r/amandaknox • u/SeaCardiologist6207 • 10d ago

Beyond Motive - How would Knox and Sollecito conspire with Guede to do this?

One thing I have never understood in reading this sub is beyond the motive explanation - what makes you so sure that Knox and Sollecito are guilty when they would 100% have to have done this with Rudy Guede. It's a mathematical impossibility that Rudy wasn't there, so your basic claim is then that they both conspired with some random person they served a drink once in a bar, and possibly met at a party, to murder and torture someone? Do you actually listen to what you are proposing logically? That a white American, Italian, and African would somehow become a criminal gang and plan out a crime?

Not only that, but you would assume that 3 people would be able to commit such a crime in a way that they could both cover all of each other's tracks (not have 1 of the 3 have overwhelming evidence present at the crime)? And that Rudy would be the one to do all the killing and somehow have agreed to this? And taken a dump in the toilet and left it there? No one would have told him "hey dude, not a good idea"?

There is no reasonable path to finding them guilty unless you believe they conspired with Rudy and that evidence is so incredibly thin (unless you are that commenter that somehow believes Rudy is innocent, I can't tell if its wife or mom).

What exactly is the theory on how all 3 of them did it that doesn't sound completely ridiculous?

18 Upvotes

88% Upvoted

38 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

5

u/Majestic-Praline-671 10d ago

They threw out the evidence, for one. Then they agreed that Amanda had been at the cottage when the crime occurred and washed Meredith’s blood from her hands.

4

u/[deleted] 10d ago

Yeah I was going to say, the Italian Supreme Court ultimately ruled Knox was present at the murder, even if one disagrees that must be acknowledged 

2

u/SeaCardiologist6207 10d ago

Not sure why people keep saying this (must be that Copus guy) but that’s not what they said. They simply didn’t throw out the initial courts finding in 2009 that she was there. Nor did they ever say that she washed blood from her hands. Again they just didn’t throw out that specific finding from Massei from 2009.

1

u/itisnteasy2021 innocent 8d ago

My understanding was, RG conviction used AK’s confession to establish she was there at the time. And then that confession was thrown out on her appeal because it was not recorded and she had no lawyer. (A violation of her rights.) It is a contradiction. That report criticizes all the evidence and then says, but we have this other trial that is fact. It is so weird. That is the evidence they speak of it. That’s it.