female accusers are adept at turning these matters into "poor little ole me" attempts that many people fall for.

Take the red pill with regard to female nature. After you do so, you will see Amanda Knox as a manipulative psychopath who pulls emotional strings and makes matters about her, not the murder victim.

I pity the man who goes thru life without knowledge of female dissimulation. He is in for a lifetime of hurt and bewilderment.