Netflixhoax 11: Omitted - How Italian Justice Is Misrepresented By Multiple Cherrypickings Of Facts

Posted by Swansea Jack


Netflix’s Amanda Knox is an extreme example of misleading bias by cherrypicking. This post is another in our ongoing series, the mothership for material for this media-friendly page online soon.



Quote: “The media is the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that’s power. Because they control the minds of the masses.”  Malcolm X

We live in a society where I believe I’m justified in saying a majority of people are easily swayed by the material they see on TV or read in the newspapers.

Recently I have witnessed a mass of new posters on Twitter and other social media forums who after watching the Amanda Knox Netflix documentary have formed a cast iron, unshakable opinion on the case.

It is clear after engaging with them very briefly that they frankly have very limited knowledge and understanding of the facts relating to the murder of Meredith Kercher.

I will credit the producers of the documentary Blackhurst and McGinn on what I consider to be a quite clever (but ever so sneaky) disguising of their absolute bias towards Amanda Knox which will not be evident to those who are not acquainted with the case.

They have obviously correctly banked on the ignorance of the majority of their audience.

I get the impression that Nick Pisa is used as a “filler” and a distraction. I come to this conclusion as I feel the producers would be hard pushed to make a 90 minute documentary, favourable to Knox, while addressing the real facts of the case without getting themselves into serious legal trouble.

I also know from first-hand experience that it is a long-term strategy of Knox and her little band of PR hate-mongers to vilify others, in order to distract attention away from the real villains.

It is my impression that the intended main target for vilification was Perugian Prosecutor Giuliano Mignini.

But try as they might, even with their selective editing, they could not produce enough material to achieve their goal due to Mignini’s humility and integrity.

For me personally the documentary raised a few questions which I will share with you.

We have Knox herself stating words to the effect of “either i am a psychopath, a Wolf in sheep’s clothing or I am you” Well she certainly isn’t me or anyone else, she is her, so is this an involuntary but frank admission?

The documentary shows a clip of Diane Sawyer’s interview with Knox in which Amanda is asked “Were you there that night?” She replies “No” but nods yes.

It is my opinion that Knox gets a real power kick out of the notoriety afforded to her and revels in the “Did I or didn’t I” mystery.

She then goes from being the wolf in sheep’s clothing to being a “Warrior Princess like Xena”. An ultimate and powerful fantasy figure.

Knox maintains that she was at Sollecito’s address at 110 Corso Garibaldi watching Amelie at the time of Meredith’s murder.

Not even Raffaele supports this version of events.

It begs the question why Blackhurst and McGinn have omitted the fact that Marasca and Bruno who acquitted the pair state in their motivation report “her (Knox) presence inside the house, the location of the murder, is a proven fact in the trial.”

The acquitting Judges go on to explain their reasoning that Knox was the first person to offer a sexual motive before there was any cadaver or autopsy reports available.

They also make mention of Amanda’s description of “the victim’s terrible scream” which was confirmed some time later by witnesses Nara Capezzali, Antonella Monacchia and others.

How could a person who wasn’t present know these details of the crime?

Knox goes on to describe an idyllic evening, smoking pot and making love, yet makes no mention of who was listening to music on Sollecito’s computer at 05:32 in the morning, a time when both Knox and Sollecito claim to be blissfully sleeping.

Knox can’t comprehend why there is a knife with her DNA on the handle and Meredith’s DNA on the blade.

There is no mention in the documentary of Amanda’s recorded prison conversation with her parents in which she says “I am very worried about this thing with the knife, because there is a knife of Raffaele’s” (*Reference Massei report page 292.)

Neither do they address Sollecito’s claim that the reason Meredith’s DNA is on the blade is because he “accidentally pricked her while cooking.”

He later admitted this was a total fabrication, Meredith had never attended his home.

Knox claims that she accused Diya Lumumba after long hours of questioning. Yet we know that due to the time recorded on her signed voluntary statement that she had fabricated a story swapping Guede for Lumumba in under 2 hours.

She only did so upon learning Sollecito was no longer supporting her alibi.

There is no mention in the documentary that Amanda had provided Diya Lumumba’s name to Rita Ficarra in a list of persons of interest prior to learning Raffaele was not corroborating her version of events.

There is no mention of the sample of Knox’s blood recovered from the faucet of the bathroom she shared with Meredith which Amanda herself dated in her court testimony to the night of Meredith’s murder.

