I never thought she was guilty, I still think she is innocent.

I'm watching the documentary now. What I see: An old Catholic lead investigator, male, who hates the morally loose slut Amanda. He gave his theory (fantasy) of the crime as Meredith "scolding" Amanda for partying with Sollecito and Guede. So of course Amanda's reaction was to KILL Meredith.

He says this, about asking for a conviction: "I look at myself in the mirror and I'm lucky not to be ashamed of myself.... there is no doubt about the guilt of the pair".

Yes, the guilt of sex, the first night they met, and many times after. I think he judged them, particularly her, for sexual sins. His sexual fantasies are what made them murderers in his mind.

It's obvious Guede - who initially said Knox wasn't even there, then changed his story - is the perp.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who believed in her total innocence, I watched the Netflix documentary last night and now have some serious doubts/questions. I don't think that she actually killed Meredith, but I do think that she was involved/has additional knowledge:

-- Amanda says that she came home to the cottage in the morning and the door was wide open, but she went inside and took a shower, brushing off the blood stains in the bathroom and only becoming nervous when she saw the feces in the toilet. This makes no sense. Why wouldn't she have immediately yelled for her roommates, gone to their room, called their cell phones, etc. when she found the door wide open -- or at a minimum checked all the rooms to make sure that there was no one in the house before taking a shower?

-- Amanda said that she didn't know Rudy well and that she didn't even know his name, but Rudy knew Amanda and her name well enough to say in his Skype chat that she wasn't there and wasn't involved? Also, if he really did it, why would he say this?

-- She says that it was a burglary gone wrong, but Rudy knew Amanda and Meredith, as well as their house, so why would he target their house? Also, the broken window and purported point of entry make no sense.

-- Why would Rudy have locked Meredith's door? Also, while I am not sure about Mignini's theory re men never covering their victims, it is odd that Rudy would fail to flush the toilet, but covered Meredith before leaving.

These are pretty stupid questions, other than the question of why she wasn't more alarmed that the door was wide open (though it's been established that was broken and the roommates came and went all the time). Rudy obviously knew who she was because of all the crime coverage about her and he was directly asked if she was involved. That's when he said no. He didn't come in through the window, he came in through the door. He went out through the window after locking the door so it would take them a while to find the body.

This is wrong. He broke the window from the outside to get in; the glass was shattered into the room. He locked meredith's door, probably to delay discovery of her body, but left the front door open.

She looks aged.

Anonymous wrote:I think she is guilty and a sociopath.

I agree with you even if it is an unpopular opinion.

I didnt follow so I cant really make an assesment

She reminds me of a friend of mine who I'm pretty sure has aspergers despite not having shared a diagnosis.

Anonymous wrote:As someone who believed in her total innocence, I watched the Netflix documentary last night and now have some serious doubts/questions. I don't think that she actually killed Meredith, but I do think that she was involved/has additional knowledge:

-- Amanda says that she came home to the cottage in the morning and the door was wide open, but she went inside and took a shower, brushing off the blood stains in the bathroom and only becoming nervous when she saw the feces in the toilet. This makes no sense. Why wouldn't she have immediately yelled for her roommates, gone to their room, called their cell phones, etc. when she found the door wide open -- or at a minimum checked all the rooms to make sure that there was no one in the house before taking a shower?

-- Amanda said that she didn't know Rudy well and that she didn't even know his name, but Rudy knew Amanda and her name well enough to say in his Skype chat that she wasn't there and wasn't involved? Also, if he really did it, why would he say this?

-- She says that it was a burglary gone wrong, but Rudy knew Amanda and Meredith, as well as their house, so why would he target their house? Also, the broken window and purported point of entry make no sense.

-- Why would Rudy have locked Meredith's door? Also, while I am not sure about Mignini's theory re men never covering their victims, it is odd that Rudy would fail to flush the toilet, but covered Meredith before leaving.

These are pretty stupid questions, other than the question of why she wasn't more alarmed that the door was wide open (though it's been established that was broken and the roommates came and went all the time). Rudy obviously knew who she was because of all the crime coverage about her and he was directly asked if she was involved. That's when he said no. He didn't come in through the window, he came in through the door. He went out through the window after locking the door so it would take them a while to find the body.

No, that was 100% obvious by the DNA, shit and locked door. She's odd and spacey, not a murderer.

Anonymous wrote:As someone who believed in her total innocence, I watched the Netflix documentary last night and now have some serious doubts/questions. I don't think that she actually killed Meredith, but I do think that she was involved/has additional knowledge:

-- Amanda says that she came home to the cottage in the morning and the door was wide open, but she went inside and took a shower, brushing off the blood stains in the bathroom and only becoming nervous when she saw the feces in the toilet. This makes no sense. Why wouldn't she have immediately yelled for her roommates, gone to their room, called their cell phones, etc. when she found the door wide open -- or at a minimum checked all the rooms to make sure that there was no one in the house before taking a shower?

-- Amanda said that she didn't know Rudy well and that she didn't even know his name, but Rudy knew Amanda and her name well enough to say in his Skype chat that she wasn't there and wasn't involved? Also, if he really did it, why would he say this?

-- She says that it was a burglary gone wrong, but Rudy knew Amanda and Meredith, as well as their house, so why would he target their house? Also, the broken window and purported point of entry make no sense.

-- Why would Rudy have locked Meredith's door? Also, while I am not sure about Mignini's theory re men never covering their victims, it is odd that Rudy would fail to flush the toilet, but covered Meredith before leaving.

