[worldtraveler3]

Just watched this last night. It was completely different to what i thought as have happened as painted by the media (the sex game gone wrong type etc..).

The show:
Basically gives a story of her before and after the event, the 2 trials, the appeals, etc. She actually spoke direct to the camera, in a quite emotional way.

The show mocks the Italian justice system, the insufficiency of the DNA evidence, and that the prosecutors could have done what they wanted, (beat her up, mental torture, lock her up and not let her sleep until she breaks down, etc). Under this pressure she then started accusing another guy (the bar owner), which further complicated the situation and made them not believe her.

In assessing whether or not she was guilty. After watching the movie, there are a couple of points that needs attention:

1. The knife.
They had some parts of Meredith's DNA on that knife, which was deemed incompatible with the majority of the wounds except one. Now, was this framing her? because they went into Raffael's house and found this knife, but later the investigators said the wounds are not compatible. So if that wasn't the knife, then the evidence is not valid.

2. She was trailed 2 times for 2 different motifs.
first was the sex game gone wrong story, which was later revoked as they said it was not compatible with Meredith's personality (of course it wasn't, it was obvious she was a good girl). The second trial they blamed the motif as an argument she had with the roommate over money. Now, this alone by itself, may be ok. But they specifically said that she DID NOT act alone. Where did they get this assumption? we don't know, it was not disclosed.

(A guess is that because the number of wounds would have been too many for a single person to do,(46 or something) and the fact that Guede's DNA was also in the room. Raffael's DNA was on the bra but this could easily been contaminated as it was found 36 days later and they messed up with technical part of the investigation)

Arguing over money and then suddenly there is a multi person murder? Usually money matters call for a 1 to 1 solution or escalation, very rarely it is a multi-person to single-person event. Think about the times where you had argument over money with your friends. This brings to the 3rd point of attention.

3. They were adamant that she did not act alone.
They had put the 3 of them in 2 separate trails, something also very strange, considering that the 3 must have done it together if they are all trailed for murder.

Now, here is the thing (and common sense) that most people should remember. She and her 'boyfriend' had only met each other 7 days before the murder. From my experience, most people who had known the girl/guy for that short amount of time would very very RARELY do something like murder together as we are not even sure about the other person, let alone commit this sort of thing together after only 7 days knowing each other... Think about the times where you met a girl for 7 days only, you barely know her, is it likely that you go along with something like this? just common sense...

4. Its really about 2 versions of events. Guede vs those 2.
The media had focused on entirely on Knox. try finding a video on Guede and I only could find one interview he did (in Italian). Now, Guede had originally been saying (through the skype conversation with his friend) that he was in the bathroom and he heard a scream and then he saw a man, Italian man, who fought with him, and then ran away, adding that Amanda was NOT there. Later on he changed his version after being caught, to saying Amanda was 110% there, but he didn't see her, he heard her, and also saw a man, but did not identify him as Raffael.

5. Is Guede's story believable?
you have to take into account of 3 things.
a) he admitted that he was at the scene and tried to stop the bleeding with a towel. That's why his DNA was in the room. (he even said he tried to understand what Meredith was saying by writing blood on the wall). I thought about this, but could not come to a conclusion wether a normal person would do that or not. He said she was trying to tell him something. (making everything sound mysterious again). But lets go on to the next part which begs for thinking...

b) he was later found out to be going to a night club after the murder, (after seeing Meredith and try cover her up with towel and after writing with blood on the wall even...) Now, what kind of person would go to a nightclub before running away after something like this? An average guy would either just 1) run away or 2) call the police. An average guy would probably scared and just run away, but he didn't do it immediately, he went to a nightclub... Is this something a mentally healthy guy would do?

c) he said he saw a man, and he shouted 'black man found', from watching Raffael's personality on the show, it doesn't seem like he would shout something like this.

