Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Dan O.]

I will have to go on memory, but I do not believe that Meredith shared her issues with Amanda (she only told her friends).

Your memory may be a bit shakey (is is that Juve?).

Amanda testified about the toilet flushing:

LG: I asked you before about how you organized the apartment, the meals, the cleaning. Was it fine, were there problems?

AK: Well, for example, [laughing] I certainly wasn't the cleanest person in the house. For example, the only time Meredith said something to me, well, it's because the toilets here are a bit different from the ones in America. You have to use a toilet brush here and it happened to me often to just forget to do that. Once she told me, it was a little "awkward" [in English], well it was a bit embarrassing but in the end it was fine, it was "cool". Then before that, a few days before, Laura and Filomena had organized a program of who was taking out the trash and so forth. Before they did that, we were just taking out the trash when it was full, or when there were dirty dishes, someone just did it, it wasn't organized point by point.​

ETA: Speaking of failing memories, I had completely forgotten the bit about reading from the German edition of Harry Potter before they started the movie. This was in Amanda's testimony just after the quote above.

 

[RoseMontague]

Thank you. I have not read the book by Burleigh. Does it contain source notes?

Yes, Comodi is listed as one she also either spoke to or corresponded with (IIRC).

 

[LondonJohn]

Do you know if this quote from Comodi is given while being interviewed by Burleigh (which Comodi may have responded in English or Italian which was translated) or was this quote from Comodi given in court (which would probably have been in Italian and later translated)?

I don't: I don't have the book. I am, however, working on the assumption that this quote is accurate. Wherever the quote comes from, it's directly attributed to Comodi. If it's not accurate, therefore, Comodi has absolute right to take legal action - since it's clearly injurious to her character. The author and her publishers would definitely have known the peril of publishing such a directly-attributed quote if it couldn't be definitely verified as accurate.

And this, incidentally, is the main reason why Wikipedia insists that all sources for its articles are mainstream-published media. It's so that if there's potentially-libellous material, the axe will fall upon the primary publishers of the libel instead of upon Wikipedia itself (which would only be guilty of a second-order repetition of the libel, defensible under fair use statutes).

So, in short, I am very confident that Burleigh's book is accurate in its representation of Comodi's views. If Comodi takes legal action against Burleigh and/or her publishers, then of course I'll change that view. But I can't imagine that Burleigh and her publishers haven't already taken this into account before publication, and have had the whole book "legalled".

 

[Chris_Halkides]

By Juve, these things must be tough to clean

Your memory may be a bit shakey (is is that Jouve?).

Amanda testified about the toilet flushing:

LG: I asked you before about how you organized the apartment, the meals, the cleaning. Was it fine, were there problems?

AK: Well, for example, [laughing] I certainly wasn't the cleanest person in the house. For example, the only time Meredith said something to me, well, it's because the toilets here are a bit different from the ones in America. You have to use a toilet brush here and it happened to me often to just forget to do that. Once she told me, it was a little "awkward" [in English], well it was a bit embarrassing but in the end it was fine, it was "cool".​

Dan O.

I mentioned the bit about the brush earlier today. But you make a good point about it, and thanks for the testimony. However, Robyn testified that Meredith did not share some of her issues with Amanda (p. 278, Murder in Italy).​

 

[RandyN]

I don't know. Surely they were not buying grocery (unless it was some kind of grass). The may have met someone.

Why do they have to be buying drugs? Are you saying this is where they met with RG that night? I expect you might imagine that but that leaves out some important facts. AK was scheduled to work at that time yet and RS had a commitment also. Maybe they did buy drugs and food...I’ve heard the side effects can make one snacky...

Id rather think these stories are a jumbled combination of two nights...31st Oct and Nov 1.