Door being open- the door was broken and had to be locked to keep it shut. Gusts of wind popped it open. Plus she was living with 3 housemates who came and went all the time. She didn't know who was home and who was not when she walked in. They would pop out briefly to visit the guys who lived downstairs, take out the trash, etc. The door being open in and of itself was not weird to her.

Blood in the bathroom- she noticed drops in the sink first. Her ears had recently been pierced and were still bleeding. Not alarming. Took shower, didn't notice blood on bath mat until she stepped out. Assumed roommate was having menstrual issues. Didn't have reason to suspect something more sinister. Went into second bathroom to dry hair. Saw feces. Became alarmed because that was not normal roommate behavior + blood + door open. Started process of calling roommates, bringing boyfriend over to check out situation, etc. None of this seems weird to me given that she felt like she lived in a safe place.

I don't know when Rudy first learned Amanda's name but he had to know it by the time of the Skype chat because her name was plastered all over the news, all over the world, by that point.

Why doesn't the broken window and that being point of entry make sense? That window has been accessed multiple times since the crime to prove that it can be done relatively easily. There are videos online.

Rudy likely locked the door to give himself as much time as possible before the body was discovered.

Toilet not flushed- Rudy had crapped in, and not flushed, a toilet in the guys' downstairs bathroom as well, on an earlier occasion. There is no question that it was Rudy's feces at the crime scene. Probably he didn't want to draw attention to himself by flushing- he may have been on the toilet when Meredith came home.

Anonymous wrote:As someone who believed in her total innocence, I watched the Netflix documentary last night and now have some serious doubts/questions. I don't think that she actually killed Meredith, but I do think that she was involved/has additional knowledge:

-- Amanda says that she came home to the cottage in the morning and the door was wide open, but she went inside and took a shower, brushing off the blood stains in the bathroom and only becoming nervous when she saw the feces in the toilet. This makes no sense. Why wouldn't she have immediately yelled for her roommates, gone to their room, called their cell phones, etc. when she found the door wide open -- or at a minimum checked all the rooms to make sure that there was no one in the house before taking a shower?

-- Amanda said that she didn't know Rudy well and that she didn't even know his name, but Rudy knew Amanda and her name well enough to say in his Skype chat that she wasn't there and wasn't involved? Also, if he really did it, why would he say this?

-- She says that it was a burglary gone wrong, but Rudy knew Amanda and Meredith, as well as their house, so why would he target their house? Also, the broken window and purported point of entry make no sense.

-- Why would Rudy have locked Meredith's door? Also, while I am not sure about Mignini's theory re men never covering their victims, it is odd that Rudy would fail to flush the toilet, but covered Meredith before leaving.

I don't any of that compelling.
She was smoking pot, so her judgement was impaired. She didn't think about the door being open, because she wasn't thinking much at all.
Of course a man knew their names. Two attractive young foreigners. I've often found men knew about me well before they were on my radar.
Not flushing the toilet... he committed a crime that was likely not premeditated. He made mistakes. Not only common, but expected.

As someone who believed in her total innocence, I watched the Netflix documentary last night and now have some serious doubts/questions. I don't think that she actually killed Meredith, but I do think that she was involved/has additional knowledge:

-- Amanda says that she came home to the cottage in the morning and the door was wide open, but she went inside and took a shower, brushing off the blood stains in the bathroom and only becoming nervous when she saw the feces in the toilet. This makes no sense. Why wouldn't she have immediately yelled for her roommates, gone to their room, called their cell phones, etc. when she found the door wide open -- or at a minimum checked all the rooms to make sure that there was no one in the house before taking a shower?

-- Amanda said that she didn't know Rudy well and that she didn't even know his name, but Rudy knew Amanda and her name well enough to say in his Skype chat that she wasn't there and wasn't involved? Also, if he really did it, why would he say this?

-- She says that it was a burglary gone wrong, but Rudy knew Amanda and Meredith, as well as their house, so why would he target their house? Also, the broken window and purported point of entry make no sense.

-- Why would Rudy have locked Meredith's door? Also, while I am not sure about Mignini's theory re men never covering their victims, it is odd that Rudy would fail to flush the toilet, but covered Meredith before leaving.

Anonymous wrote:In the documentary, she admits she's odd and always has been. It does not mean she is a murderer

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you . no one except conspiracy theorists really believes she had anything to do with it anymore.

In the documentary, she admits she's odd and always has been. It does not mean she is a murderer

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I didn't think she was odd in the documentary. Please explain.

I don't know how to explain it other than that she is just creepy. Compare her to Sollecito, who had the same experience as she did and was also interviewed. He seems relaxed, normal, smiling and interactive. She's like a robot. Of course you could say, she's been through a lot, she's uncomfortable with this situation, etc. etc. There have been many many many examples documented of her acting bizarrely. I don't think she's guilty but I think she's a truly bizarre individual. Producers knew it also.

This woman has every move, every word, every micro expression analyzed ad nauseum to this very day. If I were brave enough to go in front of a camera in her position I'd be lucky if I could manage a coherent statement. I would be thrilled if I managed to pull off "robot."

I don't think it's fair to call an individual that you don't know, who has been falsely accused of horrific crimes and unjustly imprisoned, "bizarre" and "creepy" because of tabloid rumor and how she comes across on camera. It surely must be diffictult to act natural knowing that millions of people are scrutinizing what you look like, what you say and how you act.

It is been heavily reported that she has been an odd individual from the get go. Yes she has been through a lot and of course I feel horribly sorry for her. That said, she's very odd. So what?

+1
It's alright to notice someone is odd and acting strangely.