Continuation Part 18: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[anglolawyer]

Let's just hasten to add that in addition to a "bleach receipt" not existing, it is one more idiotic meme of the police and Mignini to claim such a fictional document would have any relevance.

There was no bleach clean-up, nor would one be scientifically possible, so as to account for the absence of evidence against anyone but Rudy Guede.

The footprints revealed by luminol, in addition to only Rudy's footprints made in wet blood, show there was no "bleach clean-up", nor could any "bleach clean-up" selectively clean-up only Rudy's DNA, only Rudy's fingerprints in wet blood, Rudy's palm print, etc.

The meme of a "clean-up" is meant to counter the bald absence of any proof of anyone but Guede at the crime scene, and for whom there is vast quantities of such physical evidence for only Rudy Guede.

Just as the "stage break-in", is the Italian police's idiotic meme to explain away the obvious conclusion that the break-in was not staged and simply committed by Rudy as part of his normal burglary procedure, these are idiotic digressions, that the Italian police apparently feel the Italian media is idiotic enough to report, and the Italian public is sufficiently idiotic to believe.

That such foolishness was reported at all is a tragedy. That such idiocy continues to be bantered around amongst the guilter coven of lunatics, is yet one more argument in favor of China's approach to "re-education camps".

Bleach receipts are a non-starter, because they're irrelevant, and the obvious fabrication of Quintavale and the cub reporter, both of whom belong in jail for their actions in this case.

I don't agree. If they existed they would be relevant since the purchase of bleach on the morning of the 2nd is not consistent with their story. I don't want to get side-tracked by this non-topic, though. They didn't buy bleach and that's all there is to it. The real question is why the cops needed to peddle lies to the press about it and why they were so desperate to make Quintavalle stand up. What ended up lodged in Vixen's gigantic Mensa brain is of interest only insofar as it shows the pernicious effect on the ill-informed of such mud slinging.

 

[Ken Dine]

Perhaps you missed that one of the PIPs made the contention that the cottage had been cleaned thoroughly shortly before the murder.

If you mean what I had said, that the two older gals had been cracking the whip on the two younger gals to clean more, I stand behind that!

Frequent cleaning does not necessarily mean the cottage was biologically sterile since that would be impossible to do.

But it wouldn't be nice to nit-pick and ask for proof of this clean-up.

That proof has already been provided to you, so now you're behaving like a vapid Grinder with your immature behavior on display. Stop being a bore and put your constant pissing contests over trivial issues behind you, if you can.

 

[Bill Williams]

I don't agree. If they existed they would be relevant since the purchase of bleach on the morning of the 2nd is not consistent with their story. I don't want to get side-tracked by this non-topic, though. They didn't buy bleach and that's all there is to it. The real question is why the cops needed to peddle lies to the press about it and why they were so desperate to make Quintavalle stand up. What ended up lodged in Vixen's gigantic Mensa brain is of interest only insofar as it shows the pernicious effect on the ill-informed of such mud slinging.

Still - isn't it still up to the prosecution to demonstrate that this alleged inconsistency somehow is part of the murder? What would the bleach have been for, given carbonjam72's comments?

Once again, this issue of consistency of story is too big a deal. Consistency of account simply means they were engaged in a conspiracy! The prosecution should have their "damned if true, damned if false" theories exposed.

 

[Grinder]

I don't agree. If they existed they would be relevant since the purchase of bleach on the morning of the 2nd is not consistent with their story. I don't want to get side-tracked by this non-topic, though. They didn't buy bleach and that's all there is to it. The real question is why the cops needed to peddle lies to the press about it and why they were so desperate to make Quintavalle stand up. What ended up lodged in Vixen's gigantic Mensa brain is of interest only insofar as it shows the pernicious effect on the ill-informed of such mud slinging.

Yes of course you are correct. We should be talking about about the lamp or something of import.

The police are allowed to release details of the case that to my mind skew the investigation, for example the statements Amanda made were in the press within hours.

I'm not sure that "leaks" about the receipts etc. were from official police sources. Perhaps you could contact the reporter that you got the text information from and ask him about the "police sources" that are not named.

Are they really spreading this garbage from the top or is it the janitor making a couple bucks by giving inside dope?

 

[Grinder]

Still - isn't it still up to the prosecution to demonstrate that this alleged inconsistency somehow is part of the murder? What would the bleach have been for, given carbonjam72's comments?