Lost in translation is easy and seems to occur with sometimes comical and sometime tragic effect in this case. The underwear story could be another "non example". Just as the cartwheel and Patrick SMS. I call it the "My Cousin Vinny" effect. In the movie My Cousin Vinny two innocent teens are arrested and falsely accused of murder...at one point the sheriff states "You killed the clerk". One teen asks the rhetorical question..." I killed the clerk"? "I killed the clerk"? The sheriff takes this as a confession and puts them in jail...its a comedy actually and perhaps a bad example but lost in translation is an early and often repeated mistake in this case.

When I consider what might drive the young lovers out into the cold November night when it would be so much better to stay inside especially after being relieved of all duties I only come up with food. And perhaps drugs but by that time it seems unlikely there is the necessary time to meet and put into action anything that would lead to a sexual attack and murder. The 3 way sex orgy gone wrong just does not fit this story at all. It comes from the demented imagination of one man...Mignini.

And only one of three people had a need for money that night. That is the murderer...Rudy Guede.

 

[RoseMontague]

Yes, Comodi is listed as one she also either spoke to or corresponded with (IIRC).

Here is what she lists in her source notes.

Comodi’s behavior and comments in court from my courtroom notes, September–December 2009.

Not all the book treats Amanda from a pro innocence POV.

For example the story Amanda wrote that won an award is presented as the same one as the Marie Pace story, which is not what I have heard is the family position on this.

I am not sure if Amanda's family is going to be totally over-joyed with the book.

 

[christianahannah]

Here is what she lists in her source notes.



Not all the book treats Amanda from a pro innocence POV.

For example the story Amanda wrote that won an award is presented as the same one as the Marie Pace story, which is not what I have heard is the family position on this.

I am not sure if Amanda's family is going to be totally over-joyed with the book.

Thank you. I thought it might have been from the September 2009 arguments to dismiss the case by the defense for Raffaele and Amanda.

I think I have located this quote/summary of what Comodi has said. It is long (many pages), involves many articles of the penal code, and is much too difficult for me to understand (from either side - the defense or prosecution). I haven't located all that is quoted from the book, but most I think.

I have only read two books - Dempsey's and Nadeau's. From a purely reading point of view I think Dempsey's book is more readable and interesting. Nadeau's, while I do think she has some facts in her book that were not known elsewhere, I felt as if the book was hurried and didn't elaborate on some subjects as it should have. Both books disappointed me as to where their information came from and at times I felt there may have been some addition as to the truth.

 

[RoseMontague]

Concerning the bath mat: Machiavelli (Yummi at PMF) had this same impression concerning a possible second (foot)print at mark B. I think he may have stated those thoughts at JREF but absolutely did at PMF with some photos. I don't know how long ago this is and can't remember what photos he used but his thoughts were interesting.

Here is one from Rinaldi2 (the first is from Rinaldi1) blown up a bit. Machiavelli believed there was another Rinaldi report out there as well (IIRC) but I don't have that one.

BTW, I have a Google translation of Rinaldi1 on my docstoc page.

 

[RandyN]

You can listen to an interview of Comodi in the earlier CBS 48 Hours mystery show ...the one done before the verdict. She comes off as the female version of Mignini. In fact both are interviewed. Mignini talks mostly about how rotten AK is for accusing an innocent man and how thanks to him (Mignini) he is now free.

Comodi talks about how these are students set free for the first time who seek new and more stimulating activity...neither mentions any real evidence in the case.

Comodi is certainly the more clever of the two...she had to restrain Mignini who wanted to use the wilder themes of Satanic ritual in the trial...she wisely persuaded him to leave that part out. And though I’m certain he mentioned those themes to reporters I don’t believe that ever came into the actual trial.

They both easily lie in court and are willing to present false witnesses. Distraction rather than facts seem to be the modus...

So far all the rats seem to huddling in a group as the ship sinks. I wonder which one will jump first? Mignini has been AWOL lately. No news, no sound bites...nothing. I expect he is in the closet huddled with life jacket fully done up and waiting. My bet is Mignini jumps first. Who knows...he may really already be safely ashore.

