Headsup: Disney's Hulu - mafia tool?! First warning already sent to the Knox series production team about the hoaxes and mafia connections. The Daily Beast's badly duped Grace Harrington calls it "the true story of Knox’s wrongful conviction of the murder of her roommate". Harrington should google "rocco sollecito" for why Italians hesitate to talk freely.

Category: 22 Exonerated hoax

Wednesday, January 31, 2018

“Americans Are Paying Knox $10,000 A Gig To Trash Italian Cops - Smart Move Liberating Her”

Posted by Peter Quennell

1. Americans Knox Hoaxed For Blood-Money

Hoaxed so far. Many more gigs lined up. The news is out to considerable disgust that Knox is demanding $10,000 or more in blood-money for each gig, plus costs, to lie about her case and smear Italian officials.

Now she is going global on Netflix’s tail and seeks to hoax bleeding-heart Irish via another Kabuki-style paid interview. Knox has lied to and defrauded these groups so far.

• Roanoke College
• YPOG Pacific Northwest (Walla Walla)
• Westside Bar Association “Injustice Seminar”
• Kentucky Bar Association Annual Convention
• YPOG Beverly Hills
• Florida Innocence Project “Gala”
• Palm Beach Bar Association “Law Day Luncheon”
• YPOG Pacific Northwest (Seattle)
• American Psychology and Law Conference
• Windsor Law’s “Defense of the Wrongfully Convicted Special Event”
• Aegis Living EPIC Annual Conference
• Union League Club of Chicago
• Loyola Law “Life After Innocence Annual Luncheon”

That adds up to thirteen, a lot of people Knox has directly hoaxed, to say nothing of her book and of the millions Netflix has hoaxed. Plus the presumed Irish lovefest this weekend.

2. The Blood-Money Marketing Pitch

Here is the pitch for Knox on the All American Speakers site.

Amanda Knox was tried and convicted for the murder of British student Meredith Kercher, who died from knife wounds in the apartment she shared with Knox in 2007. Knox and her then-boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, were both found guilty of killing Kercher, receiving 26- and 25-year prison sentences, respectively. In October 2011, Knox and Sollecito were acquitted and set free. In March 2013, Knox was ordered to stand trial again for Kercher’s murder; Italy’s final court of appeal, the Court of Cassation, overturned both Knox’s and Sollecito’s acquittals. Knox and Sollecito were again found guilty of murder in February 2014, with Sollecito receiving a 25-year prison sentence and Knox receiving a 28.5-year sentence. The Supreme Court of Italy overturned her and Sollecito’s convictions in 2015.

3. How That Dishonest Pitch Misleads

The marketing of Knox as cash-cow is replete with wrong implications, to get the paying customers quickly on the hook before it occurs to check with Italy. Here are several:

1. “There were several trials and Italy just kept trying”

Untrue. In fact (1) there was ONE very definitive trial, in 2009; (2) Knox and Sollecito appealed in 2011 on very narrow grounds and were wrongly set free as appeals were not done; that court was provably bent and the result was annulled by the Supreme Court’s First Chambers (the “murder court”); (3) the First Chambers (not the prosecutors) ordered a repeat of the first appeal in 2013-14 and the 2009 guilty verdict was confirmed; (4) in Knox’s and Sollecito’s final appeal a provably bent Fifth Chambers (which normally never handles murders) declared them not guilty but involved anyway in the mother of all weird rulings. Had that appeal correctly gone back to First Chambers, they would still be locked up.

2. “All four years Knox was in prison were unjustified”

Untrue. In the first year she repeatedly failed to convince courts including even the Supreme Court, in the face of ever-mounting evidence, that she should make bail or house arrest or be released entirely. The other three years were fully justified because with no provocation she accused an innocent man of murder and never ever retracted her claim.  Endemically Knox tries to make out her “interrogation” was forced and therefore it was all the cops’ fault not hers.  But see here. There was actually no interrogation as such at all, she was not forced to confess, the malicious accusation of murder against an innocent man was spontaneous, and she sustained it for several weeks.

3. “Knox was exonerated proving lower courts wrong”

Untrue. Knox was not exonerated. And the provable bending of three courts is ignored. The mafia role in sliming Italian justice and liberating the pair is swept under the rug. Almost every Italian has long known what was going on but to talk about it or write about it is not something they like to do. The existence of the mafias does not make them proud and to talk of them is not always safe. We first wrote extensively here and most recently again extensively here about why and how the manipulations occurred.

4. “Knox is a model for all prisoners wrongly held”

Untrue. They can learn nothing from this. Maybe 200,000 are wrongly held in the US; are any seeing a way out via Knox? There is no mention of the role of the brutal PR campaign which few could afford. Omitted is how damaging and dishonest it was and still is, how destructive to so many additional victims of Knox, and how focused on making a buck. Knox is not the only speaker being paid to lie to crowds; others are as well. Numerous books and articles are involved and media and consultant fees. This is a cash industry now, not a charity, with Knox as hallowed cash-cow.

4. Where This Blood-Money Hoaxfest Goes Next

More and more is out in the open. There are attempts to change the subject when curiosity about these subjects is on the rise - but notice how there is no direct pushback and there are no legal threats. Those who have foolishly acted as witting or unwitting mafia tools want zero attention to their roles here.