There is no mention of the mixed DNA sample of Knox and Meredith, recovered from a luminol revealed bloodstain in Filomena Romanelli’s room. This is where the alleged point of entry for the burglary occurred. It is worth noting there is no biological trace of Rudy Guede in this room.

Addressing the bra clasp, the Netflix documentary fails to address the fact that the only other sample of Sollecito’s DNA identified in Via Della Pergola 7 was on a cigarette butt in an ashtray in the kitchen. This was a mixed sample containing Raffaele and Amanda’s DNA.

The documentary emphasises the farcical views of the so called “independent experts” Stefano Conti and Carla Vecchiotti. It fails to mention that Vecchiotti confirmed that contamination at Dr Patrizia Stefanoni’s laboratory was not possible if there was a six day gap in the testing of materials during cross questioning at the Hellmann appeal hearing.

    PROSECUTOR COMODI: “Is six days a sufficient interval to rule out contamination?”

    CARLA VECCHIOTTI: “Yes absolutely”

Neither do they address Conti’s explanation (or lack of) as to how and why Sollecito’s DNA was located on the hook of Meredith’s bra clasp

    PROSECUTOR COMODI: “How would Sollecito’s DNA accidentally arrive on the hook of Meredith’s bra?”

    STEFANO CONTI: “Anything is possible”

During his input in the documentary Conti implies that DNA is easily transferable, he gives an example of running his fingers along his arm and magically shedding DNA.

If this is the case I would like to pose a few of questions to him.

1, Why is the only other sample of Sollecito’s DNA located on a cigarette butt in the kitchen?

2, Why is there no genetic trace of Guede in the small bathroom or in Filomena Romanelli’s room?

3, Can you provide a figure for the statistical probability of Sollecito’s solitary sample of DNA (other than the mixed trace on the cigarette butt) innocently finding it’s way on to Meredith’s bra clasp?

Blackhurst and McGinn predictably make use of Rudy Guede’s Skype conversation with Giacomo Bendetti in which he states Knox wasn’t there, yet do not address the letter Guede wrote to his lawyers in which he refers to “a horrible murder of a splendid, beautiful girl that was Meredith by Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox”

Why have the documentary makers chosen to ignore so very many facts?




Comments

Great to have a really nice post finally by the highly effective tweeter Swansea Jack.

His examples of omissions is very valuable, we are adding them to a masterlist on a new page that should be open to view next week along with a press release.

If there’s any more anyone wants to add here or in a new post that would be wonderful.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 10/11/16 at 06:29 AM | #

Thanks for the excellent review of the Netflix documentary Jack.

The filmmakers/Amanda Knox’s supporters didn’t mention the fact that Rudy Guede first claimed Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito killed Meredith on 19 November 2007.

Posted by The Machine on 10/11/16 at 06:48 AM | #

The Guede comment made during his Skype conversation stating that Knox wasn’t there when Meredith was murdered has always been relatively easily explained.

It was known that he wanted to sleep with Amanda; she was told this and mentions it in her book. Guede, being young, stupid and driven by his libido, was merely hoping that the whole thing would go away and that he would be rewarded by the object of his desires when the storm had blown over. I believe that was a major factor in him lying so blatantly about Knox not being there so early on.

Once it became clear that Knox and Sollecito had thrown him to the wolves, the gloves came off. Although he is still incapable of giving the truthful story as he knows his disgusting part in it would make him a pariah in society when he comes out for good.

As it stands, he has to stick to the line that he was merely trying to help Meredith (with the encumbent black hearted lies about being on a date night with her) in some sort of semi heroic role. He will never come properly clean.

He is every bit as hateful a human being as the other two. Every bit.

Posted by davidmulhern on 10/11/16 at 07:25 AM | #

Hi David,

Rudy Guede gave contradictory accounts from the beginning. Many people are unaware that he first claimed Knox and Sollecito killed Meredith whilst on the run in Germany on 19 November 2007 in an intercepted Skype conversation with his friend Giacomo.

Giacomo: “So they [Knox and Sollecito] killed her while she was dressed.”

Guede: “Yes”.

Posted by The Machine on 10/11/16 at 09:50 AM | #

A case of murder by two teenagers in Spalding has shocked England in recent days.  I believe there are interesting parallels with the Kercher case.  The killers, a teenage boy aged 15, egged on by a girl aged 14, planned the murder at a MacDonalds a few days beforehand. 

She told the court, ‘I’ve always wanted to kill’ and has pleaded manslaughter ‘because of her mental condition’.