The recently missing Machavelli/Yummy/Stefanoni (this last is my guess) had too much inside info to be not be closely related to this case. I expect she is busy elsewhere...

 

[Kaosium]

From your link, says the same thing.

The witnesses also recalled how Ms Kercher struck up a friendship with Ms Knox, who she first regarded as "pretty and nice" – but said that the relationship degenerated as the English girl struggled to put up with her flatmate's personal habits.
They recalled how Ms Kercher complained that Ms Knox left the shared bathroom dirty, failed to flush the toilet and left a see-through washbag containing condoms and a rabbit-shaped vibrator lying around. They also said that she brought men home.

What do you suppose that means? Are you trying to develop a motive for Meredith to murder Amanda?

Here's the thing, the English girls didn't know Amanda, they didn't hang out with her much after she got the job at Le Chic. They didn't know how Amanda felt about Meredith, and all the evidence is to the contrary. In fact, considering they went to the concert together where Raffaele met Amanda, and also the chocolate festival days before the murder, it doesn't appear they had much friction between them, despite the petty hearsay generated from silly girls in the wake of a tragedy in the midst of a full-blown tabloid defamation campaign, and elicited by those self-same sleaze merchants.

That's the context in which that gossip was repeated, which says a lot more about them than it does about Amanda, because when you boil it down what they did was help fuel a smear which likely contributed to in some measure to the conviction of an innocent girl and a guy who just happened to like her. A Daily Mail article filled with exaggerations, mistakes, and even attributing to Amanda things true of Meredith or others was entered into the official court record to support the mens rea of the murder!

There's no evidence Meredith was all that different than Amanda in any meaningful way, they were both young ladies overseas going to school enjoying themselves, and taking care of business at the same time. They did many of the things college girls do when they're that age and in that environment, and had it been the other way around and Amanda come to get a mop and interrupted Rudy Guede before Meredith came home and she discovered the crime, odds are the Daily Mail and the rest of the tittering tabloid trash would have torn apart her too.

Despite the fact no one went looking for it, indeed the opposite, one could write a very similar article to the one I linked above just about some of the things that came up and became public because of the investigation and trial about Meredith. That offal that I linked was part of the effort where they traveled to Seattle in the search of sleaze! They were camped outside her home in Seattle, stealing mail to get Amanda's letters home.

Here's how those outlets might have 'spun' some of the things that became known about Meredith were it her instead of Amanda. I'm going to make it invisible so it is easily skipped, and of course I mean none of it, and I'm going to stay closer to the truth and make it more of a parody, but if you're easily offended just scroll to the next post. I won't even use her name. However were a bombastic, moralistic, dishonest article have been written, it might have looked something like this:



CONSORT OF A DOPE FIEND!

Some reports pretend that the girl arrested in the viscous, brutal rape and murder of a fellow student would never do such a thing, but our investigation reveals numerous indicators of her lifestyle and character which suggest behind the pretty, smiling veneer lurked the venomous heart of a murderess, a ticking time bomb waiting to go off.

Arrested with her boyfriend in the sordid sex-charged murder, police found a drug operation in its infancy, one that the girl assisted with willingly, peddling poison to the innocents of Perugia. Sampling their own wares was never problem for her, sources indicate, even needing to wheedle drugs from her roommates to sate her burgeoning appetite for the drug-fueled lifestyle she was living.

Drugs were not her only addiction, binging on alcohol was another concern for some, sources say. The night before the murder she was out until daybreak, soused to the skin say those subjected to her stumbling around that night, dressed as a soulless blood-sucking demoness, a sign of things to come said some.

While she pretended friendship publicly to the face of the victim, a two-faced Janus emerged when talking with friends, complaining bitterly about petty divergences from her imperious demands about the house. She left the victim during the concert they attended a week before the murder, the poor future victim whose Italian was poor and thus adrift in the sea of strange people around her. She had another engagement was the selfish excuse given.