Once again, this issue of consistency of story is too big a deal. Consistency of account simply means they were engaged in a conspiracy! The prosecution should have their "damned if true, damned if false" theories exposed.

Bill if she really was up at the crack of dawn buying bleach and lying about it, it is damning. Just because she then didn't use it doesn't really matter. Maybe they put all their incriminating evidence in a plastic bag and then poured bleach in before tossing it. Maybe they soaked everything in Raf's sink and that's why the place still smelled of bleach.

Before you blow a gasket, I'm not suggesting any of the above is true but the ILE would not need to "tie" the bleach buy to anything specific related to the murder.

 

[Numbers]

Yes of course you are correct. We should be talking about about the lamp or something of import.

The police are allowed to release details of the case that to my mind skew the investigation, for example the statements Amanda made were in the press within hours.

I'm not sure that "leaks" about the receipts etc. were from official police sources. Perhaps you could contact the reporter that you got the text information from and ask him about the "police sources" that are not named.

Are they really spreading this garbage from the top or is it the janitor making a couple bucks by giving inside dope?

From the legal standpoint of the ECHR, it does not necessarily matter which Italian official - even a janitor working for a State agency - may be spreading false incriminating information. However, if the State agent is a judge or an person of authority such as a government minister or police official, the importance of the false statements as an attack on the presumption of innocence may be considered more significant. The State has an obligation to maintain the presumption of innocence, and to regulate the behavior of its officials, agents, and employees. If there were never any receipts showing the purchase of bleach, why would any person from the State - no matter there rank - be spreading such false incriminating information to the media?

If the false incriminating information was coming solely from a non-State person, without any contributing action from a State official, agent, or employee, that would be different legally (ECHR view).

 

[Grinder]

From the legal standpoint of the ECHR, it does not matter which Italian official - even a janitor working for a State agency - may be spreading false incriminating information. The State has an obligation to maintain the presumption of innocence, and to regulate the behavior of its officials, agents, and employees. If there were never any receipts showing the purchase of bleach, why would any person from the State - no matter there rank - be spreading such false incriminating information to the media?

If the false incriminating information was coming solely from a non-State person, without any contributing action from a State official, agent, or employee, that would be different legally (ECHR view).

Certainly I didn't say that it was kosher for anyone to spread lies but I see a big difference between the "tea lady" telling a reporter something versus the head of the Flying Squad for example.

Do you have any example of the ECHR doing something about an unnamed source spreading falsehoods about a case?

 

[anglolawyer]

Still - isn't it still up to the prosecution to demonstrate that this alleged inconsistency somehow is part of the murder? What would the bleach have been for, given carbonjam72's comments?

Once again, this issue of consistency of story is too big a deal. Consistency of account simply means they were engaged in a conspiracy! The prosecution should have their "damned if true, damned if false" theories exposed.

They might have wanted bleach to clean shoes or a knife or something else, who knows? Obviously, it's better if all the scraps of evidence build a coherent picture but that doesn't make outliers irrelevant. If it emerged that Amanda really had got up early to buy bleach but had chosen to omit the fact from her accounts, are you saying that would be irrelevant unless it could be shown what the bleach was for? Pshaw! You're simply wrong.

 

[RWVBWL]

Yes that's a problem. I think the summaries are more likely to mislead.

Thanks as always for your efforts. Do you all have access to everything? Specifically do you have the information that would show if the cash register was sequestered and when? Did the PLE provide all their notes about the case? Does anybody even know when a person first contacted or was contacted by the PLE?

Obviously none of this matters, but for some putting together a jigsaw puzzle is a challenge fun and for others a waste of time. I'm not just interested in what really happened but when and what was known to the defense.

Fixed that last part abit for ya Grinder!



Thanks for this debate, folks.
And the debate about Alessandra Formica and her boy bumpin' into that man of colour.

Years ago, I used to run a well known surfshop in DogTown.
I've written here on The JREF years ago that that if I had opened up the store and a cute gal was waiting outside,
that I'da struck up a conversation with the chick as I opened the surfshops security bars.

So it didn't surprise me when I recently read that Marco Q. did so.
Or did so at least in his recollection.

But what is weird is that Marco was shown a photograph of Raffaele and Miss Amanda Knox,
she with the blue eyes. And he did not recall seeing her.