The pair entered the home of a churchgoing dinner lady and her daughter Katie, aged 13, and brutally killed them in their beds.  The court was told the boy stabbed the woman through the neck with a 9 inch kitchen knife ‘to damage her voice box to stop her from screaming’ and the girl insisted in covering the body with a sheet as she ‘couldn’t stand the smell of the blood’.

All this calls to mind Amanda Knox’ ‘bleurgh’ sounds at her trial and her epithet, ‘Ew’, claiming she thought the blood she saw was Meredith’s menstrual blood (‘Ew.’).  She wrote that for the first time in her life she had the urge to write a song, about Meredith’s murder and that she ‘could kill for a pizza’.

She was in a clear state of mental imbalance as witnessed at the Questura the day the body was found.  Pulling faces, making lip-smacking noises and profuse swearing.

She told police she heard Meredith scream, and Massei believed the fatal wound inflicted into Meredith’s neck was to shut her up, and viciously, too.

The body may have been covered by the duvet to suppress the odour of the slowly decaying body as the perpetrators cleaned up around her.  So maybe it wasn’t compassion that caused the cover up but a sense of ‘bleurgh’, or ‘ew’, by the callous killer/s.

We do not know why this Spalding girl and her boyfriend picked on this woman.  It could be the 13 daughter, Katie, was someone they knew from at school or socially.  Certainly many murders involving teenager killings arise from adolescent feelings of revenge and jealousy.  Often, it is the boyfriend encouraged by his girlfriend (as in the chainsaw murder recently in the UK by the victim’s stepbrother and passive assistance of his girlfriend).

So, all those who claim, ‘nice girls can’t kill, and not their friends’, do read this article:

The jury previously heard the pair had been plotting the ‘cold, calculating and callous’ murders for several days and went over their plan at a McDonald’s restaurant the night before the killings.
They agreed to stab them through the throat to damage their voice boxes so they would be unable to scream for help.
Mr Joyce said the boy pinned Ms Edwards down on the bed ‘by kneeling astride her’ and ‘almost completely cut through her windpipe’. She was found lying on her blood-soaked mattress and there were ‘spatters’ on the wall and floor.
Katie was discovered in her bed and had been covered with a sheet because the girl ‘did not like the smell’ of her blood.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3832521/Teenage-sweethearts-14-ate-ice-cream-tea-cakes-stabbing-dinner-lady-daughter-13-death-throats-couldn-t-scream-help.html#ixzz4Mo58xrZj
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Posted by KrissyG on 10/11/16 at 10:13 AM | #

Incidentally, excellent review, Swansea Jack, it gets to the nub of what the filmmakers were hoping to achieve.  It was cynical and underhand IMV.

Posted by KrissyG on 10/11/16 at 10:15 AM | #

davidmulhern

“The Guede comment made during his Skype conversation stating that Knox wasn’t there when Meredith was murdered has always been relatively easily explained.”

Of course Knox returned the favor! She possibly did want him to get a long way away and deflected investigators to Patrick. Others have said he may have been headed for her uncles and aunts place in Germany, maybe making it on Meredith’s money which she would know about but he wouldnt.

The major RS/AK turn against Guede was a long time coming, RS & AK were distracted by their fury at one another and it took strong arm-twisting to arrive at this in September (that was our very first substantive post ever):

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/knox_sollecito_teams_form_truce_to_dump_all_blame_on_rudy_guede/

Why, exactly, would two not-guilty people keep pointing fingers at one another as being the cause of it all for 10 months?

What a pity there was a convenient Guede.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 10/11/16 at 10:39 AM | #

Hi KrissyG

Sure, important parallels. The Machine arrives here with such parallels quite regularly. 

“She was in a clear state of mental imbalance as witnessed at the Questura the day the body was found.  Pulling faces, making lip-smacking noises and profuse swearing.”

A bad high? Its not in evidence but we know Knox smelt of cat-urine at the house. After 2 showers within a few hours, allegedly.  A known cocaine indicator.

All those babbling about how HARD it was to imagine a motive (including babblers Marasca & Bruno) maybe need look no further.

http://gizmodo.com/5913998/what-is-cocaine-psychosis
http://www.uk-rehab.com/blog/how-cocaine-use-can-lead-to-psychosis/

This BBC report was just posted.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-37616007

On PMF dot Net a few days ago (same day we observed that Maori said Knox was on cocaine at trial) Huge posted this.