While some say her habits no different than any other girl these days, our sources found evidence of experimenting with unusual practices more prone to disease, though she would publicly berate the victim for joke toys, a sign of hypocrisy. An old boyfriend confirms she was no prude, giving lie to the virginal pretense of some, suggesting she was on the road to Gomorrah our experts reveal.

Insiders say her boyfriend involved in the murder didn't even like her that much, needing her only for the drug operation, he wouldn't even acknowledge her presence publicly, would walk by without even a greeting, showed no affection, suggesting little interest in the cold, distant girl.

Media Pseudologist Quacky Quaker said to this reporter:

'Considering all the troubling signs, the attraction to evil evidenced by her Halloween costume, her cold demeanor, the two faced lying, the domineering demands and her outrage they were not met, the bizarre relationship with the boyfriend and all the hypocrisy it is no surprise she turned to violence, a budding sociopath is the only conclusion that can be reached.'

 

[Kaosium]

Of course, if I show something which is an obvious lie, then it is
- coerced
- stoned
- imprecise
- confused
- beaten out
- inadmissible
- not beyond reasonable doubt
- or any combination of the above

Shouldn't that tell you something? So should the fact that when the cops lie it is important, fed to the media and defamed her, as well as to courts and relevant to their conviction.

Incidentally they could have lied about everything and still not have committed the murder. It is pretty weak evidence, especially compared to the exculpatory lack of evidence of them in the murder room, despite the desperate efforts to find some.

 

[katy_did]

Here's how those outlets might have 'spun' some of the things that became known about Meredith were it her instead of Amanda. I'm going to make it invisible so it is easily skipped, and of course I mean none of it, and I'm going to stay closer to the truth and make it more of a parody, but if you're easily offended just scroll to the next post. I won't even use her name. However were a bombastic, moralistic, dishonest article have been written, it might have looked something like this:

Ha, very nicely done! And so true - I've always thought the tabloids would've gotten a lot of mileage out of the vampire photo if the situation had been reversed (as they did with Raffaele's MySpace bleach photo).

 

[LondonJohn]

Ha, very nicely done! And so true - I've always thought the tabloids would've gotten a lot of mileage out of the vampire photo if the situation had been reversed (as they did with Raffaele's MySpace bleach photo).

Yup. At the risk of over-using the term "ex-post-facto rationalisation", this is exactly what happened in the way the various protagonists in this case were portrayed - both in court and in the wider media. Every single incident, photograph or online contribution from Knox's or Sollecito's past (and Guede's too) was trawled for evidence "confirming" their diabolical characters. We all know the things that were seized upon: Knox's noise violation ticket, Sollecito's brief brush with animal porn and fondness for Japanese manga, the Knox machine gun photo, the Sollecito cleaver & bandages photo, the intentionally pretentious or humorous myspace entries, etc, etc.

On the other hand, any evidence to the contrary (Knox's outstanding academic record, Sollecito's close relationship with his father, the fact that they met at a classical music concert, etc) is minimised or even totally brushed over - because it doesn't comply with the required rationalisation: "Knox and Sollecito are vicious killers, and therefore their past must show evidence of the making of vicious killers".

 

[LondonJohn]

Shouldn't that tell you something? So should the fact that when the cops lie it is important, fed to the media and defamed her, as well as to courts and relevant to their conviction.

Incidentally they could have lied about everything and still not have committed the murder. It is pretty weak evidence, especially compared to the exculpatory lack of evidence of them in the murder room, despite the desperate efforts to find some.

Exactly. And it bears repeating that only lies that are directly related to the charges and the case carry any relevance whatsoever. That's why in the strange old days when Curatolo's testimony was to be believed (it hardly seems possible now that this was ever the case...), his contradiction of Knox's/Sollecito's version of events between 9pm and midnight was extremely damaging to them. Massei's court (in its ignorance, stupidity and inherent bias) decided to accept Curatolo's testimony more-or-less at face value, and this by definition meant that Knox and Sollecito had to have been lying about their whereabouts over the critical period covering the murder and its aftermath.