6. Guede's new twist making it a mysery again.
Now, Guede has just sought to have a new trial. This in the US would have been suicide, as he was trailed for with ACCOMPLICE before (only 16 years right now), if he's on this new trial and the 2 have been acquitted now, this means he would be on the trail for sole murder. He's taking a big gamble on this and making the public even more confused as to why he would do this hence the question over Amanda and Raffale is still not closed. People are going to start suspecting the pair again. He's now accusing Amanda being there, and also claiming innocence.

To me this is just Guede trying to mock the Italian justice system. He now have seen 2 people got free because of insufficient evidence, he now sees how incompetent these prosecutors, investigators and judges are. And he thinks: hold on a minute, maybe i can get away too... I had my DNA in the room, but was because i arrived at the scene after, it doesn't prove anything... These people can't do anything to me.

What surprised me is the amount of public reaction to trying to convict her guilty. Everyone seems absolutely convinced, (at least in Europe) that she did it. You had people standing outside the courtroom shouting 'we will get her next time' as if they really know what happened and examined the evidence. Its this mentality that she 'needs to be hunted and tracked down' as we think she's guilty and she cant get away with that. Maybe this is what media does to you. Mystery sells.

[david.garrett84]

American woman in Italy gets accused of murder: "You need actual proof, beyond reasonable doubt, to convict!"

American college male gets accused of rape: "We aren't convicting enough people!"

[worldtraveler3]

My conclusion is that there is no way Rafalle would be guilty. It's just not plausible that ANYONE would go on murder with a girl he just met 7 days before. Rafalle had also no motif. Killing someone because some random girl is disputing with her roommate about money, really?

If Rafalle is not guilty, then it's either Guede himself alone, or Guede and Amanda together, or Amanda alone. But Guede said he saw a man, though he did not name Raffale. Why did he say that? That warrants some thinking. Is he saying that because the authorities told everyone it was a multi person murder? If it was just Amanda, and Guede came on the scene later, he didn't need to include Rafael. If it was Amanda alone, then why did Raffale need to say she was with him and protect her, considering he's only known her for 7 days?

[Going strong]

This story made it big, worldwide, because Amanda Knox (WB, but would lock the kitchen door before) is quite seriously hot, also blonde and American. So everybody, including the police and prosecutors, got excited (thirst is very real in the police) and wanted to use her to get into the spotlights.

Apart from her sidekick appearance in this story, it's just a classic, denied-sex rage murder by a Sub-Saharan migrant, and sadly, stories like that, we have tons of them in Europe...

The Guede migrant (or adopted, can't remember) dude is now trying to get renewed and even, heightened media attention, because, what he fears the most is not Italian prisons, it's being released poor and forgotten. He wants some Hollywood deal: not gonna happen for him, cause he fits the wrong narrative (called, the truth, a narrative Hollywood hates).

[XPQ22]

(10-01-2016 11:56 PM)worldtraveler3 Wrote:  

(of course it wasn't, it was obvious she was a good girl).

Is that something that's obvious? Do you read the same forum that I do?

(10-02-2016 01:42 AM)Going strong Wrote:  

Apart from her sidekick appearance in this story, it's just a classic, denied-sex rage murder by a Sub-Saharan migrant, and sadly, stories like that, we have tons of them in Europe...

Sometimes the simplest explanation is the best one. I think in this case it's way too well-packaged a narrative.

Quote:

What surprised me is the amount of public reaction to trying to convict her guilty. Everyone seems absolutely convinced, (at least in Europe) that she did it.

Europeans are apparently less easily-swayed by a pretty face.

[yesinmyname]

The nasty truth is that without the pressures and blackmails of the witch Secretary of State - now POTUS candidate - and her diplomatic apparatus, this story would have taken a different path.

I vividly remember the days before the Appeal verdict the shitload of issues on the table between Italy-US being questioned in the case Amanda Knox would have had her conviction confirmed (comes to mind the order of several Agusta Westland helicopters from the US administration).
Once the story was artfully twisted towards human rights, feminism, victimhood I knew it was over.
It goes without saying that the accusation of harrassment in her 5 star cell were part of the scheme.