Don Corleone surely smiles broadly in his grave. Never has Italian justice been trashed around the world on a scale anything like this. Very nice if groups who have rented Knox and become aware they were hoaxed choose to demand their $10,000 back. That’d end the blood-money flow at one stroke.

Saturday, December 09, 2017

Exoneration Hoax: Murder Apologists Should READ The Supreme Court’s Final Words

Posted by The Machine

Emory Law Dean Schapiro; Martha Grace Duncan; Harvard Law Dean Manning

1. Overview Of This Post

This flows from our first post ten days ago.

Martha Grace Duncan credits many dozens for their research help. Really? For precisely what? 

This is more about the research that Martha Grace Duncan and the huge group she thanks (see Part 4 below) should have done.  We will see here how she makes false claims that even a mere hour or two of checking if the courts actually said what she claimed would have stopped those claims dead in their tracks.

Did neither Duncan nor any of those hapless dozens now associated with her fraud think to do that? Below, with quotes, I will show how it is done.

2. Misrepresentation Of Supreme Court

It is blatantly apparent from reading Martha Grace Duncan’s academic paper bizarrely titled “WHAT NOT TO DO WHEN YOUR ROOMMATE IS MURDERED IN ITALY: AMANDA KNOX, HER “STRANGE” BEHAVIOR, AND THE ITALIAN LEGAL SYSTEM”  that she hasn’t actually read Judge Marasca’s final Supreme Court report.

She is ignorant of what that court actually said, and so she thoroughly misrepresents it.

Remember: (1) An acquittal under paragraph 1 of article 530 is a definitive acquittal or exoneration, the much stronger outcome. (2) An acquitted under paragraph 2 of article 530 is an insufficient evidence acquittal or dropping of charges for now. 

Also remember: Knox received TWO convictions: (1) for murder and (2) for calunnia. Duncan falsely claims in her academic paper that Amanda Knox has been “fully exonorated by Italy’s highest court” implying both. Knox was not exonerated for either conviction in fact.

If Martha Grace Duncan had read the final Supreme Court report, she would have known that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were merely acquitted for murder for now under paragraph 2.

(That is appealable, as is overuling of the Nencini court and dabbling in the evidence, as both are against the code.)

Martha Grace Duncan further highlights her ignorance with regard to the contents of Marasca’s Supreme Court report by falsely claiming that the Supreme Court dropped all charges against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.

“March 29, 2015: The Supreme Court of Cassation overturns the murder convictions of Amanda and Raffaele and drops all charges against them.”

The Supreme Court actually reconfirmed Amanda Knox’s conviction for calunnia. She served three years in prison for repeatedly accusing Diya Lumumba of murder despite the fact she knew he was innocent.

“It is restated the inflicted sentence against the appellant Amanda Marie Knox, for the crime of slander at three years of prison.”

Judge Marasca pointed out in his report that Amanda Knox’s conviction for calunnia cannot be overturned.

“On the other hand, in the slanderous declaration against Lumumba, which earned her a conviction, the status of which is now protected as a final judgement”.

There is a common misconception amongst Amanda Knox’s supporters that the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) might overturn Knox’s conviction for calunnia.

However, she is believed not even to have asked for that. And the ECHR cannot quash or reverse verdicts anyway, it can only recommend. In other words, Amanda Knox will remain a convicted criminal, a felon, for the rest of her life. That cannot be wound back.

Appeal Judge Nencini pointed out in his report that Amanda Knox didn’t retract her false and malicious allegation against Diya Lumumba the whole time he was in prison, and the motive for her allegation was to deflect attention away from herself and Sollecito and avoid retaliatory action from Rudy Guede.

“Amanda Marie Knox maintained her false and malicious story for many days, consigning Patrick Lumumba to a prolonged detention. She did not do this casually or naively. In fact, if the young woman’s version of events is to be relied upon, that is to say, if the allegations were a hastily prepared way to remove herself from the psychological and physical pressure used against her that night by the police and the prosecuting magistrate, then over the course of the following days there would have been a change of heart. This would inevitably have led her to tell the truth, that Patrick Lumumba was completely unconnected to the murder. But this did not happen.

“And so it is reasonable to take the view that, once she had taken the decision to divert the attention of the investigators from herself and Raffaele Sollecito, Amanda Marie Knox became fully aware that she could not go back and admit calunnia. A show of remorse would have exposed her to further and more intense questioning from the prosecuting magistrate. Once again, she would bring upon herself the aura of suspicion that she was involved in the murder.

Indeed, if Amanda Marie Knox had admitted in the days following to having accused an innocent man, she would inevitably have exposed herself to more and more pressing questions from the investigators. She had no intention of answering these, because she had no intention of implicating Rudy Hermann Guede in the murder.

“By accusing Patrick Lumumba, who she knew was completely uninvolved, because he had not taken part in the events on the night Meredith was attacked and killed, she would not be exposed to any retaliatory action by him. He had nothing to report against her. In contrast, Rudy Hermann Guede was not to be implicated in the events of that night because he, unlike Patrick Lumumba, was in Via della Pergola, and had participated [100] in the murder. So, he would be likely to retaliate by reporting facts implicating the present defendant in the murder of Meredith Kercher.

“In essence, the Court considers that the only reasonable motive for calunnia against Patrick Lumumba was to deflect suspicion of murder away from herself and from Raffaele Sollecito by blaming someone who she knew was not involved, and was therefore unable to make any accusations in retaliation. Once the accusatory statements were made, there was no going back. Too many explanations would have had to be given to those investigating the calunnia; explanations that the young woman had no interest in giving.”