Apropos of nothing, I was thinking about the famous hair test. Follain, p.143:—

‘Mignini suspected that on the night of the murder Amanda and Raffaele had taken drugs stronger than the marijuana they had admitted to: maybe cocaine, he thought. But no such traces were found in either Amanda or Raffaele’s hair.’

Unfortunately, as neither Mignini nor John Follain seems to have known, the result was meaningless in that context. When Dr Lalli, or the woman doctor assisting him, cut the sample strand of Knox’s hair on 6 November, the previous week’s growth was still below the skin of Knox’s scalp.

The hair test is normally only used to establish whether there is or is not a history of use of the specified drugs (generally cannabis, cocaine, amphetamines, methamphetamines, opiates, PCP and a few others) within the last few months. The various labs that perform the tests according to their own methods all like to claim that their results are ‘absolutely accurate’, but, if you think about it for a moment, there is no likely way they could know that, unless they tested control groups of people who (a) definitely had been using the scheduled illegal drugs and (b) definitely hadn’t. Bit tricky to arrange. In addition, each lab likes to claim that its own patent method is more reliable than those of other labs, so a certain margin of error seems to be a given.

And the drug metabolites are thought to attach to the melanin in hair, so a person with light-coloured hair, such as Knox, is more likely to produce a false negative.

But mainly, as we do not know exactly how close to the scalp Dr Lalli, or the female doctor assisting him, cut the sample strand of Knox’s hair, the result is quite useless for the investigation of Meredith’s murder. Not only did the hair test tell us nothing about the week of the murder, because the potential evidence was still below the skin of Knox’s scalp, but, if the scissors left even a 1cm stump—a month’s worth, as is a quite normal minimum—the test can tell us nothing about Knox’s drug use for the whole of the time she was in Perugia.

This may make it more relevant that she hooked up with mature student and cocaine trafficker Federico Martini on that Milan-Florence train in August, and remained in regular phone contact with Lorenzo, a fellow member of Martini’s subsequently convicted coke syndicate, throughout the period of the murder—her phone records forming evidence in the syndicate’s convictions.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 10/11/16 at 11:02 AM | #

Great review, Swansea.

Posted by Ergon on 10/11/16 at 05:17 PM | #

Great Questions:

1, Why is the only other sample of Sollecito’s DNA located on a cigarette butt in the kitchen?

Defense will claim that is a very old stub that Knox forgot to clean;

2, Why is there no genetic trace of Guede in the small bathroom or in Filomena Romanelli’s room?

Defense will say that the prosecutor photoshopped Guede out of the picture!

3, Can you provide a figure for the statistical probability of Sollecito’s solitary sample of DNA (other than the mixed trace on the cigarette butt) innocently finding it’s way on to Meredith’s bra clasp?

Defense very wisely posed a “DNA expert” for all questions of contamination

Seriously, I strongly agree that if you see something in a movie, it becomes the gospel truth.

Posted by chami on 10/11/16 at 11:15 PM | #

Thanks @The Machine for the info on Guede’s earlier Skype call where he claimed that Knox and Sollecito had killed Meredith whilst she was still dressed.

Was this ever submitted into evidence and used to rebut the later claim by Guede that Knox wasn’t there? If I’ve been aware of this before, I’ve clearly forgotten it but I suspect it has passed me by given that Guede’s Skype call saying she wasn’t there has been quoted so often by Knox and her acolytes. Indeed it featured in the Netflix film as well.

I’ll have a trawl through the evidence list to see if I can find this but if you can point me to where it is and save me some time, I’d be very grateful.

Posted by davidmulhern on 10/11/16 at 11:41 PM | #

Meanwhile, over at the literary gift that is Poxy’s blog, I think we have the most disconnected, useless and utterly banal offering from this ‘writer’ to date.

All based around our constantly confused, best truth seeking herione’s (sarcasm alert) wonderfully interesting experience of sitting in an airport departure lounge. So trite is this particular offering that not even the sycophants who normally comment on her every word could bring themselves to do so.

I wonder if her contract with West Seattle Herald is in any predicated on how much interest (I.e. Comments) her columns attract and at what point the editor looks at the drivel she produces and says enough is enough.

She must barely scrape a living from ‘writing’ so is clearly motivated to continue with the noteriety aspect of her life (being notorious is actually the only thing she is good at) to keep belly from backbone.

In her latest blog entry, she seems to blame her dream like state on too much coffee and not enough water but I think there is a much, much simpler explanation. Her drug use is most likely on the rise again. Occam would be proud of me!

Look out citizens, and particularly the peculiarly malevolent looking Chris; our main protagonist may be approaching breaking point again…..