[Going strong]

(10-02-2016 02:29 AM)XPQ22 Wrote:  

(10-02-2016 01:42 AM)Going strong Wrote:  

Apart from her sidekick appearance in this story, it's just a classic, denied-sex rage murder by a Sub-Saharan migrant, and sadly, stories like that, we have tons of them in Europe...

Sometimes the simplest explanation is the best one. I think in this case it's way too well-packaged a narrative.

Yes, "the simplest explanation is the best one": Guede, the Sub-Saharan leeching, unemployed migrant, tried to have sex with chubby 5 Meredith, who denied him: he stabbed her. And fled.

Then thirsty, horny Italian police officers found hot-HB 8 Amanda at the scene, and they held on to her, for several understandable reasons (attention-whoring the media, especially)...

By the way, the Law gives me reason: Guede confessed, was sentenced, case closed.

[worldtraveler3]

I didn't read anything that she (Meredith) was into these kind of stuff. All the stuff that we read is her being a nice girl going into this. From her family and stuff I don't see anything of even rebellious nature of that girl.

Yes, agreed Guede is just trying to get Hollywood attention and Stirring up this mystery thing again. Maybe he wants to get a movie too. He did write a book, forgot the name of it.

I don't know if anyone has seen the interview he did on Italian tv rai, it was like he was completely a different dude compared to when he was arrested. He acted like an intellectual. And the Italian media portraying the whole thing was definitely of a different angle.

Amanda's reactions and everything do seem very weird for the whole thing, including the retrials. But the investigations should have not been Focusing on Amanda. She just makes everything more and more complicated.

The one who got involved and shouldn't be is actually Raffale. He should have had no business in all of this.

[AboveAverageJoe]

Amanda Knox is neither blonde nor an 8 as has been mentioned.
One thing she assuredly is-crazy.
That level of insanity cannot be hidden and you can see it in every single picture of hers.










Looking at the last pic I am thinking her roommate giving her oral herpes could have been a motive.
This chick was guilty as sin. The Italian justice sysytem didn't pick on her because she was American as the narrative was sold by the US press.

[C-Note]

I understand that the current theory by those who believe Knox was involved is that she didn't actually kill Meredith, but helped hold her down while one of the other dudes in the room killed her. It's too bad the Italian police botched the investigation.

Amanda Knox was doing copious amounts of drugs and slutting around big time at the time of the murder. She was likely so numb during the crime that she didn't feel anything as Meridith was killed right in front of her.

[AboveAverageJoe]

Now her porn star sister, Belle Knox? I could literally hate fuck her to death, and I have never said or thought anything like that ever.

[RIslander]

European court has ordered Italy to pay Amanda Knox damages for the way she was treated during her incarceration.

As much as I think its ridiculous a continent has such control over a country; Italy needs to pay. Maybe she did it, maybe shit didn't... but the point is they tortured her and the evidence wasn't there for a conviction. I personally think it was the African migrant and this was just before the crisis began so the Italian government decided to blame the white American girl.

https://www.theolympian.com/news/nation-...02315.html

She has a crazy look to her eyes but more in the "batshit girlfriend who throws temper tantrums way" and not the murderer way. I feel bad for her. She aged hard after.

EDIT: To make this an official RvF post... WB.

[Atlanta Man]

Back when she was accused she was hot, in 2006 WB. Note: She played soccer in high school and college-WB....in 2006.

[RexImperator]

She was “proudly” slutting it up lots of Italian dudes... no need to blame the herpes on the African.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article...Knoxy.html

Quote:

Her first one-night stand was with a man called Cristiano, whom she met on a train in Florence. She wrote: ‘We shared a joint, and then, high and giggly, we went to his hotel room.

‘I’d just turned 20. This was my first one-night stand.

‘I’d told friends I couldn’t see myself sleeping with some random guy. But Cristiano was a game-changer.’