The Marasca/Bruno court took no issue with that. Judge Marasca also believed Amanda Knox wanted to avoid retaliatory action from Rudy Guede and stated it was a circumstantial element against her.

“However, the said calunnia is another circumstantial element against the appellant, insofar 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.”

Apart from these two significant factual errors concerning the Supreme Court’s rulings in her academic paper, it’s clear that Martha Grace Duncan is labouring under the misapprehension that Amanda Knox was “fully exonerated” by the Supreme Court because there is some exculpatory evidence that provides definititve proof that Amanda Knox is innocent. However, she never explains what this exculpatory evidence is.

If Martha Grace Duncan had taken the time to read Marasca’s report, she would have known that the Supreme Court didn’t fully exonerate Amanda Knox at all. On the contrary, it actually implicated her in Meredith’s murder.

It ascertained the following: (1) there were multiple attackers (2) it’s a proven fact that Amanda Knox was at the cottage when Meredith Kercher was killed (3) she washed Meredith’s blood off in the small bathroom (4) she lied to the police (5) she falsely accused Diya Lumumba of murder to cover for Rudy Guede in order to avoid retaliatory action and (6) the break-in at the cottage was staged.

I’ll substantiate each and every one of the claims above with quotations from Judge Marasca’s report to show Martha Grace Duncan how it is done and to give her the full picture of what’s in the report rather than the partial one that has been given to her presumably by Amanda Knox and her supporters.

1. There Were Multiple Attackers On The Night

“The [court’s] assessment of it, in accord with other trial findings which are valuable to confirm its reliability is equally correct. We refer to multiple elements linked to the overall reconstructions of events, which rule out Guede could have acted alone.

Firstly, testifying in this direction are the two main wounds observed on the victim’s neck, on each side, with a diversified path and features, attributable most likely (even if the data is contested by the defense) to two different cutting weapons. And also, the lack of signs of resistance by the young woman, since no traces of the assailant were found under her nails, and there is no evidence of any desperate attempt to oppose the aggressor, the bruises on her upper limbs and those on mandibular area and lips (likely the result of forcible hand action of constraint meant to keep the victim’s mouth shut) found during the cadaver examination, and above all, the appalling modalities of the murder which were not pointed out in the appealed ruling.

“And in fact, the same ruling (p323 and 325) reports of abundant blood found on the right of the wardrobe located in Kercher’s room, about 50cm above the floor. Such occurrence, given the location and direction of the drops, could probably lead to the conclusion the young woman had her throat literally “slashed” likely while she was kneeling , while her head was being forcibly held tilted towards the floor, at a close distance from the wardrobe, when she was hit by multiple stab wounds at her neck, one of which - the one inflicted on the left side of the neck - caused her death, due to asphyxia following the massive bleeding, which also filled the breathing ways preventing breathing activity, a situation aggravated by the rupture of the hyoid bone - this also linkable to blade action - with consequent dyspnoea” (p.48).

“Such a mechanical action is hardly attributable to the conduct of one person alone.” (p.49)

2. Amanda Knox was there when Meredith was killed

“Given this, we now note, with respect to Amanda Knox, that her presence inside the house, the location of the murder, is a proven fact in the trial, in accord with her own admissions, also contained in the memoriale with her own signature, in the part where she tells that, as she was in the kitchen, while the young English woman had retired in the room of same Ms Kercher, together with another person for a sexual intercourse, she heard a harrowing scream, so piercing and unbearable that she let herself down squatting on the floor, covering her ears tight with her hands in order not to hear more of it. About this, the judgement of reliability expressed by the lower [a quo] judge [Nencini] with reference to this part of the suspect’s narrative, [and] about the plausible implication from the fact herself was the first person mentioning for the first time [46] a possible sexual motive for the murder, at the time when the detective still did not have the the cadaver examination, nor the autopsy result, nor the witnesses’ information, which collected only subsequently, about the victim’s terrible scream and about the time when it was heard (Nara Capezalli, Antonella Monocchia and others), is certainly to be subscribed to. We make reference in particular to those declarations that the current appellant [Knox] on 11.6.2007 (p.96) inside the State Police headquarters. On the other hand, in the slanderous declaration against Lumumba, which earned her a conviction, the status of which is now protected as a final judgement [giudicato] [they] had a premise in the narrative, that is the presence of the young American woman, inside the house in via della Pergola, a circumstance which nobody at that time - except obviously the other people present in the house - could have known (quote p.96). 

“According to the slanderous statements of Ms. Knox, she had returned home in the company of Lumumba, whom she had met by chance in Piazza Grimana, and when Ms. Kercher arrived in the house, Knox’s companion, directed sexual attentions toward the English woman, then he went together with her to he room from which the harrowing scream came. So, it was Lumumba who killed Meredith and she could affirm this since she was on the scene of the crime herself, albeit in another room. (p.97)

3. Amanda Knox washed Meredith’s blood off in bathroom

“Another element against her [Amanda Knox] is the mixed traces, her and the victim’s one, in the ‘small bathroom’, an eloquent proof that anyway she had come into contact with the blood of the latter, which she tried to wash away from herself (it was, it seems, diluted blood, while the biological traces belonging to her would be the consequence of epithelial rubbing).