Posted by davidmulhern on 10/12/16 at 12:09 AM | #

Hi all thanks for taking the time to read and comment. It is evident that Knox and Guede covered for each other. Knox’s protection of Guede even gets a mention in the Marasca Bruno motivation report which reads:
  “However, the said calunnia is another circumstantial element against the current appellant, in so far as it can be considered a strategy in order to cover up for Mr. Guede whom she had an interest to protect because of fear of retaliatory accusations against her. This is confirmed by the fact that Mr Lumumba like Mr Guede is a man of colour hence the indication of the first one would be safe in the event that the latter may have been seen by someone while entering or exiting the apartment.

Posted by Swansea Jack on 10/12/16 at 01:33 AM | #

@davidmulhern@KrissyG, you’re both right on target. Knox is probably feeling an anniversary reaction now as October 31 nears and worse, November 1st and 2nd approach on calendar. Once an addict always an addict, she’s never gotten real help for her drug dependency for fear of exposure.

KrissyG really puts the “bleurggh, yucky” spontaneous expression by Knox into proper context. It was most likely Knox’s visceral reaction to the blood and its odor, the decomp that was beginning, and why she recalled it so strongly even as she tried to fictionalize it in her testimony. The duvet might have served to block out the physical sight and odor, more than to give dignity to the deceased. Denial of the crime was beginning.

Also, the news story of young UK killers planning their murder at a MacDonald’s, and actually planning to cut the victim’s voicebox to preclude screams, that is a new light on the reason Meredith’s throat was cut. She could have easily been stabbed in the heart, the gut, or any other organ but they chose the neck. Then afterwards Amanda wants to write a song, kill for a pizza, is in celebratory mood. Also to sing requires the voicebox. KrissyG really puts these facts out there in a new light, and most convincing.

Swansea Jack, thanks for brilliant and lucid post about media’s power to enchant and disarm, versus truth telling. You do the professional job for them by listing so much of the incriminating evidence against darling Knox that the media withholds from public eye for their own purpose.

Posted by Hopeful on 10/12/16 at 02:11 AM | #

Thank you Hopeful,
Blackhurst and Mcginn’s production was never intended to be an objective documentary.
It is nothing more than a PR exercise, it does exactly what it says on the tin and tells the Amanda Knox story while omitting key facts.
It is a blatant attempt to influence their targeted “banked on” audience and create sympathetic feelings towards Knox while completely ignoring the real victim Meredith Kercher.
Ironically in the closing stages of the documentary there is an interview with Curt Knox, he states “I’m not looking at her (Amanda Knox) as a hot property.”
Yet Curt enlisted David Marriott of Seattle based PR firm Gogerty Marriott within days of his daughters arrest.

And nine years later Amanda Knox is still attempting to be “hot property”

I do hope reporters and journalists question why this production is so clearly one sided.

Posted by Swansea Jack on 10/12/16 at 03:33 AM | #

@davidmulhern re “....while Meredith was still dressed….”  See Massei, & Skeptical Bystander:

The Massei Sentencing Report For Knox And Sollecito: Part 2 Of A Summary In 4 Parts
Posted by Skeptical Bystander on 06/19/11 at 02:00 PM

Scroll down: http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/C818/

” Massei also believes that evidence demonstrated Meredith was still dressed and awake when the attack began on her and that the violence against her could not have taken place as it did if Meredith were lying on her bed. Massei concludes that Meredith was sober and fully conscious since no traces indicating either the use of drugs or the abuse of alcohol were found; all of which, if present, might have contributed an inability to firmly resist an attack.[369]

Furthermore, Massei finds it impossible to imagine a scenario in which a single person could have removed the clothes that Meredith was wearing (shoes, pants and underwear) while inflicting the sexual violence revealed by the vaginal swab. Massei finds it highly unlikely that one person could have caused all of the resulting bruises and wounds cited above in addition to removing her sweatshirt, pulling up her shirt, and bending her bra hooks by force before finally tearing and cutting the bra. The actions on the bra alone, during which a small piece of material with hooks was cut off and thrown to the floor, were necessarily conducted from behind Meredith and required the attention of both hands of an attacker, and thus Meredith would have had her own hands free to attempt actions of self-defense.[370]