Two weeks after arriving in Perugia from her home in the US she had sex with an Italian named Mirko, who invited her back to his house for pizza. She says she later discussed this with her housemate Miss Kercher, a Leeds University student from Coulsdon, Surrey.

Knox wrote: ‘I was proud of myself for having a no-strings-attached consensual encounter but I felt awkward and out of place. I didn’t yet know if I’d regret it.

‘Later I told Meredith about the sex and feeling “like an idiot”.

‘“Amanda”, she said, consolingly, “Maybe uninvolved sex just isn’t for you”.’

Knox later slept with ‘Bobby from Rome’, before meeting Sollecito a few weeks later at a classical music concert.

She says she found him ‘nerdy and adorable’ and recalled how, before they had sex for the first time, she told him that making faces made her laugh.

She wrote: ‘We made faces until we collided in a kiss. Then we had sex. It felt totally natural.’

[Kaligula]

The Italian story about Amanda was that it was a ritual murder, therefore Guede seems to be a bit unbelievable as an interested party, so to say. Also, he already had a criminal story, but it was a story of non-violent property crime, not of assaulting people. He was there, but probably just to steal something. He ended as a black man often ends - a patsy for rich whites. The fact that he escaped to Germany almost immediately would speak for that that he accidentally found himself in the middle of ugly story, which did scary him, and was running away from a horror. Contrast that with the cold-blooded Amanda.
By the way, Guede was from Cote d'ivoire, I mean he wasn't a Sub-Saharan African, but came from a more civilized part of Africa. That he went to nightclub does not seem very controversial; probably he wanted to talk to someone, and this was a place when his friends were supposed to hang out at that time, it was a summer in Italy, everybody was out.
His story about having seen some man makes me think, yes. It is possible that there was someone else besides 3 suspects, Knox, Rafaelle, Guede. But out of all 3 of them, Amanda seems to be the most guilty. Also, that the well-to-do Italian Rafalle names her "a girlfriend" after 7 days, seems to me to be a bit improbable, and more the story of Amanda than his own. A story to protect her.
Amanda behaved in a strange, unconcerned way after the murder, and showed no remorse or empathy for the victim at all, so she got herself universally disliked in Europe. Since there is a lot of women in mafia, Italians are used to the idea of female cruelty, and respectively a bit less ready to excuse her. Also, she was mainly handled by female cops. I don't buy arguments about police "thirst". This was Italian police, not American.
However, the city of Perugia prosecutor who originally took on her, was a bit oddball, obsessed by "the Monster of Florence" serial killer story.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monster_of_Florence

But the official story doesn't seem to hold together very well, and could be tilted either way. Was the respective knife the only knife in action? DNA on the knife is just DNA on the knife, a DNA can be found on almost any knife in the world - what about looking for DNA on the victim body or clothes???!
In my opinion, Amanda Knox was sentenced mainly due to the "evidence" of her personality.
Respectively, Knox was acquitted due to the lack of convincing evidence, not because she was actually not guilty. It wasn't like she did have alibi. There was no proof of her innocence. Old adage: absence of proof is not proof of absence. No proof that she killed is not a proof that she did not kill.

Who did kill? In my opinion - I will take Guede story as credible (the only strange part is about writing with blood, but at least it does show that he was concerned with the victim, what she was saying, trying to put it together) - Amanda and some other X guy, with Amanda probably putting the idea in his mind. The only question is what was Raffale's role in the story, why did he protect her (he is from rich family, he had nothing to gain)? The possible answer: Amanda blackmailed Raffale. Was it some kind of "dare" play between Raffale and X, directed by Amanda?
Amanda's smile, like "you will never get me, idiots", have made me to disbelieve her.