“The fact is very suspicious, but it’s not decisive, besides the known considerations about the sure nature and attribution of the traces in question.”

4. Cassation confirms Amanda Knox lied to the police

“Elements of strong suspicion are also in the inconsistencies and lies which the suspect woman [Amanda Knox] committed over the statements she released on various occasions, especially in the places where her narrative was contradicted by the telephone records which show different incoming SMS messages”.

5. Knox accused Lumumba of murder to avoid Guede’s retaliation

“However, the said calunnia is another circumstantial element against the appellant, insofar 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.”

6. The break-in at the cottage was staged

“And moreover, the staging of a theft in Romanelli’s room, which she is accused of , is also a relevant point within an incriminating picture, considering the elements of strong suspicion (location of glass shards - apparently resulting from the breaking of a glass window pane caused by the throwing of a rock from the outside - on top of the clothes and furniture) a staging, which can be linked to someone who as an author of the murder and flatmate [titolare] with a formal {“qualified”] connection to the dwelling - had an interest to steer suspicion away from himself/herself, while a third murderer in contrast would be motivated by a very different urge after the killing, that is to leave the dwelling as quickly as possible.”

3. Duncan’s Misrepresentation Of Supreme Court

Writing an academic paper on the Amanda Knox case without having read Judge Marasca’s Supreme Court report is akin to writing an academic paper on the assassination of JFK without having read the Warren Report and relying on Oliver Stone’s film and some books written by conspiracy nuts.

The fact Martha Grace Duncan hasn’t even read Marasca’s Supreme Court report, but has instead relied primarily on Amanda Knox and her PR and partisan supporters for her information is embarrassing, to say the least.

Amanda Knox admitted lying to the police in her Waiting to Be Heard. She was convicted of lying by all courts, including the Italian Supreme Court. Since when did the word of a convicted liar trump the official court reports?

Martha Grace Duncan is a professor of law, although you couldn’t tell that from reading her academic paper. Her mistakes e.g. getting basic facts wrong and not bothering to read Marasca’s Supreme Court report or any other official court reports for that matter are unforgivable.

An early version of this Article received the Judith Siegel Pearson Award for Nonfiction in 2014. I am grateful to the judges. Previous versions of this Article were presented at the Dipartimento di Giurisprudenza, Università  degli Studi di Torino; the European University Institute, Fiesole, Italy; the Emory Law Faculty, the Emory Psychoanalytic Studies Program, and the Emory Workshop on Geographies of Violence. My thanks go to the participants. My thanks also go to Robert Ahdieh, Giulia Alagna, Cathy Allan, Flavia Brizio-Skov, Michele Caianiello, Elisabetta Grande, Joe Mackall, Stefano Maffei, Alice Margaria, Claudia Marzella, Gaetano Marzella, Colleen Murphy, David Partlett, Lucia Re, Bob Root, Elena Urso, and Liza Vertinsky. Deep appreciation goes to my research assistants: Stefania Alessi, Mary Brady, Andrew Bushek, Peter Critikos, Sarah Kelsey, Tess Liegois, Zishuang Liu, Mike McClain, Jon Morris, Kaylie Niemasik, Sarah Pittman, Faraz Qaisrani, Deborah Salvato, Shannon Shontz-Phillips, Anthony Tamburro, and Michelle Tanen.

Tuesday, December 20, 2016

Prospects For Guede’s Attempted Appeal, On Which Clemente & Richards Are Short On Hard Facts

Posted by KrissyG

[Rudy Guede at Viterbo Prison with one of the legal advisers there who works on his case]

1. Guede’s Legal Situation Per The Courts?

Guede has brought the application for a review of his case to the Florence courts.

A closed session excluding the media and the Knox and Sollecito teams is scheduled for today. Guede’s application cites “˜internal inconsistencies’ within the Marasca-Bruno reasoning in respect of Knox and Sollecito.

I plan to sort out the facts from the fiction and to provide a definitive review of what the legal facts concerning Guede are.

These will be as specified at his trial and appeal and rubber-stamped by the Supreme Court in Guede’s case, plus how the Supreme Court verdict in the Knox / Sollecito case impacts on then.

I also anticipate what might be the comebacks of the Knox and Sollecito defenses if they are allowed to participate down the road.

(1) Sources Of Known Hard Facts On Guede

There are many theories about Guede’s role in the Kercher murder case with many assertions becoming common currency, as interested parties, such as Knox and Sollecito compete for the hegemony.

I refer to original source material to get to the actual facts of the matter. These consist of Guede’s Prison Diary whilst under extradition proceedings in Koblenz, between 21 Nov 2007 and late November 2007, his Skype talk 19 Nov 2007 with best friend Giacomo Benedetti, whilst on the run from the police; and the detailed Micheli report, Perugia, 28 Oct 2008,the finalised legal findings of fact, and as approved by the Cassazione Supreme Court.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with the court findings or of Guede’s exact role in the crime, these remain the legal position today, and these are the grounds on which Guede is bringing his application for a review to the Florence Supreme Court.

(2) Micheli Findings On Guede Summarized

“¢ Guede definitively did not wield the murder knife.

“¢ He had no meaningful prior contact with Meredith.

“¢ Therefore he was not invited to the cottage or let in by Meredith, nor had any consensual contact.

“¢ The burglary and rape mise en scene was a second stage of the crime after the murder.