It was just days after the murder happened
+ the Flying Squad, (with a lil' help from Rome),
were zoomin' in.

When he came around after the murder asking questions, both female clerks told Inspector Volturno that neither Amanda or Raffaele had been to the store following the murder, as did Quintavalle.

Later, Quintavalle changed his tune, and when questioned why he had told Inspector Volturno that he hadn't seen Amanda, Quintavalle lied and claimed Inspector Volturno had never asked about Amanda, only Raffaele.

Inspector Volturno testified that Quintavalle lied since he had pictures of both Amanda & Raffaele which he had showed to both clerks and to Quintavalle that day. That's why Hellmann didn't believe Quintavalle.

I would say that Inspector Volturno was one of the good cops since he essentially exposed the prosecution's witness to be a liar. I'll bet Mignini wasn't happy about that.

I too am just a little curious when Marco's cash register receipts
were picked up by The Flying Squad.

Heck, I've still got boxes of cash register receipts from my old surfshop in DogTown in a few boxes stored away. We also would write up a manual itemized receipt. If I wanted to, I could dig up an itemized invoice and a detailed cash register receipt sale from when Kurt Russell bought some gear, or Robyn Wright + Sean Penn did, or Val Kilmer bought a few Zephyr t-shirts, + how they paid and what time of day it was, la-dee-da-dee-da...

Heck,
if I really need to help
I might even be able to find an invoice from when Patrick Swayze bought 3 surf videos over the phone and had his PA pick them up, as he was too lazy to drive on down himself. The dude bought some VHS surf movies to try and help him learn to surf for some silly surf flick called "Point Break", catch a murderer, I could spend a few hours and still find an old cash register receipt from my sales on Nov. 2nd, 2007.

Any of those old 1990's Sanyo cash registers of mine would have also noted if the cash drawer was opened at any time of the day. + who was running the register.


So it was an early morning,
right after Marco's store opened.
Was a sale ever recorded from Nov.2nd, 2007 before 10:00am?

If so, what were the items sold?
Non-taxable food? Coffee?
Taxable newspapers and magazines?
Or taxable cleaning supplies?

How many times was the cash drawer opened before the 1st sale or at other times thru out the day without items being rang up?
How does the opened cash drawer recordings compare to other dayz?
Was he not ringin' items up, but just collectin' the $$$?

Gosh, some folks might feel that building a puzzle, when you know what the final picture looks like, to be, as Grinder noted above, a waste of time. I too still like buildin' puzzles, I have a few, they're pictorials of ocean/women/seashells. I'm kinda odd, for I also like flying kites on windy days too. Even though some might believe these past times to be a waste of time. Who cares, right?

Anyways,
the suns is startin' to peek back out here in L.A., might be a nice beach day here after all when the marine layer burns off. Time to look at the surf nearby and watch a few pep's ride a wave or 2 as traffic wizzes by on PCH up near Malibu.

I'll check back soon, carry on the debate.
Ya'll have a great Monday, where ever ya are.
Yea!
RW

 

[Ken Dine]

I don't agree. If they existed they would be relevant since the purchase of bleach on the morning of the 2nd is not consistent with their story. I don't want to get side-tracked by this non-topic, though. They didn't buy bleach and that's all there is to it. The real question is why the cops needed to peddle lies to the press about it and why they were so desperate to make Quintavalle stand up. What ended up lodged in Vixen's gigantic Mensa brain is of interest only insofar as it shows the pernicious effect on the ill-informed of such mud slinging.

I agree that this question of purchased bleach on Nov 2nd (ostensibly purchased for a murder cleanup) was ridiculous since the police knew by late November 2007 that Ana Maria Chiriboga (a sales-clerk in Quintavalle’s store who also cleaned Raffaele's apartment), had given the police a signed statement that Raffaele had two bottles of Ace bleach under his kitchen sink, and that the Ace bleach had been purchased by Raffaele either in August or September 2007, per Chiriboga's request.

Amanda obviously wouldn't have had to rush out and buy bleach, or any other cleaning supplies, since Raffaele's apartment was already well stocked with cleaning supplies, including bleach.