And even though this "lie" is obviously no longer an issue, I think that the defence teams need to keep their collective eyes on the ball when it comes to challenging Quintavalle's testimony - for the same reason. If Hellmann's court were ever to accept Quintavalle's testimony as accurate and reliable, then this would imply that Knox was lying about her whereabouts and activities in the early morning after the murder. And since one of the prosecution's allegations is that Knox and Sollecito engaged in a crime-scene clean-up the following morning, any belief by Hellmann's court in such a "lie" would be potentially very harmful to both Knox and Sollecito. It almost goes without saying that Quintavalle's testimony should easily be able to be demolished in closing argument (given the nature and time-lag of his "remembering") - although I wish that he too had been recalled to the court.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

what superwitness?

RoseMontague,

According to Burleigh, Comodi said, “No defense right has been threatened. We decide if documents are necessary or not. I didn’t even look at their request of July 30 [for the superwitness]. I opened it and closed it right away. It was so useless. No law says the scientific police have to produce all that’s requested. It’s not proof, and we didn’t need it to support our case. The prosecutor’s office decides what is useful and what is distraction. You can tell me that Stefanoni has to get another degree, but telling us that not producing the documents warrants tossing out the case is like asking the postal police to explain how they found a hooker online. The important thing is that they found the hooker!”

Superwitness? I would have thought that the July 30 motion would have dealt with discovery, but I am not sure. Can you clarify this? Thanks.

 

[Draca]

Thanks for the great post LJ,

The issue with AK's phone calls is that she didn't let the phone ring long enough on the 12:11:54 UK cell phone call? If it was with Lana's family at that time it seems they would have either heard it or the phone was turned off, low battery, etc.

Am I missing a further issue with the calls or is that all there is?

[/QUOTE=Draca]

Conclusion:

I think that a close analysis of Knox's phone calls to Meredith's two mobile phones on 2nd November, when correlated with known events and timings from the Massei report, shows clearly that Knox's pattern of behaviour was entirely consistent with her stated version of events: becoming increasingly concerned about Meredith's whereabouts and condition. I think the evidence shows the following:

1) The call to Meredith's UK phone that caused it to be discovered was not made by Knox - the phone was discovered "between 11.45am and 12.00pm", and Knox's first attempted call to this phone was at 12.07pm.

2) This call was actually placed by someone as yet unknown.

3) When Knox placed her first call to this phone (at 12.07pm), this was the call that caused the phone to ring while it was sitting in Lana's kitchen, showing the "incoming caller" identification as "Amanda".

4) It's likely that this first call to the UK phone caused the handset to ring for a number of seconds (as witnessed by Lana's family), then finally to divert to voicemail.

5) When Knox tried for a second time to call the UK phone (at 12.11:54), it's likely that by this time the phone had either been switched off or was out of network coverage while being transported to the postal police office. This tends to be supported by the apparent fact that neither the Lanas nor the police mention any second incoming call from Knox showing on the phone at this time. And it explains the short (four seconds) duration of the call, if the call went straight through to voicemail. It also explains why Knox did not retry the UK phone.

6) Knox's one call to Meredith's Italian phone (at 12.11:02) went straight to voicemail because the phone was switched off. It was therefore logical that Knox would not retry a phone that was diverting to voicemail.

LJ,

This is from Amanda's email:
"the first time i called the english phone is rang and then sounded as of
there was disturbance, but no one answered. i then calle the italian
phone and it just kept ringing, no answer. i called her english phone
again and this time an english voice told me her phone was out of
service."

If she got an out of service response Lana's family wouldn't have heard the call. The phone could not have rung longer and there was no way for Amanda to leave a voice mail.

 

[Dan O.]