“¢ It thus follows, says Micheli, that Knox let Guede into the murder cottage.

“¢ The crime was sexually motivated, and not one motivated by theft.

“¢ There were multiple assailants ““ as per DNA and luminol testing and the fact of a return to the scene to rearrange it.

“¢ Guede did not steal the rent money or the phones.

“¢ He was guilty of aggravated murder because of his complicity in the attack and failure to stop it as soon as knives were produced.

“¢ Complicity: “Above all if the certain facts include the consequent outline of that supposed “˜unknown’ (the presence of the three at the scene of the crime) they are abundant, and all abundantly proven”. - Micheli

(3) Timeline of Events, Guede’s Perspective

Born in the Ivory Coast 26 Dec 1987 six months older than Knox and three years younger than Sollecito.  Came to Italy with his father Roger, aged five, rejected by his mother.  Lived with a series of foster families, including a wealthy local family, whom he left as soon as he reached age of majority.  Stayed with an aunt in Lecca.  Took up various short-term jobs, had periods of unemployment, tended to “˜disappear’.

His childhood friend Mancini, the son of Guede’s teacher, Mrs Tiberi tried to keep tabs on him.  His last job he was fired from for sickness without a note, took up bedsit in Perugia in early September 2007 nearby Sollecito and the cottage.  Socialised with the Spanish contingent in his house.  Mrs Tiberi described Guede as always polite and well-behaved.  His childhood friends, Mancini and Benedetti, say they never saw him take drugs or get drunk, although latterly they had not seen him much.  His more short-term acquaintances mentioned witnessing him drunk at various times.

A witness claimed he had said he wanted to go to Milan for a few days “˜to dance’.  In Milan 27 Oct 2007, just a few days before the murder, he was caught trespassing at a nursery, but was not charged at the time.  He was found in possession of a stolen laptop, a knife found at the nursery, a ladies watch and a small glass-breaking hammer.  His mobile phone was confiscated, thus claimed to have no phone as of the time of the murder.  He was charged post-murder conviction for the laptop possession.

Around the time of a friend’s birthday (Owen), “˜12th or 14th October 2007’ he’d been out celebrating with friends, met up with some basketball playing pals outside, which included the boys in the downstairs apartment of the cottage, Knox approached, whom he had seen before at Patrick’s bar, Le Chic, to say “˜Hi, I’m Amanda from Seattle’, the boys made off towards home, together with Guede.  Knox went into her apartment on the upper level whilst the boys went downstairs and lit up a joint.  Knox came down to join them, and then Meredith later.  This was the first time she met Guede.  Guede relates Meredith had just one toke on the joint and then said she was off to bed, Knox followed shortly after.

The next time Guede saw Meredith was at a pub called “˜The Shamrock’ where the World Cup Rugby Final between England and South Africa was being played.  This took place 20 Oct 2007.  Witnesses confirm that both Meredith and Guede were present, within groups of friends.  Guede claims to have struck up a banter with Meredith, but there are no witnesses to this and Meredith never mentioned it to her friends if it happened.  On Sunday, Guede went by the cottage to watch the Formula One final after seventeen events.  This took place 21 Oct 2007.  If Guede had struck up a friendship with Meredith, he made no attempt to pop his head around the door to say hello.  Laura Mezzetti, one of the roommates upstairs did witness Guede there, when she came down to “˜buy a smoke for €5’.

Guede then claims to have asked Meredith for a date on the night of Halloween on 31 October 2007 at the Domus nightclub, again there were no witnesses to this and Meredith never mentioned it to anyone.  Both were at the packed night spot. He gives this as the reason he approached the cottage the next evening, 1st Nov 2007, claiming Meredith let him in.  He had a drink from the fridge whilst Meredith went to her room.  He claims he heard her cursing Amanda, as her money was missing; she showed him her drawer where she had kept it; he calmed her down; they searched the cottage together and, after chatting about their families; they began canoodling.  They had no condoms so it went no further.

As Meredith had not been home when he first arrived circa 20:20 pm, he had gone to see his friend Alex and then went to buy a kebab whilst he waited.  Because of the effects of the kebab, Guede claimed that whilst at the cottage, he had to rush to the bathroom and whilst there, the doorbell rang, Meredith who had been on her way to her room, answered the door and Guede heard Amanda’s voice with Meredith saying, “˜We need to talk’ and Amanda reply, “˜What’s happened?  What is the problem?’

Guede put on his earphones to listen to loud music for ten minutes when he heard a loud scream, ran out, the light was now off, “˜to my astonishment’, saw the figure of a man standing on the threshold of Meredith’s room, who suddenly turned with a knife in his hand.  Guede backed off and grabbed a chair in self-defence, the man said, “˜Black man found, black man guilty’ and then “˜Let’s go!’ and ran off.  Guede administerd three towels to the dying girl before himself running off, because he heard a noise from downstairs that frightened him, he claimed.

He ran home via Plaza Grimana direction, changed and washed his jogging pants, then went out nightclubbing.

