Tuesday, January 21, 2020
Gladwell’s Lone-Wolf-Killer Hoax Was Abandoned By DEFENSES 10 Years Ago
Posted by Peter Quennell
Above: Malcolm Gladwell and Rudy Guede
1. Life-Cycle Of The Lone-Wolf Theory
The defense teams’ Guede-As-Lone-Wolf theory, if you can call it that, saw three phases.
Cooked up in mid 2008 by the floundering defenses, the theory takes knock after knock in 2009, and is quietly phased out in 2010, never to surface again - at least in an Italian court.
The defenses created it because they were trying hard to stop an enraged Sollecito and defensive Knox from very publicly pointing a finger of blame at one another. See this post and this post.
Within six months, it was dealt a near-fatal blow by Judge Micheli. See this post and this post and this post.
The theory took hit after hit in the Massei trial’s prosecution phase (see this post and this post) and lost all impact after Knox dug a deep hole for herself on the witness stand (see this post and this post).
More disasters followed in the defense phase (see this post and this post) and soon after (see this post).
Finally, the judges for both of Guede’s automatic appeals, which failed, endorsed the Micheli court and Massei court findings. Namely that massive evidence pointed to three assailants in a pack attack (see this post and this post).
Thereafter, the defenses used two alternative witnesses, Alessi and Aviello, to try to prove a pack attack that did not involve Knox or Sollecito. At the 2011 Hellman appeal both bombed miserably. (See these posts and these posts.)
Dozens of other posts here offer more detail. See for example this post, and this post, and this post. Also this post, and this post.
And of course all previous posts in this Gladwell series (scroll down to Part 3) described evidence that proves Sollecito and Knox were involved, both in the attack and the clean-up they did next.
2. Gladwell Revives The Zombie Theory!
Gladwell devotes the first quarter of his Knox chapter to the framing of Guede as a lone assailant and the shrill trashing of the supposedly stupid Italian prosecutors and police for supposedly “misreading” Knox and looking no further.
He provides zero proof but the claims in the Knox chapter are used to promote his entire book anyway.
These are Gladwell’s claims about Rudy Guede, along with the first of our fact-checking, as previously posted in our series’ first post.
[1] On the night of November 1, 2007, Meredith Kercher was murdered by Rudy Guede. [The BLACK guy ALONE did it? A racist PR trope. ALL courts said the evidence proved 2 or 3 attackers. It was impossible AS DEFENSES AGREED to prove a lone attacker.]
[2] After a mountain of argumentation, speculation, and controversy, his guilt is a certainty [not his guilt ALONE].
[3] Guede was a shady character [no he wasnt] who had been hanging around the house [he had friends downstairs] in the Italian city of Perugia, where Kercher, a college student, was living during a year abroad. [She was a high performer unlike Knox, enrolled at the main university unlike Knox, was well funded unlike Knox, and not on drugs unlike Knox.]
[4] Guede had a criminal history. [He had NONE. Only Knox & Sollecito had police records then.]
[5] He admitted to being in Kercher’s house the night of her murder—and could give only the most implausible reasons for why. [Knox and Sollecito each gave multiple alibis and contradicted one another.]
[6] The crime scene was covered in his DNA. [Covered? No it wasn’t. There was more Knox DNA.]
[7] After her body was covered [the courts all believed by Knox] he immediately fled Italy for Germany.
[8] But Rudy Guede was not the exclusive focus of the police investigation [because Knox fingered PATRICK first] nor anything more than an afterthought [untrue] in the tsunami of media attention that followed the discovery of Kercher’s body.
[9] The focus was instead on Kercher’s roommate. [Not immediately; not till after, under no pressure, she REPEATEDLY accused Patrick of murder and admitted to being there when Meredith died.]
3. Gladwell’s Knox-PR Sources
What was the entire thrust of Gladwell’s book? A warning that strangers can fool you. But that trap is precisely the one Gladwell has fallen into here.
No wonder he sounds so incessantly paranoid - he seems to have good reason to be. It seems profoundly easy for strangers to put one over on him.
Consider the sources for Gladwell’s Knox chapter. The very worst possible.
Despite the enormous body of real evidence online (this site has a word-count higher than 20 paperbacks; the Wiki’s is several times higher) it’s pretty evident that Gladwell’s sole sources were these two Knox PR hoaxes.
- (1) The Forgotten Killer ebook, a foolish and easily debunked Knox PR hoax put online in 2012.
(2) The Netflix faux documentary Amanda Knox, a foolish and easily debunked Knox PR hoax put online in 2016.
And who was it that propagated those hoaxes? We’ve already described all the main perps, in this post: A Gullible Gladwell Was Duped By Malicious “Strangers” Actually All Vigilantes Of Knox’s PR
Typically the members of this pack exult over a supposedly saintly Knox (as Gladwell does); forget about the framing of Patrick - in fact, forget Patrick (as Gladwell does); forget that Knox rightly served three years for framing him (as Gladwell does); forget that Knox owes Patrick $100,000 (as Gladwell does); forget that Sollecito was always treated similarly (as Gladwell does).