The process was engaging, but who said that putting witches on trial wasn't actually fun? The very fact that witch trials were conducted by the Church itself, by friars, hardened in dialectics and asceticism, speaks against a feminist assumption that women weren't seriously treated in the past.
Of course, such a trial re-enacted the eternal opposition between the Whore ( Devil's Whore) and the Hermit (God's Humblest Servant) which made it even more fun. People who claim that police were "thirsty" seem to have been hijacked exactly by this archetypical opposition. But police are not monks, people...!
Amanda may be a witch, but, sadly, there was no hermit to confront her. In the past, hardened witch hunters would be already standing in queue to confront her. Such a woman could be everything, and the Devil's name is Multitude... You never know what you will meet, and that I suppose was the true joy of working as a witch hunter.

[Kaligula]

The fact that Raffale-Amanda "relationship" did not survive the crime and the trial essentially excludes any kind of emotional reasons for Raffale to stand for Amanda. That leaves as his motif either blackmail by Amanda (or X), or the fact that he was a murderer, together with Amanda, and, possibly, X. But Raffale looks a kind of helpless to me in this story: like he has to go with whatever Amanda claims. A hapless, sacrificial lamb. Contrast that with Guede who behaves in much more active way. Also, Guede's testimony is pretty detailed (even this writing in blood), which makes it essentially credible. The fact that his is a different picture than given by Amanda & Raffale means that he is not being blackmailed, ergo, at least he is not a murderer. The fact that he wants a new trial is also a point for him; you take such a risk essentially only for acquittal (his acquittal in this case). In a psychological sense there is a bigger difference between "guilty" and "not guilty" than between 16 and 20 years of prison. This is a matter of your integrity. To understand that you really have to go through a trial, knowing that you have not done what you are being accused of.

From the reported fact that the prosecution tried to break Amanda, we can assume that the prosecutor also thought that (1) the current story is an incomplete story, (2) Amanda is a mastermind of this story. So he tried to make her talk. And nothing. And nothing even after Amanda's years in prison. No wonder Italians have given up. She seems to be stone-cold like mafiosi. A witch, in fact.

But remember, as a prosecutor you go on a trial with a story that is the most credible in the light of presented evidence, not with what you think that did, in fact, happen.

[Kaligula]

What possibly happened: Meredith was killed mainly by X who disappeared with his knife. However, Amanda and Raffale helped him, either in the active way (Amanda) or passive way (Raffale). This is why both of them cannot now go and say, "it was not me, it was X!". If X is found, he will simply say that Amanda helped him and Raffale did nothing to stop the murder. Meredith Kercher wasn't an accidental person but someone who lived together with Amanda: it really looks like Amanda set her up.
If that be true, than I understand Amanda's devilish smile, a smile of happy narcissist, as she has destroyed the lives of four people already: Meredith, Raffale, Guede, X (I think he does regret doing this, even if he escaped).
And only one is trying to fight back: Guede.

Amanda's motif: slut shaming, as it seems:

Two weeks after arriving in Perugia from her home in the US she had sex with an Italian named Mirko, who invited her back to his house for pizza. She says she later discussed this with her housemate Miss Kercher, a Leeds University student from Coulsdon, Surrey.

Knox wrote: ‘I was proud of myself for having a no-strings-attached consensual encounter but I felt awkward and out of place. I didn’t yet know if I’d regret it.

‘Later I told Meredith about the sex and feeling “like an idiot”.

‘“Amanda”, she said, consolingly, “Maybe uninvolved sex just isn’t for you”.’

It seems that you don't say to Amanda "Maybe this just isn’t for you" without any consequences.

If I were Italian police, I would be now after Mirko, Cristiano, Bobby from Rome... It seems that at least Mirko lives in Perugia - why haven't we ever heard of him previously? In any case, Mirko seems to have been the complete opposite of Raffale - does not want to help Amanda at all, saying, for example, that surely she is not the kind who would do something like that...


Maybe I would go after Cristiano especially, as he was "a game-changer". As it seems, she was really high, high on game-changers, so she could go for the next one, and that would be - death.