3 Nov 2007 he went to Milan via Modena and Bologna and after midnight he jumped on a random train, to avoid police seen at the station, an ended up in Duesseldorf in Germany.  Between then and 19th he stayed in barges and places along the Rhine.  Sixteen days to reflect.  Mancini his childhood friend had contacted him 12/13th November via the internet, unaware he was wanted, accusing him of “˜always running away’ and Guede replied, “˜You know why’, without elaborating.  His other old friend, Benedetti helping police, set up a Skype conversation with Guede, 19 Nov 2007,and persuaded him to return.  In the meantime German police caught him on a train without a ticket and on an Interpol warrant, held him in custody in Koblenz until 1 December 2007, whilst processing an extradition order.

Guede was brought back to Italy and subsequently interviewed by prosecutor Mignini 26 March 2008 and charged with the murder, in complicity with Knox and Sollecito.  Guede opted for a separate, “˜fast-track’ trial, which was closed, although we can discern what took place from the presiding Judge’s reasoning (Micheli) for the “˜guilty of aggravated murder’ verdict and the dismissal of the theft charge of the phones and credit cards.

2. Clemente’s And Richards’ Anti Guede Case

(1) Context Of These Claims

There is a recent crimepodcast by Jim Clemente, ex-FBI agent and ex-District Attorney & prosecutor, with Laura Richards, criminal psychologist and ex-Scotland Yard.

They attempt a “˜behavioural analysis’ of the Guede interview on RAI3an Italiana TV channel earlier this year with interviewer Franca Leosini. reflecting a lot of the apologists’ claims. 

My questioning below of their claims will highlight some of the misconceptions about the case they reveal. The podcast can be accessed here.

Especially, is Clemente’s and Richards’ core claim ““ one of Guede being the “˜lone killer’ really grounded in any substance?

Does it fit with the timeline of the events from Guede’s point of view? Does it fit with the Knox and Sollecito timelines and evidences? Does it fit with the actual legal position of Guede as laid down at Guede’s trial?

And does it fit with the ruling on Knox & Sollecito by the Supreme Court in 2015? That controversial ruling acquitting the pair on the grounds of Article 530 Para II, “˜Not guilty: due to insufficient evidence’. 

(2)  “Behavioral Observations” Of Guede

These are among the claims of Clemente and Richards, which reflect the views of pro-innocence campaigners of Knox & Sollecito, critiquing Franca Leosini’s tv interview.

Clemente & Richards 1 “˜The foundation as to why he is in her room and cottage, DNA inside as well as outside ““ he is finding a plausible excuse for being there.’

Comment:  Guede did not claim to have made sexual advances in Meredith’s room.

Clemente & Richards 2 “˜Meredith had locked door from the inside ““ helped self to drink ““ Meredith went to bedroom ““ claimed she was mad at Knox for stealing money and being dirty.’ 

Clemente & Richards 3 “˜He said he “˜wouldn’t go with her unless she had a condom.  Not appropriate time to get going so got dressed.  As if.!  Leosini cracks, “˜You missed the best part of the evening ““ “˜No Sex Please We’re British’ ““ inappropriate ““ she is flirting with him (Leosini).  She purports to get tough with him, but he dances around the question.’

Clemente & Richards 4 “˜Got dressed, had bad stomach, had to go to bathroom, kernel of truth ““ poop in toilet.  Before Meredith came in. Trapped in there ““ he if flushed the toilet, she’d know he was there. She tells him to use that bathroom, in kitchen, then went to bedroom. 

Comment:  Guede used the large bathroom which was by the front door.  If he was in there when Meredith unexpectedly returned, it was easy to run away unrecognised.

Clemente & Richards 5 Heard doorbell ring, Meredith opens door, engages in conversation - 101% it is Amanda.  Fallacy ““ Amanda lives there, why would she ring doorbell?  “˜Meredith had locked inside door.’  There is no reason for Amanda to ring doorbell.

Comment:  The courts agree.  The courts uphold that it was Knox who let Guede in.

Clemente & Richards 6. Becomes very detailed and specific. He saying look, I’m very clean.  Poor boy “˜found myself in Germany’.  101% - extending.

Clemente & Richards 7. Why would Amanda ring, Rudy’s explanation.  Identifies someone by voice ““ despite listening to very loud music.  Hears girls arguing, puts on ear phones to block out- 2.5 songs ““ 10 minutes.  Inconsistency.  It’s a lie. The attack on MK took about 10”.  Kernel of truth in the lie. 

Comment: Guede says he put on headphones after hearing initial greetings.  However, Micheli agrees that how come Guede only hears the last scream, from 4-5 metres away, when a nearby resident, witness Mrs Capezelli, heard a series from 70 metres away.

Clemente & Richards 8. It was Meredith coming home, not Amanda, we “˜know as a fact’ it didn’t happen.  His sleeve had the victim’s DNA. He carried a knife consistent with bloody impression on bed. 

Comment:  There is no evidence Guede carried a knife.  At the Milan nursery trespass 27 Oct 2007, Guede was found with a knife which belonged to the nursery so had not carried it with him.

Clemente & Richards 9 Scream louder than his music, runs to Meredith’s room, lights off.  So concerned about his image in terms of cleanliness.  He leaves a dying girl alone.  “˜Lights were suddenly not on’ coming out of the bathroom into the hall, but were on in her room.

Clemente & Richards 10. Can only describe the jacket ““ guy facing Meredith.  Guy turns starts flashing with his scalpel.  Happened so fast, did didn’t know what was in his hand.  He says, “˜I said’, not what happened.  Recount what happened, not “˜when I testified I said this’ ““ leakage ““ skips ahead.  “˜This is the story I am sticking to’.  It shows he is trying to keep to the story he testified. 

