Good post.

I won't watch the doc, either.

I tried the doc and stopped after 30 minutes. After making a Murderer I'm not sure I want to see a complicated case in 1.5 hour

I don't think the filmmakers were intended on presenting every nuance of the case and going in to some sort of detailed investigation. I think the point was to just highlight how much of an event it was as a result of the media/police misinformation snowballing. It does its job in that they show how shaky the evidence was that convicted her in the first place. And how much conclusion jumping there was.

Now I won't say I could give an informed opinion about whether or not she did it after watching the doc, but I can say that in a modern court of law she should've been found not guilty based on the evidence presented combined with how it was collected.

Ok, just watched this doc after knowing very little about the case. In my opinion (with all of the facts and evidence presented in said doc in mind) she didn't do it. Rudy, who had a long history of burglary, broke in, found poor Meredith, and proceeded to rape and murder her. When caught, why not blame Ms. Knox? Of course, that's not as sexy a story as a cute little American sex freak murdering her roommate in an orgy gone wrong. I LOATHE THE MEDIA. /rant.

Someone enlighten me: Why is it certain Rudy did not act alone?

Did you miss the part of the doc where they talked about the "break in" being staged?

Yes, they thought it was staged. Was that proven?

Rich, start reading from post 6642.

The doc includes 30-40% of all facts.

Yes, it was, as the supreme court confirmed. Filomena Romanelli, in whose room the break-in was staged, had left her clothes in the cupboards and her laptop in its bag propped against the leg of the bed. She came home to find her clothes and laptop lying posed on the floor, under the broken window, with glass all over them. She hadn't quite taken this in when, as she stated in evidence, she picked up her laptop in its bag and all this broken glass slid off it.

The room was therefore tossed before the window was broken. It's not even physically possible that the break-in was genuine.

The window's green outer shutters were found half-opened. But the pieces of broken glass on the window sill were lying in a clean straight-edged line, because the window was broken from the inside with the outer shutters closed. There was no broken glass on the ground below the window.

Nothing was stolen from Filomena's room -- not the laptop, not the digital camera lying on her desk, not the jewellery -- except for her make-up kit. There can be few things less useful to a black man than a white woman's make-up kit. But Amanda Knox, again according to Filomena's testimony, had abruptly acquired a scratch on her throat overnight between 1 November and 2 November. Knox seemingly didn't keep make-up, so she might have wanted Filomena's. Unfortunately the scratch was pretty livid and people kept noticing it and you can even see it in TV footage. Knox pretended in court that it was 'a hickey', but the police photograph taken on her arrest clearly shows a scratch.

The only possible reason for faking the break-in would be to conceal the involvement of a member of the household. The only keyholder who survived the night and had no independent alibi was Amanda Knox.

Guede didn't have a long history of burglary. He has one conviction for receiving stolen goods. And no one broke in at 7 via della Pergola that night. The break-in was faked and can only have been faked by Amanda Knox (whose DNA was found mixed with the victim's dilute blood in a Luminol spot on the floor of Filomena's room, where the break-in was indubitably faked).

The prosecution did not claim an 'orgy gone wrong' (or 'sex game gone wrong' as Knoxoholics usually put it). They claimed a hazing attack, which is a thing that American students (but not on the whole European students) regularly do, leading to a certain number of murders in the US. The US has four times the murder rate per head of western Europe.

Perugia had not seen one murder in the previous decade -- by some accounts, not one murder in 20 years, till Amanda Knox showed up. Even if Perugia followed the Italian national average, which it doesn't because the national average is weighted by the big cities and the mafia, there would only be one murder there every year or two. Rape-homicide by a burglar, the crime that Knox faked the crime scene and posed the body to look like because she thought that would be 'commonplace', would only in fact happen in Perugia once a century, on a normal statistical reckoning.

Knox has actually given an interview to a University of Washington crew in which she said she was annoyed that police had failed to make the right interpretation of the victim's body being posed in a manner that suggested sexual assault. The thing is that the limbs tend to move in the moments before death, and police manuals warn detectives that that suggestive pose is usually manipulated post-mortem and that such posing, with the legs spread, is usually done to conceal the involvement of a female aggressor. It is certain that Meredith's body was moved long after death, because of the dried imprint in blood of a bra strap in a completely different position on the tile floor. Therefore the body was posed. This implies a female aggressor. And the fake break-in proves that Amanda Knox was involved.

ahahahahaha yes the grand American tradition of a 20 year old college girl torturing a roommate to death. All in good fun, just a little hazing!

Thanks for this hilarious post. The Chris Darden and Johnny Cochran analogy was especially awesome!

You can't even follow my simple argument, and nowhere did I say "theres no way it wasnt just one person" ?? so you done even follow me and are even misquoting me only including my partial statement. I'll try and write it out more simple so you can follow.

You cannot tell with 100% certainty how many people killed another person, or were simply there by just looking at the wounds/injuries of a person without further evidence supporting that multiple people were there in the room. That is my premise.

Walking up on someone dead from being beaten up, stabbed and raped, you cannot look at them and conclude it was X amount of people or say something like "it must have been a woman who did this because they covered the body and only a woman would do that" which is exactly what the prosecutor who leads the investigation said about this crime scene by the way, since you clearly lack basic knowledge of the case.

The fact that Rudy Geude has fingerprints in blood, shoe prints in blood, DNA in the room, on her items and even on and inside the victim, we can reasonably conclude with certainty that Rudy Geude was in that room.

Surely if Amanda and Raff were in that room they would of left a footprint in all the blood, a fingerprint, or some DNA type on the victim or on objects in the room. Four people in a very small room with two of them supposedly wielding knives and wrestling/assaulting/holding down/stripping/raping/bludgeoning another person causing them to bleed all over and only one person leaves such evidence?