And of course forget that all the courts without exception placed Knox and Sollecito at the scene of the crime (as Gladwell does), forget the myriad hard evidence pointing to Knox and Sollecito (as Gladwell does), and forget the three bent courts (as Gladwell does).
Does Gladwell have a tin ear for their racism? One wonders. The Knox PR vigilantes have long reviled Guede incessantly in false terms (as Gladwell does) and the internet seethes racist remarks against him.
Guede was not a drifter or petty criminal (as Gladwell supposes). In fact, Guede had an okay upbringing, he excelled at basketball, he was socially popular, he had held a secure job near Milan (the business folded), and he had no police record (unlike either Knox or Sollecito - in other words, no record of either drug dealing or breaking and entering).
Guede was the only one of the three to attempt an apology of sorts to the Kercher family (the other two both stalked Meredith’s parents and visited Meredith’s grave unwanted), he gained a useful college degree in Viterbo, and he could well be the only one of the three to have a respectable career ahead of him.
Rudy Guede and Malcolm Gladwell both have some African heritage. These various commentators (but not Gladwell) have gone to bat against the pervasive dog-whistle racism that Knox and her vigilantes still engage in and which Gladwell oddly seems tone-deaf to.
1. Why Race Matters in the Amanda Knox Case
2. Let’s Not Forget Amanda Knox’s [Racist] Lie
3. Black Lives Matter: Whitewashing the Amanda Knox Story
4. Netflix’s Amanda Knox Leaves People of Color Out of the Story
5. What Amanda Knox Taught Us About The Influence Of Racism In Court
6. Amanda Knox Blames Black Man For Sinking The Titanic
The celebrity TV host Oprah Winfrey did get fooled. But that was not typical. See in contrast for example Richard Dwyer who got the case and the PR just right.
4. Some 30-Plus Questions For Gladwell
Drawing upon the massive evidence available we have already highlighted in this series (scroll down to Part 3) the AK knife DNA, mixed blood of AK & Meredith, footprints of all three, faked break-in, RS DNA on the bra-clasp, AK’s lamp locked inside Meredith’s room, and RS’s damning footprint.
Our main poster Marcello posed these toughest 37 questions in this post: Questions For Knox and Sollecito: Why Claim Rudy Guede Did It Alone When So Much Proof Against? There are many more, for example watch this, on the faked break-in and crime-scene rearrangement.
So far, only a deafening silence from Sollecito and Knox in response. Perhaps Gladwell can now do better?
1) Rudy Guede had been to the apartment at least twice already on prior occasions and knew the boys who lived in the lower story. Why did Guede choose to NOT break-in to the lower story where he knew (or could ascertain) that all four boys were away on holiday, and therefore could break-in and rummage with some certainty of not getting caught?
2) Why did Guede choose to break-in to the upper story of the villa mid-evening, when he surely knew Knox and Kercher would be staying at the villa for the holidays and could have been there or returned at any time to “catch him in-the-act”?
3) Surely Guede would have verified that no one was present by circling the cottage and checking if any lights were on in the windows? But Guede “missed” the really easy way in: the balcony in the dark at the rear, used in 2 burglaries in 2009.
4) If Guede did circle the cottage to make sure no one was there before attempting the break-in, why would he then choose the most visible and more difficult path of entry through a second story window, as opposed to the more hidden and easier path of break-in at the back of the villa, which he would have noticed while circling the villa?
5) Why would Guede choose to break-in through a second story window that was highly exposed to the headlights of passing cars on the street as well as exposed to night lighting from the carpark?
6) Ms. Romanelli testified that she had nearly closed the exterior shutters. Assuming her memory is correct, there is no way a burglar could easily verify if the windows were latched and if the inner scuri were latched to the window panes, which would make access to the window latch impractical unless one was armed with a core drill or an ax. Why would Guede, who was certainly familiar with such windows, choose to attempt the break-in through a window that he could not easily verify would allow him quick access?
7) Assuming the shutters were closed, Guede would have to climb up the wall and open the shutters before smashing the window with the rock. The night of the murder, the grass was wet from rain the previous day. Why was there no evidence of disturbed grass or mud on the walls?
8) Guede had Nike sneakers, not rock climbing shoes. How did he manage the climb up the wall with that type of footwear?
9) If the shutters were closed, or somewhat closed, how did Guede manage to lift himself up to the sill with only an inch of sill available to grab onto?
10) Assuming Guede opened the shutters, how did Guede verify if the inner scuri were not latched to the window panes, which would prevent access to the window latch? There was no light inside Ms. Romanelli’s room to reveal that the scuri were ajar.
11) Assuming Guede managed to check that the inner scuro behind the right-hand window was not latched, how did he manage to break the glass with a 9 lb rock with one hand while hanging on to the sill with the other?
12) Assuming Guede managed to check that the right-hand inner scuro was not latched, how did he break the glass with the rock without having glass shards fly into his face?
13) If Guede climbed down to lob the 9 lb rock at the window from 3 meters below, how would he do so to avoid glass shards raining down on him?
14) If Guede climbed down to lob the rock at the window from below, why would he choose a 9 lb 20 cm wide rock to lob up to a window 3 meters above him, with little chance of striking the window in the correct fashion?