I only wonder why Amanda uses such a technical language like "a no-strings-attached consensual encounter". Why a person so avid of things "consensual" just a few days later would do the most non-consensual thing possible and kill someone...?! So a Freudian slip perhaps?

Should Mirko or Cristiano confess, I expect Amanda's next line of defense will be:
IT WAS ALL CONSENSUAL. SHE WAS SAD AND DEPRESSED AND SHE WANTED IT. AND I STAND FOR EUTHANASIA.

[Rush_More]

I mean, it's pretty obvious Guede killed her, Knox just has a cold personality.

Why else would someone escape to Germany, maybe he tried to bang but she rejected his advances?

Also, his suggestion that someone came in and stabbed her while he went to the bathroom is so stupid.

SOLVED.

[Kaligula]

(01-24-2019 03:23 PM)Rush_More Wrote:  

I mean, it's pretty obvious Guede killed her, Knox just has a cold personality.

Why else would someone escape to Germany, maybe he tried to bang but she rejected his advances?

Also, his suggestion that someone came in and stabbed her while he went to the bathroom is so stupid.

SOLVED.

Guede does not have a credible motif.
He escaped to Germany because he did not want to get involved, especially as he realized that, as someone else escaped, he would be put in his place as a second-order suspect.

The escape was rational. He had essentially two options: either directly go to police, or to disappear. It reminds me Tom Wolfe's "The bonfire of vanities", where McCoy has a similar choice, also chooses to disappear and, similarly, is charged with a crime as a result.

Also, if bang would be motif, then obviously he should be trying to kill Amanda, not Meredith.
Michel Houellebecq in "Whatever" describes a similar situation, summing it up: "You can never have HB10, but you can have her life". In other words: why kill 5 when you can kill 10.

[Rush_More]

(01-24-2019 03:35 PM)Kaligula Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 03:23 PM)Rush_More Wrote:  

I mean, it's pretty obvious Guede killed her, Knox just has a cold personality.

Why else would someone escape to Germany, maybe he tried to bang but she rejected his advances?

Also, his suggestion that someone came in and stabbed her while he went to the bathroom is so stupid.

SOLVED.

Guede does not have a credible motif.

Also, if bang would be motif, then obviously he should be trying to kill Amanda, not Meredith.
Michel Houellebecq in "Whatever" describes similar situation, summing it up: "You can never have HB10, but you can have her life". In other words: why kill 5 when you can kill 10.

How would anyone have time to break in and stab her, as well as genital mutilation, WHILE HE'S IN THE BATHROOM? It doesn't make sense.

[Kaligula]

(01-24-2019 03:37 PM)Rush_More Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 03:35 PM)Kaligula Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 03:23 PM)Rush_More Wrote:  

I mean, it's pretty obvious Guede killed her, Knox just has a cold personality.

Why else would someone escape to Germany, maybe he tried to bang but she rejected his advances?

Also, his suggestion that someone came in and stabbed her while he went to the bathroom is so stupid.

SOLVED.

Guede does not have a credible motif.

Also, if bang would be motif, then obviously he should be trying to kill Amanda, not Meredith.
Michel Houellebecq in "Whatever" describes similar situation, summing it up: "You can never have HB10, but you can have her life". In other words: why kill 5 when you can kill 10.

How would anyone have time to break in and stab her, as well as genital mutilation, WHILE HE'S IN THE BATHROOM? It doesn't make sense.

He wasn't an invited guest, was he? Also, he does not seem to be especially brave....maybe fearing for his life?

[Kaligula]

Amanda Knox's story reminds me yet about Patricia Highsmith's "The talented Mr Ripley" story which shows pretty well that the recipe for a perfect murder is misdirection, i.e. other credible suspects.
The perfect murder is a murder solved with a wrong suspect.

[Rush_More]

(01-24-2019 03:47 PM)Kaligula Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 03:37 PM)Rush_More Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 03:35 PM)Kaligula Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 03:23 PM)Rush_More Wrote:  

I mean, it's pretty obvious Guede killed her, Knox just has a cold personality.