It's amazing that the prosecution would waste time with this BLEACH nonsense, but of course, it actually worked for them at the Massei trial (Massei lapped up any slop served to him by the prosecution):

MASSEI:

Rather, it will be observed that the witness has furnished a precise description of what he noticed on the morning of November 2, and moreover such somatic characteristics of the girl as blue eyes and a very light face, together with the unusual hour, could indeed have fixed in one’s memory what Quintavalle claims to have seen. To that may be added that he had previously noticed this same girl (since she was at the store with a well-known person, Raffaele Sollecito) one evening shortly after 8:00, when the store was closed. Let it also be added that witness Ana Maria Chiriboga, a sales-clerk in Quintavalle’s store at the time, has reported that Quintavalle asked her if she had seen Amanda Knox that morning, and Chiriboga answered in the negative (p. 74, hearing of 6-26-2009).

This question necessarily presupposes that Quintavalle had seen Amanda Knox, and not knowing whether she had purchased anything (see statement of Quintavalle cited above, from the hearing of 3-21-2009), was asking his sales-clerk in order to find out.
https://masseireport.wordpress.com/...s-in-and-refutations-of-amanda-knoxs-account/

What Ana Maria Chiriboga had actually testified about is more accurately reflected in this ABC NEWS article:

Knox Trial Witness Points Finger at Guede

ROME, June 26, 2009
[ ]

In what was a relatively short hearing at the trial, the judge and jurors also heard testimony today from Sollecito's former cleaning lady.

Marina Ciriboga, from Ecuador, answered questions regarding the use of bleach as a detergent at Sollecito's house.

Prosecutors believe Knox and Sollecito used bleach to clean up blood and other evidence on the crime scene after the murder. A number of prosecution witnesses have been questioned regarding purchases of bleach and bottles of bleach found in Sollecito's house.

Ciriboga today said that she usually washed the floors with another detergent (Lysoform), but that she had asked Sollecito to buy bleach. When she stopped working for Sollecito in September one and a half bottles of bleach were still in the house, Ciriboga said.

Ciriboga also works at the small supermarket down the street from Sollecito's house where a witness -- the owner of the store -- has testified he saw Knox early on the morning after the murder, when Knox says she was asleep. Ciriboga told the court she had never seen Knox or Sollecito at the supermarket.
MORE:

http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=7939101&page=1&singlePage=true

The above ABC NEWS story incorrectly states that Chiriboga said she had never seen Raffaele in the store (he was in there often) when Chiriboga actually testified that she had never seen Amanda in Quintavalle's store.


Ana Marina Chiriboga's Testimony:

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Ana_Marina_Chiriboga's_Testimony

 

[Bill Williams]

They might have wanted bleach to clean shoes or a knife or something else, who knows? Obviously, it's better if all the scraps of evidence build a coherent picture but that doesn't make outliers irrelevant. If it emerged that Amanda really had got up early to buy bleach but had chosen to omit the fact from her accounts, are you saying that would be irrelevant unless it could be shown what the bleach was for? Pshaw! You're simply wrong.

I've also had moments of being more complicatedly wrong, too!

Yet, even if Amanda had briefly gone out to buy bleach in the morning, and she herself honestly thought nothing of it, why would she include it in her accounts?

She'd forgotten that she'd called her mother. Those otherwise minor inconsistencies, inconsistencies with nothing to do with the case - really - have been spun into something suspicious by those with nothing else.

Ok, not "nothing else", but similar trivialitudes which even the 2013 ISC said had to be taken into account to buttress an osmotic evaluation of their guilt.

No, I am not saying it is irrelevant if Amanda had perhaps got up early and gone to buy bleach. It is perhaps "something" (some non-zero value of suspicion) - but for pete's sake, without finding another piece of the puzzle into which this fits........ (cf. what was the bleach for? Did anyone ever accuse her of cleaning her shoes? If she had cleaned her shoes, why? Where are the complementary shoe tracks at the scene?)

They wanted bleach on the early morning of Nov 2nd to clean a knife? Which knife? Rather than just chucking that into the discussion, is it not incumbent to at least tie that into something which also has something to do with the crime?

Other than being a stand-alone, "Wow, she forgot she'd bought bleach!" what exactly does THAT point to? The problem with even osmotic evaluations (Italian-style, not something I'm accusing you of) is that sooner or later it has to converge onto something.

Post-March 27 acquittals, what would it exactly mean if Michael of .NUT suddenly produced the receipts he's always promised? The bleach receipts, that is - not the pizza receipts he actually has in his possession?