Massei concludes there was very little evidence of any defensive maneuvers on the part of Meredith, which to him was a strong indication that several attackers were present, each with a distribution of tasks and roles: either holding Meredith and preventing her from any significant defensive reaction, or actually performing the violent actions. Massei concludes that the rest of the body of evidence came in full support of such a scenario, recalling that a biological trace of Rudy was found on one of the cuffs of Meredith’s sweatshirt indicating a gripping in order to prevent any reaction. In drawing together all of the elements mentioned above, both circumstantial and forensic, Massei concludes that the diverse morphology of the injuries, their number, and their distribution mandated that the violence against Meredith was performed by multiple attackers.[370-371]
Massei also believes that evidence demonstrated Meredith was still dressed and awake when the attack began on her and that the violence against her could not have taken place as it did if Meredith were lying on her bed. Massei concludes that Meredith was sober and fully conscious since no traces indicating either the use of drugs or the abuse of alcohol were found; all of which, if present, might have contributed an inability to firmly resist an attack.[369]

Posted by Cardiol MD on 10/12/16 at 03:35 AM | #

Hi David,

Here’s the link to Rudy Guede’s Skype conversation with Giacomo on 19 November 2007:

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Rudy_Guede’s_Skype_Conversation

Guede claimed in court that Knox and Sollecito killed Meredith.

Posted by The Machine on 10/12/16 at 10:31 AM | #

Oh dear, more parallels.  Erin Caffey, 16, who got her boyfriend to butcher her family, including her little brothers,also found murder ‘sexually exciting’, as did the Spalding murder teenagers.  Knox was in an amorous state with Sollecito at the Questura and thought it hilarious to tell the shocked lingerie shopkeeper,shortly after they wanted ‘hot sex’ with her red thongs, although her defence claims, ‘She needed underwear as she had no access to her clothes’:

The jury has heard that afterwards the two killers had sex together and then watched episodes of the vampire fantasy Twilight. Prosecutor Peter Joyce QC said a relative of the accused girl had described the combination of the two 14-year-olds as “a ticking time bomb waiting to go off”. A relative thought it was a disastrous time bomb. That bomb went off in April when they killed Prosecutor Peter Joyce QC

Read more at: http://www.spaldingtoday.co.uk/news/spalding-murder-trial-teenagers-had-sex-after-killings-court-hears-1-7625796

Just sayin’.

Posted by KrissyG on 10/12/16 at 12:11 PM | #

Thanks @Themachine.

I have previously read that link but a long time ago and the content had diminished in my memory.

It’s not as cut and dried as I hoped it would be. Guede basically says “if” what he was reading in the papers about clothes being washed in a machine, then Amanda and Rafaelle must have done it. It’s less of a definite accusation and more of a cowardly hypothesis. He absolutely knew the truth but he didn’t have the mental or moral fortitude to confirm properly at that stage. Or indeed since.

Giacomo tries to push him by saying “but if she’s not involved, sorry” (clearly referencing Geude saying Amanda wasn’t there earlier) and Geude, realising that his inconsistency of story is being pointed out by his friend, then starts rambling about the broken window and saying someone else might have been there. He’s clearly been at the Knox school of “best truth” and got his diploma in idiocy after graduation.

Thanks @Cardiol for the timely reminder of the Massei reasoning. I wasn’t in any way doubting the version of events posited by Massei, I don’t think there is any doubt that Knox and Sollecito did the undressing and staging of the scene post mortem; I was just surprised that maybe Guede had stating in the Skype call that they had done this.

I’m still not convinced he did, really. It was a half baked if X happened then Y is the answer and he was clearly still trying to minimise his own role whilst not dropping his co murderers in the brown stuff. Indeed, at that stage, he was also still saying Knox wasn’t there. His friend was pointing this inconsistency out to him.

It’s still more than enough to rebut Netflix who chose only to use the part of the Skype conversation where he said Knox wasn’t there in isolation.

Typical of their selective editing process right enough and no surprise given their long time advocacy for Knox and Sollecito.

Posted by davidmulhern on 10/13/16 at 04:29 AM | #

Re Omissions: according to AK and RS, AK left RS’s apartment (on 2nd Nov) at 10.30am and didn’t arrive back at RS’s until 12 noon. So she was at the cottage for around an hour…

Posted by DavidB on 10/13/16 at 10:23 PM | #


Make a comment

If you are reading this please log in to post a comment.

Smileys



Where next:

Click here to return to The Top Of The Front Page

Or to next entry Netflixhoax 12: Omitted - How In Multiple Ways Poorly Researched Movie Contradicts Knox’s Own Book

Or to previous entry Netflixhoax 10: Omitted - How Amanda Knox Falsely Accused Dr Mignini Of A Felony