American hazing rituals tho

You're really ignorant saying this Oski. The overwhelming opinion around the world is very much that this was a complete joke of a case and a wrongful conviction. This includes some pretty prominent criminal/forensic investigator minds who have researched the case. Your analogy is actually backward whereas even a lot of people who thought this bitch was crazy and did all this realize that just wasn't true.

Oski gonna Oski.

Yeah it's really amazing how guys like Oski can latch onto an incredibly flawed narrative and defend it to the death even after the Italian court system declares that Knox is innocent. Quite telling.

You are a certifiable loony tune. Of course Geude didnt do any break ins LOL. He was only caught red-handed or witnessed in 3 others days/weeks prior to this, one of which included him throwing a rock through a window.

I love this video of one eye witness: https://youtu.be/yfA7rrmfedE

Just face it. All this wasted time and energy you have done for many years and digging up all this certifiable garbage on people means nothing. This dude broke in to rob the place and escalated it to rape/murder when the victim came home.

Quite obvious that Keed has an axe to grind for America.

You Anti-Knox guilter nutters are still whining and crying about getting completely discredited, embarrassed and crushed in this matter? Sheesh.

I don't understand the part about the "incredibly flawed narrative." The conviction which was ultimately overturned provided a very reasonable and competent narrative.

However, despite the fact the Supreme Court maintained Meredith was killed by multiple attackers, that the break in was staged, and that Amanda was there at the time of the killing, it overturned the conviction on a finding of "lack of evidence." Of course, "lack of evidence" sounds like "there just was no evidence" (and I would understand that interpretation), but in this case, it was a technical finding.

Anyhow, the conviction was overturned by the Italian Supreme Court, and that is that. Unfortunately, for someone like me who followed the case fairly regularly and understood the underlying convictions, the Supreme Court's opinion did not really address the core elements of the conviction. It really was a "wtf?" opinion where they point out all the evidence which would tend to establish AK's guilt and then conclude it was not sufficient.

Regardless of your ultimate opinion of guilt or innocence, one thing that cannot be avoided is the opinion itself is head scratching for a legal opinion. Of course, I have read many, and have maintained my honest opinion that the Supreme Court's opinion is one-of-a-kind, and not in a good way. I've never seen such a disjointed opinion on such a serious matter.

So, again, it is what it is, but there remains some serious questions about the legitimacy of the ruling. I would have been more willing to accept the ruling if it had actually addressed the issues, but the opinion was designed to work around the issues.

I also find humor in the fact that even after the exoneration, AK supporters (and now I include the "documentary" crew) are still attempting to spin the truth and invent "facts" while ignoring fairly settled ones that make AK look bad. Even when there is no longer a threat of consequence, AK supporters cannot discuss the matter with any integrity towards the truth.** I find that baffling, but whatever.

** For some reason, after long last, AK herself recently decided to "explain why she lied to the Police at the outset of the case." What the hell is that? In what reality is it considered okay to lie to the police when you are being questioned in a homicide investigation. Where is it considered "okay" to pin a homicide on an innocent person causing him to be locked up for weeks while the lie was being uncovered? Of course, AK claims she did not do that, but it is beyond contradiction that while Patrick was locked up as the homicide suspect (that she identified to the police) AK said and did nothing.

Also, if this was a case where "everyone was out to get poor Amanda from the start" why did the Police leave her alone and instead arrest Patrick - with only Amanda's word to go on? I don't see how one can claim this was a witch hunt for Amanda at that point. Again, if they were only looking to get Amanda, why did they arrest Patrick and then arrest Rudy? (and then of course Amanda and Raf). I guess the police were looking to pin it on as many people as they could? Whatever, get the story straight, I guess - let's keep going with the witch hunt angle then.

I've never argued about what the world thinks of the case. I don't really care. I also don't understand why you think that has anything to do with what the people handling the case thought about and determined how Meredith was killed.

I also don't understand that if you are so sure in your opinion which apparently is shared by the world, why you insist on misrepresenting the expert opinions and findings regarding how many people were active participants in the murder?

You, in fact, reverse the opinion making it sound like everyone agreed that the murder was committed by one person, but that a mere, slight possibility existed that Meredith could have been killed by multiple attackers. The reality is that the consensus was that Meredith was killed by multiple attackers, but Solecitto's attorney offered the opinion that he could not rule out Meredith being killed by one person - he went no further than that and could not really explain how such a murder could happen by only one person. Each attempt at explaining how one person could have committed the murder was easily dismissed. Again, in the face of that, only one expert (Solecitto's) clinged to the remote possibility that it could have been committed by one person.

So, the real question for now is why do you find it necessary to misrepresent this to others? The trial record is clear; this issue and how it was argued and ruled upon has been covered multiple times in this thread, and yet, here you are making a completely false statement about it? Why?

senorkeeeed,

it's pretty amazing that you blazed up a blunt, watched a 90 minute netflix documentary, and are now trying to hang in a discussion with a legal professional who has read thousands of pages of original documents on the case and followed proceedings closely for 7 years. it's actually incredibly embarrassing to watch, but do keep on with the 'BUT HAZING' posts!

I don't feel embarassed

im sure we all feel enough 2nd hand embarassment for you

Massei, pg. 368: http://themurderofmeredithkercher.co...sei_Report.pdf

Edit: and after this paragraph is where Massei goes into Merediths "personality" and physical characteristics such that she had taken a karate class and likely would have been able to fight off a single attacker better/shown more defensive wounds. So despite expert testimony and that pesky thing called "science", lets look at this way. Its kind of funny.

I mean you guys swallowed all the lunacy and hallucinations of that corrupt and delusional Italian prosecutor for years, I can see how much you have invested in thinking Knox is guilty. It's actually a pretty interesting psychological phenomenon.