 

[Bill Williams]

ETA - with all due respect, this reminds me a tad of the only revision to Barbie Nadeau's book, post-Winterbottom film and a version which assumed that the Hellmann acquittals would simply stand.

She ends her revisions with the on-the-scene journalists gathering for one last post mortem before dispersing.

Barbie relates how one of the reports, one who had always (acc. to her) been on the side of innocence, coming into the gathering suddenly not so sure. The narrative Barbie constructs has him say something akin to:

"It's probably good she's been acquitted. Still, it now bothers me about the lamp."

These trivialitudes have always been chucked into the narrative. Perhaps the function is not to imply guilt as it is to keep the narrative going - if only on a trickle charge.

In short, I'm with carbonjam72 on this one.

 

[carbonjam72]

They might have wanted bleach to clean shoes or a knife or something else, who knows? Obviously, it's better if all the scraps of evidence build a coherent picture but that doesn't make outliers irrelevant. If it emerged that Amanda really had got up early to buy bleach but had chosen to omit the fact from her accounts, are you saying that would be irrelevant unless it could be shown what the bleach was for? Pshaw! You're simply wrong.

One issue I have, is the idea that 'facts could be different'. Facts could not be different. Amanda and Raf had nothing to do with this crime, any more than anyone else in Perugia except for Rudy Guede.

Even if they had bought bleach, or tried to buy bleach on the morning of the murder, so what? In what way is that incriminating? They did not, as a factual matter, leave Raf's apartment that night. Is everyone who bought bleach that morning also implicated in a murder the night before?

The hypotheticals about 'what if's', assumes a complete detachment from reality. Its a type of speculation that is just unfair, and with all due respect, should just stop.

Since when is it OK to speculate that just anyone is capable of the most horrific violence imaginable? When did it get to be ok, to suggest gentle people, contain within them the capacity for the most horrific violence imaginable?

To suggest its possible that people may have done it, or know more, is already too much, IUAM. To print that trash, you damn well better be able to back it up and have an attorney handy, in a sane civilized society, MOO.

 

[Ken Dine]

Post-March 27 acquittals, what would it exactly mean if Michael of .NUT suddenly produced the [BLEACH] receipts he's always promised? The bleach receipts, that is - not the pizza receipts he actually has in his possession?

It would mean Michael now knows how to use PhotoShop!


Seriously, the time and energy that has gone into this bleach nonsense is staggering!

As it turned out, the bleach receipts weren't even necessary in court to support Quintavalle's claim at the Massei trial that he saw Amanda in his store early that morning, which weakened Amanda's alibi since she had claimed to have slept until 10:00 am that morning.

Of course, since in Italy people are often also tried in the media, that's where the bleach-receipt story took off, and there you don't need to produce actual receipts since the reporter merely needs to state the claim as possibly true, or based upon normally reputable sources, etc.

Despite being utter nonsense, 99% of 'Guilters' still believe that the police found bleach receipts dated Nov 2nd in Raffaele's apartment, because they read it in the newspapers.

 

[Kauffer]

Bill if she really was up at the crack of dawn buying bleach and lying about it, it is damning. Just because she then didn't use it doesn't really matter. Maybe they put all their incriminating evidence in a plastic bag and then poured bleach in before tossing it. Maybe they soaked everything in Raf's sink and that's why the place still smelled of bleach.

Before you blow a gasket, I'm not suggesting any of the above is true but the ILE would not need to "tie" the bleach buy to anything specific related to the murder.

I don't agree. Of course the Italians might have thought so, but imagine a scenario in which an innocent Amanda actually did go out and buy bleach in the early morning, perhaps because she wanted to clean the toilet or disinfect the drain. Nothing wrong with that, but in the context of this case, on the face of it, the purchase might seem incriminating. An innocent person might lie. But neither the lie nor the purchase is proof of guilt of murder. Lots of false convictions have been predicated on inconvenient, innocent, though apparently incriminating truths; more, perhaps have been predicated on the lies of defendants who lied because they did not trust the system to handle the truth fairly.

 

[acbytesla]

Owen Schmoen - of course there were no paper receipts, this was another point of Vixen's and she was nit-picked because she couldn't find a source, but there it was.

I asked for a source, but remain confused over precisely what is the source. Can you clarify Grinder?