Here is one from Rinaldi2 (the first is from Rinaldi1) blown up a bit. Machiavelli believed there was another Rinaldi report out there as well (IIRC) but I don't have that one.

I'm not seeing the second footprint on the towel. I just can't make out anything with a similar shape to the first print in the corner.

Then I got to thinking if a second print would be made even if the foot were moved before drying it off with a towel. To test this conjecture without creating too much of a bloody mess, I put a dry bath towel on the floor and placed a sheet of paper towel over part of the towel. After thoroughly wetting my foot in the shower, I stepped out on to the towel for two seconds then moved my foot to the paper towel. The result was that a few spots from one side of my foot left the paper towel wet. As a control, I wet my foot again and this time stepped directly on the paper towel. The second trial left a full print on the paper.

Unlike the case of the shoe prints being left on a hard tile floor where several steps could be made before the print faded away, the bath mat absorbs most of the liquid from the foot in the first step so that there isn't enough left to make a second visible print.

BTW, I have a Google translation of Rinaldi1 on my docstoc page.

Someday I might break down and sign up for a face book account.

 

[christianahannah]

RoseMontague,

According to Burleigh, Comodi said, “No defense right has been threatened. We decide if documents are necessary or not. I didn’t even look at their request of July 30 [for the superwitness]. I opened it and closed it right away. It was so useless. No law says the scientific police have to produce all that’s requested. It’s not proof, and we didn’t need it to support our case. The prosecutor’s office decides what is useful and what is distraction. You can tell me that Stefanoni has to get another degree, but telling us that not producing the documents warrants tossing out the case is like asking the postal police to explain how they found a hooker online. The important thing is that they found the hooker!”

Superwitness? I would have thought that the July 30 motion would have dealt with discovery, but I am not sure. Can you clarify this? Thanks.

I am not Rose but I believe the July 30 motion (and I am not certain the date for the motion was July 30 - I will check) was concerning the documents requested by the defense concerning the SAL reports, etc. I wonder if instead of superwitness it was expert witness?

I have been reading the September 14, 2009 hearing transcripts and have found some of what has been quoted but not verbatim (the argument made by Comodi is many pages). I am not sure if Comodi speaks later during the trial concerning this matter in the exact words quoted or if this quote is a summary of Burleigh's notes.

Edit to add: I am not certain but the September 14 hearing included the defense requesting dismissal of the case (or maybe dismissal of some evidence) and the subsequent arguments (from Comodi and others) against that motion. I will try to read more and see if I can get a clearer idea.

 

[theRealBob]

Ok...lets say I agree with you that shower, boogie, hair wash, toilet , mop story is made up...what does that say about the murder?

Am I to infer now that AK cleaned up the cottage when there is nothing to indicate any cleanup?

She took no shower that morning because her hair looked messy in video capture photos? It looked like a windy November day...that ruins my hair day every time.

So these few odd things in the end say nothing. Nothing that indicates murder or cover up of a murder anyway.

I think the morning after story Amanda told is pure bulls***.

But that still wouldn't make them anything more than a pair of nervy murder discoverers (which is how I see them)

I found an earlier post a few pages ago about the cameras picking up the arrival of the postals but missing any morning returns by Amanda, or her and Raff to be quite interesting...

 

[RWVBWL]

Life, and friends...

From your link, says the same thing.

The witnesses also recalled how Ms Kercher struck up a friendship with Ms Knox, who she first regarded as "pretty and nice" – but said that the relationship degenerated as the English girl struggled to put up with her flatmate's personal habits.
They recalled how Ms Kercher complained that Ms Knox left the shared bathroom dirty, failed to flush the toilet and left a see-through washbag containing condoms and a rabbit-shaped vibrator lying around. They also said that she brought men home.