15) If Guede climbed down again and climbed back up to the carpark (up a steep slope with slippery wet grass and weeds) to lob the 9 lb 20 cm wide rock from the car park, why is there no evidence of this second climb down on the walls?
16) Why did Guede choose a 9 lb 20 cm wide rock to throw from the car park, given that a large, heavy rock would be difficult to lob with any precision? Especially considering that the width of the glass in the window pane is only 28 cm wide, surely anyone, experienced or not, would have chosen a smaller, lighter rock to throw with greater precision.
17) If Guede lobbed a 9 lb 20 cm rock from the car park, such a lob would require some velocity and therefore force. Guede would have been roughly 11-12 feet away from the window, in order for the lob to clear the wood railing at the carpark. If the rock was thrown with some velocity, why is the upper 1/2 of the glass in the window pane intact, without any fracture cracks at all?
18) If Guede lobbed a 9 lb 20 cm rock from the car park, such a lob would require some velocity and therefore force. Why is there so little damage to the scuro the rock hit, so little damage to the terrazzo flooring impacted by the rock, and so little damage to the rock itself, which surely would have fractured more on impact with a hard terrazzo floor?
19) Why was there no evidence of glass shards found in the grass below the window?
20) If Guede climbed the wall to open the shutters, climbed down and up to the car park to throw the rock, then climbed back down and up again to the window, how does he manage to hoist himself onto the sill without cutting himself on the glass that was found on the sill?
21) If Guede climbed the wall to open the shutters, hoisted himself onto the sill, tapped the glass with a 9 lb rock to lightly break the glass in a manner more consistent with how the window was broken, why did he throw the rock into the room, rather than let it fall into the grass below?
22) Why was no dirt, grass, muddy shoeprints or similar trace evidence found on the window sill?
23) Why was no dirt, grass, muddy shoeprints or similar trace evidence found in Romanelli’s room?
24) If Guede climbed the wall to open the shutters, climbed down and up to the car park to throw the rock, then climbed back down and up again to the window again, hoisted himself onto the sill without cutting himself on the glass that was found on the sill, unlatched the window and stepped inside Filomena’s room, how did he manage to get glass on top of Romanelli’s clothing that was found under the window sill?
25) Why would Guede, who would have spent a good 10 minutes trying to break and enter with the climbing up and down from the carpark, waste valuable time throwing clothes from the closet? Why not simply open the closet doors and rifle through the clothes without creating more of mess?
26) Why did he disregard Romanelli’s laptop, which was in plain view?
27) Why did Guede check the closet before checking the drawers of the nightstand, where surely more valuable objects like jewelry would be found?
28) Why were none of the other rooms disturbed during the break-in?
29) Assuming Ms. Kercher arrived to the cottage after Guede’s break-in, presumably when Guede was in the bathroom, why did she not notice the break-in, call the police and run out of the cottage?
30) Assuming Guede was in the bathroom when Ms. Kercher returned, why go to the extent of attacking Ms. Kercher in her room rather than try to sneak out the front door, or through the window he had just broken, to avoid if not identification, at least more serious criminal charges?
31) Assuming Ms. Kercher was at the cottage while Guede broke-in, why did she not call the police the moment she heard the rock crash through the glass, loudly thud to the terrazzo floor and investigate what was happening in Romanelli’s room while Guede was climbing back down from the car park and climbing back up to the window?
32) Assuming Ms. Kercher was at the cottage while Guede broke-in, Guede could have been on the sill already because he had tapped the glass with the 9 lb rock to break it. Therefore perhaps Guede was already partially inside Romanelli’s room when he was discovered by Ms. Kercher. In this case Guede follows Ms. Kercher to her room in an attempt to dissuade her from calling the police and the assault ensues. But then, if this scenario is correct, when does Guede have time to rifle through Romanelli’s clothing and effects?
33) Why is there a luminol revealed footprint in Romanelli’s room that has mixed traces of Knox’s and Kercher’s DNA ?
34) Why does this footprint not match Guede’s foot size?
35) If multiple attackers were required to restrain Ms. Kercher, holding her limbs while brandishing two knives and committing sexual violence, then who else was with Guede and why were no traces of this 4th (or more) person(s) found, either in shoeprints, footprints, fingerprints, DNA or otherwise?
36) If Guede and others were involved in the assault, why has Guede not acknolwedged them, and instead consistently hinted that, and finally admitting that Sollecito and Knox were with him during the assault?
37) If Guede and others were involved in the assault, why do the other shoeprints, footprints, DNA traces and fingerprints all point to Knox and Sollecito being present during the assault, in one way or another?
5. And 100-Plus More Questions For Gladwell
The Wiki carries over 100 Guede break-in disproofs, a few of them mentioned above, most of them new. See here and see here and see here.
6. Final Two Posts In The Gladwell Series
These will be next: combating Gladwell’s smear of Dr Mignini, and the real Amanda Knox. Then a tough letter to Gladwell’s publisher. There will be many other such letters soon. We now hold all the cards.
Posted by Peter Quennell on 01/21/20 at 10:23 PM in
Tweet