Clemente & Richards 11 “He turned around and came to me I didn’t see his face”.  Quotes self.  Not in the moment any more.  Wildly gesticulating hands ““ struggling for words.  Cognitive load, wants to get it right.  Story trying to remember.  How do you remember insignia but not face? (The brand logo on the man’s jacket.)

Comment:  The light was described as an abat-jour so it’s possible it was on an auto-timer.  Guede explains he was busy concentrating on the blade in the man’s hand.  The man’s face would have been back lit.  Good point about Guede reverting back to testimony.

Clemente & Richards 12.  German police found he had a cut on his hand.- “˜you were focused on his hand’ ““ “˜I said I thought it was a scalpel.  It could have been a knife 12” long 7” blade.  So he says, “˜I thought’ but didn’t know.  Mignini argued, “˜There are two knives’.  Rudy and Mignini are “˜perverted accomplished liars’  (Clemente’s view).  “˜Pissed off with Mignini for perverting justice.  Collusion’.  Man fleeing.  RG backed out of way.

Comment: The fact of at least two knives was decided by the courts after expert witness testimony and not up to the prosecutor.

Clemente & Richards 13. Says he saw Amanda walking away outside.  Statement made to Mignini ““ You must have seen her, you must have seen her! -  I saw her silhouette a long way into the night. -  Voice over music in earphone from bathroom.  Mignini pushing his agenda to ID Amanda.  “˜Man is like ““ had beret with red band, jacket’ ; called out to other person, let’s run before they catch us; black man found’ odd thing to say .  “˜Great! We just killed Kercher, we’ve got a black man here we can blame!’

Comment:  the courts agree this is Guede being self-serving.  The fact he doesn’t mention the silhouette until later, could be preclusion, from reading the press.

Clemente & Richards 14. Hero, he finds Meredith bleeding ““ runs out of bedroom to grab towel x 2.  Grabs third towel, that didn’t work, so left. Said she was alive. Was able to run into Romanelli’s room ““ sees Amanda run away with this young man.  Made silhouette ID in time period there is a dying woman on the floor.  More important than helping Meredith is to go to Filomena’s room to ID these people. 

Comment:  No DNA on towels due to environmental degradation, but someone did apply them. 

Clemente & Richards 15. Why, If he is already 101% certain it was Amanda?  No reason except to please the prosecutor.  All of a sudden, people saw the three together.  Pressuring others.  Mignini ends up giving Rudy a fast track trial.  ““ he wouldn’t have to testify on any subsequent trial.  Takes first amendment against self-incrimination, should have to testify in Amanda and Raffaele’s case ““ he was not used.

Comment:  Mignini as a prosecutor (district attorney) has no authority to provide legal advice.  Guede would have been advised by his counsel to take the fast track as it offers the incentive of a ‘one-third off’ discount from the sentence.  He pleaded, “˜Not Guilty’ therefore, he had the right to decline from giving any further self-incriminating testimony, as exercised by Sollecito himself in his trial.  There are mechanisms.  A party can appeal for other documents or transcripts in evidence instead (as Mignini did at one stage) and it is up to the presiding judge whether to accept the application or dismiss it.  It is the Judge’s or the defendant’s decision, not the prosecutor’s.

Clemente & Richards 16. Why does he want the fast track? ““ wait.  He has to say he stayed in bathroom for that long.  This other person did it, when he left, Rudy was trying to stop the bleeding.  Meredith was saying af ““ writing on the wall “˜in her blood’ ““ there’s a desk right there.  Why didn’t he alert for help?  Has to construct a narrative to make sense.  How does this person get in when door was locked?  What we hear in his narrative is how he is overwhelmed.  He is the victim, everyone feels sympathy for him.

Comment:  In his original claims he says he was in the bathroom between six and ten minutes.  Later Guede changes this to “˜lightning fast’, although he may have meant the supposed fight between him and the mystery man.

Clemente & Richards 17. He hears scream.  The broadcast host, Laura Richards says she once saw someone run into a room and stab someone.  Stabbing had very little blood.  Saw stab put pressure on it.  Quick in and out ““ what prisoners do.  Will never forget the guy’s face.  Guy turned ran out, Guede could not remember the guy’s face.  Would he forget?  In the only lit room.  Light is on this guy, why can’t he ID his face? ““ clearly lying.  Fear.  Afraid he’d be blamed.  What does he do, he goes out drinking with his friends ““ he is establishing an alibi.  He ran out of country “˜because he was afraid’ ““ alibiing himself.

Comment:  The issue of the blood spray after the stabbing is an important forensic point, which is dealt with further on.

Clemente & Richards 18. Clever narrative because of kernel of truth.  Always wants to be seen as victim.  “˜Why didn’t you call for help?’ a six-year old would ask ““ he starts to talk over her ““ the real him.  “˜The investigators didn’t believe your point’.  Sad fact is, that black people do get blamed for crime ““ he is lumping himself in with them.  OJ?  Exactly same situation ““ charismatic, wants people to think he’s a victim.  How he left Meredith.  Details of crime scene.

Clemente & Richards 19. When he left Meredith she was fully dressed.  In his story, Amanda had argument with Meredith killed her, then ran away everything was in order except one drawer pulled out.  Filomena’s room undisturbed.