Yup. At the risk of over-using the term "ex-post-facto rationalisation", this is exactly what happened in the way the various protagonists in this case were portrayed - both in court and in the wider media. Every single incident, photograph or online contribution from Knox's or Sollecito's past (and Guede's too) was trawled for evidence "confirming" their diabolical characters. We all know the things that were seized upon: Knox's noise violation ticket, Sollecito's brief brush with animal porn and fondness for Japanese manga, the Knox machine gun photo, the Sollecito cleaver & bandages photo, the intentionally pretentious or humorous myspace entries, etc, etc.

On the other hand, any evidence to the contrary (Knox's outstanding academic record, Sollecito's close relationship with his father, the fact that they met at a classical music concert, etc) is minimised or even totally brushed over - because it doesn't comply with the required rationalisation: "Knox and Sollecito are vicious killers, and therefore their past must show evidence of the making of vicious killers".

Hi , Skwinty, LondonJohn, and others,
Life's interesting, you never know where it will lead. I find I've lived thru a lot of similair situations when comparing this murder we discuss to my own life:

In my own life's experiences, back in the '80's when I was a hot surfing young dude, I've had a photo published of me in a surf magazine, holding a real Uzi machine gun that a big time local drug dealer surfer that I casually knew owned. Wearin' a fliped up brim on the baseball hat, lookin' tough. A pose for the camera, the magagzine liked it's potrayal of me and ran it. Didn't make me a murderer though, nor does it make Amanda Knox a murderer because she also held a machine gun in some photograph...

I've had a female friend show me a video clip of animal porn that she found amusingly, sickly find of funny, and yet neithr she nor I are murderers, nor does this make Raffaele Sollectio a murderer either.

I've been to quite a few classical concerts watching the Santa Monica Symphony play, and have even been to the Hollywood Bowl, and I'm still not a murderer. Raffaele and Amanda, classical music lovers, murderers?

I've smoked a lotta pot before, even smoked some Lebanese blonde hash a few times, and that didn't cause me to murder anyone. Nor did it make anyone else I've ever known become a murderer.

I've lived with housemates and have been scolded before for leaving dirty dishes, and not cleaning up the bathroom. Heck, I even luved 1 gal enough to visit her therapist and discuss our problems, which included me scolding her for a lack of desire to help keep the bathroom clean. And yet I didn't murder her. Amanda murder Meredith because Mez got mad that Amanda didn't flush the toilet? Pffft!

I've loaned condoms to both guys and gals, and have never murdered any of them.
Live life and have fun, my friends...


Some have recently been arguing that Amanda and Meredith were not friends.

I wonder, did they know that on Oct. 30, 2007, Amanda, Meredith, Laura and Filomena had gathered around the kitchen table together at lunchtime in their apartment for the last time? And when Raffaele showed up, he made them pasta for lunch?

Hours later, Meredith, with a couple of her English gal pals too, joined Amanda and Raff for some wine at La Tana Dell'Orso, one of the few above ground bars in town boasting boasting of having "Perugia's best wine selection". Meredith was said by the owner of the place to be a regular customer there, and they spent 2 hours together at the table sharing a litter of white house wine.

I might hazard a guess that if they had lunch together, and then happy hour too, well they probably enjoyed each others company. Wouldn't you agree?

I've sat at a table, with my luver, and some friends, had a bottle or two of wine and never murdered any of them. Have you?


I've read that no one in the house, either upstairs or downstairs, reported any tension between Meredith and Amanda. Nobody ever heard Amanda criticizing Meredith, raising her voice to her nor anyone else. Marco, one of the boyz downstairs, said their relationship was "idyllic". Heck, Giacomo, Meredith's luver, called it "tranquil", and makes mention "of all the people in the house, they got on best together."

Yet people still believe the prosecutions theory, which was used to convict Amanda and Raffaele, that Amanda, when told she did not have to work on that slow Thursday night, decided to bring over a huuuge kitchen knife and with her new boyfriend of only 6 days help, and some other guy she barely even knew, physically stabbed her friend Meredith again and again in her throat, because they were not friends or had cleanliness issues.

Sure...