 

[Desert Fox]

I don't agree. Of course the Italians might have thought so, but imagine a scenario in which an innocent Amanda actually did go out and buy bleach in the early morning, perhaps because she wanted to clean the toilet or disinfect the drain. Nothing wrong with that, but in the context of this case, on the face of it, the purchase might seem incriminating. An innocent person might lie. But neither the lie nor the purchase is proof of guilt of murder. Lots of false convictions have been predicated on inconvenient, innocent, though apparently incriminating truths; more, perhaps have been predicated on the lies of defendants who lied because they did not trust the system to handle the truth fairly.

I would argue that Amanda seemed to trust the system and the other only thing she seems to have lied about is the use of pot.

 

[Mr Fied]

I think it was settled the cop Volturn (_sp?) went to great pains to locate the sale, to no avail. Obviously, the sale was made, unless shoplifted.

Why "obviously"?

Because as with every other assertion made by the prosecution, eg the clean up or staged break in, if there is no evidence then we will just assume it is true. We can even make it a judicial truth and then no one can argue against it.

Here's a clue Vixen, if the police go to great pains to find something and cannot find what they were looking for, the chances are that it didn't happen.

 

[RWVBWL]

If...

If you were bumped off, wouldn't you want some old bum sticking up for you?

Hi Vixen,
If I was bumped off,
like a homeless dude was just the other night in front of The Cadillac Hotel on The BoardWalk in Venice Beach, (a place where I spent many years out surfing the local sandbars off Sunset, Paloma + Rose Ave. when the storm drain opened up, flushed the sand outward + groomed to perfection those perfect lefts that Jaime Perez and I lived to ride after the winter rains*),
well golly gee whiz, of course I'd luv for some old bum/transient/homeless person witness, to stick up for me and report what he saw.

Right then when the cops arrived.
Like what happened the other night.
Get it???

Read here if you like,
these are how Venice folk deal with a murder:
http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2015...ng-on-venice-beach-boardwalk-2nd-man-wounded/

Below,
a snippet:

Reporting from the scene, CBS2’s Greg Mills said a witness told him the owner of the Cadillac Hotel was with the gunman before the shooting. The witness also said the hotel owner ordered the gunman to shoot the homeless people.

“He pulled out the gun and the guy that owns the Cadillac Hotel told him ‘Kill that n—-r’,” says Ras Whitelion.

Authorities have not confirmed this witness report.

Police say when they arrived on scene around 2:10 a.m., a transient directed them to the victims.

Kristina,
people of all walks of life,
even old bums, transients, + homeless people
come forward immediately to help the cops when a murder happens.
Not months and months later.Unless they have something to hide...


If 1 of my sisters was raped + murdered, I'd want,
and I'd bet their husbands would want also,
a probable semen stain found between her naked legs and genitalia
tested to find out who the rapist was.

Especially if a shoe had also stepped in some wet seminal fluid elsewhere in the bedroom
and then left a fresh imprinted shoe ring right next to 1 of my sisters left hips on her pillow
that the rapist had placed underneath her naked corpse.

It dates a person as being there when the seminal fluid, err presumed seminal fluid,
was freshly ejaculated or soon afterwards, ya know, trying to save a naked, raped, and stabbed woman...

Can ya get my drift now,
Vixen?




(*) - Secret Surf Spot:
Right in front of this storm drain seen in summer jutting outward in front of the parking lot near the Cadillac Hotel,
https://www.google.com/maps/@33.9939617,-118.4796238,592m/data=!3m1!1e3
a pumping left sandbar forms after the rains and high surf wash all that sand seen here back into the water and the high tides bring the shoreline back up near that storm drain pictured above that some of the funnest waves in Venice, in l8 Winter and early Spring, can be found.

You'll only know about this secret left sandbar if you're a local though,
or see it pumping as you happen to be riding your bicycle on the bike path.
Watch out for sand on the path though, for even if you're on a beach cruiser, ya still can fall there, the turns are slippery if ya go to fast and are watching that hot chick's derriere, err make that waves! Which is where I got these volcano's years ago back in the 70's. Have a laugh at my expense! But don't ask me about my front tooth:
http://www.pbase.com/venicepix/image/45459720
Hahaha...

 

[Kauffer]

I would argue that Amanda seemed to trust the system and the other thing she seems to have lied about is the use of pot.

The "other thing"? What else did she lie about, other than pot?

As for trust - she trusted that the police were not lying to her, which they were. After her arrest, she slowly disabused herself of the notion that anything to do with the justice system could be trusted.