Why else would someone escape to Germany, maybe he tried to bang but she rejected his advances?

Also, his suggestion that someone came in and stabbed her while he went to the bathroom is so stupid.

SOLVED.

Guede does not have a credible motif.

Also, if bang would be motif, then obviously he should be trying to kill Amanda, not Meredith.
Michel Houellebecq in "Whatever" describes similar situation, summing it up: "You can never have HB10, but you can have her life". In other words: why kill 5 when you can kill 10.

How would anyone have time to break in and stab her, as well as genital mutilation, WHILE HE'S IN THE BATHROOM? It doesn't make sense.

He wasn't an invited guest, was he? Also, he does not seem to be especially brave....maybe fearing for his life?

yes, he was invited, they met at a club and were planning to have sex. Talented Mr Ripley is a good one. Murder doesn't always need to have a motive you know? How many times does someone just flip in the moment?

[Kaligula]

(01-24-2019 04:28 PM)Rush_More Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 03:47 PM)Kaligula Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 03:37 PM)Rush_More Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 03:35 PM)Kaligula Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 03:23 PM)Rush_More Wrote:  

I mean, it's pretty obvious Guede killed her, Knox just has a cold personality.

Why else would someone escape to Germany, maybe he tried to bang but she rejected his advances?

Also, his suggestion that someone came in and stabbed her while he went to the bathroom is so stupid.

SOLVED.

Guede does not have a credible motif.

Also, if bang would be motif, then obviously he should be trying to kill Amanda, not Meredith.
Michel Houellebecq in "Whatever" describes similar situation, summing it up: "You can never have HB10, but you can have her life". In other words: why kill 5 when you can kill 10.

How would anyone have time to break in and stab her, as well as genital mutilation, WHILE HE'S IN THE BATHROOM? It doesn't make sense.

He wasn't an invited guest, was he? Also, he does not seem to be especially brave....maybe fearing for his life?

yes, he was invited, they met at a club and were planning to have sex. Talented Mr Ripley is a good one. Murder doesn't always need to have a motive you know? How many times does someone just flip in the moment?

It is one of his versions, which I find not credible, since Meredith Kercher
did not look for sex in Perugia, which is also confirmed by the advice she gave to Amanda.

I think he just illegally entered this apartment to rob it, he did such things previously. He wants to put himself in the best possible light, so obviously he does not say the truth here. And Meredith is dead, so he can say anything. But it doesn't change much.

I don't say that Guede is a good guy, just that he did not kill Meredith.

[Rush_More]

(01-24-2019 04:42 PM)Kaligula Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 04:28 PM)Rush_More Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 03:47 PM)Kaligula Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 03:37 PM)Rush_More Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 03:35 PM)Kaligula Wrote:  

Guede does not have a credible motif.

Also, if bang would be motif, then obviously he should be trying to kill Amanda, not Meredith.
Michel Houellebecq in "Whatever" describes similar situation, summing it up: "You can never have HB10, but you can have her life". In other words: why kill 5 when you can kill 10.

How would anyone have time to break in and stab her, as well as genital mutilation, WHILE HE'S IN THE BATHROOM? It doesn't make sense.

He wasn't an invited guest, was he? Also, he does not seem to be especially brave....maybe fearing for his life?

yes, he was invited, they met at a club and were planning to have sex. Talented Mr Ripley is a good one. Murder doesn't always need to have a motive you know? How many times does someone just flip in the moment?

It is one of his versions, which I find not credible, since Meredith Kercher
did not look for sex in Perugia, which is also confirmed by the advice she gave to Amanda.

I think he just illegally entered this apartment to rob it, he did such things previously. He wants to put himself in the best possible light, so obviously he does not say the truth here. And Meredith is dead, so he can say anything.

I don't say that Guede is a good guy, just that he did not kill Meredith.

yeah that's pretty believable. whatever the reason, i still think he did it. the rest of the shitshow was just conjured up by the Italian police who let their imaginations go wild