Comment:  Guede describes Meredith as wearing a white top.  Robyn Butterworth (friend) testified Meredith was wearing a sky-blue zip up top with sporty arm stripes, with a beige top underneath, and perhaps a second, patterned one.

Clemente & Richards 20. If he saw her, she must have seen him.  Raffaele must have told Amanda man there.  Why would Amanda then come back?  Feel bad for anyone who believes this crap.  “˜Judge didn’t believe your version of events’.  Why did someone come back and alter the crime scene?’  He left Meredith fully clothed, with full details of clothes she was wearing but can’t remember the guy’s face. 

Clemente & Richards 21. Franca Leosini says left foot and face showing.  Crime scene staged , as a legal fact.  Glass and rock on top of clothes, rock thrown from inside. Glass and rock on top.  Rudy gets specific about Knox and Sollecito; not in dispute they were there.  Judge said Rudy wasn’t the one who had the knife and dealt the blow, not in dispute.  It is now in dispute, they were declared “˜innocent of the crime’.

Comment  False: there is zero mention Knox and Sollecito were “˜declared innocent’.

Clemente & Richards 22. Rudy did it in concert with two people ““ it is a legal point of law and cannot be appealed ““ certified fact.  Once evaluated it was 100% fraudulent, not a mistake.  People would be fired if they did not say what Mignini wanted them to say.  If they disagreed, they weren’t called to testify. (Clemente’s views.)

Comment:  Mignini - and later Comodi - only get to choose the prosecution witnesses, the defence get to call whomsoever they wish..

Clemente & Richards 23. Leosini: You fled to Germany.  Guede:  I had no idea how I got there, it could have been Russia.  Conversely, they (Knox/Sollecito) did not run.  Rudy trusts the system.  Skyped with his friend Giacomo for four hours.  Threw away clothing. Choosing not to give an account.

Clemente & Richards 24. Specifically says, “˜Amanda was not there’.  Why bring it up at this point?  Friend says Amanda was arrested.  Friend brought her up.  Police direct the conversation.  Says clearly, “˜She was not there’.  Rudy gets it from Mignini.  Mignini gets Rudy to ID Knox ““ silhouette, knife.  Patrick Lumumba has a proven alibi, so they needed another black man there, which is why Amanda volunteered his name.

Comment:  Knox was hardly arrested “˜for no reason’.

Clemente & Richards 25. Accomplished liar.  Part 9, Leosini talks through the forensics consensual foreplay.  Palm print, DNA on toilet paper . Interesting leakage about Patrick being there ““ he gets vociferous there, true self.  Why fast track trial?  He says because of his “˜non-involvement’.  More than one person.  Sentence reduced from 30 to 16 on assumption he did not hold the knife. “˜He went along with others’; someone else’s initiative. 

Clemente & Richards 26. Jan 2016.  People are still sticking to their beliefs Sollecito and Knox are still guilty.  Reformed character, artsy, intellectual.  Served sentence because, “I didn’t call for help”.  Lawyers have been very strategic ““ stylised interview ““ deliberate choice.  FB and twitter set up.

Clemente & Richards 27. All evidence points to him being only killer and guilty of murder and sexual assault.  He’s charismatic, intelligent, detail-oriented no sign of remorse.  Psychopath; gifted at selling himself. Takes a trained eye to see the holes in his story. Let Meredith die; fled country only after he went drinking with his friends.  Abominable.  Foster father says he is “˜an accomplished liar’.  Multiple perpetrators.

Clemente & Richards 28.  Retrial 20 Dec will be interesting.  Already eligible for parole.  2018.  By the time the motivation comes out.  Opens everything up for Kercher family.  This interview may have been the grounds on which the interview is granted.  Engaging charismatic young man ““ interview strategy to get him out.  “Amanda got away with murder.”  It was because of Mignini.  He used Rudy to get Amanda.  Should be prosecuted.  Recommendation: Amanda wrongfully convicted and then exonerated. JC and LR.

Comment: Mignini was nothing to do with the ultimate conviction.  That was solely for the courts to decide.

3. Case Made For Guede As Sole Killer?

The Missing Money:  Who first mentioned it?  It was Guede, and he brags about this fact of being first in his Prison Diary written in Koblenz up to 19 Nov 2007.

Who First Mentioned Knox and Sollecito at the scene?  Whilst Guede does refer to a mystery man holding a knife in the doorway of Meredith’s room in his presence, he does not actually name either Knox or Sollecito until his recorded interview with Mignini, March 2008.  We know he read the papers whilst on the run for he mentions to Benedetti in the Skype conversation he saw that Knox is accused of using the washing machine to clean Meredith’s clothes. 

An alternate explanation is that he was applying “˜Prisoners Dilemma’, a situation when there are several perpetrators and each is dependent on the other/s to not “˜grass’ them up. Therefore, it is theorised, the best strategy is to say nothing.  Knox did not name him, he did not name Knox.  Guede himself confirms he did not know Sollecito at all to name him.

Who First Mentioned Sollecito and Knox together at the scene with Guede, and when?  A witness, Kokomani did come forward to say he had seen the three together outside the cottage prior to the murder, and police have corroborated he was in the region because of pings from his phone and his account of seeing a dark car, also seen by a separate car mechanic witness.  However, his testimony was dismissed by Micheli as “˜ravings’.  It appears that what holds the three together is circumstantial evidence as constructed by the forensic police (DNA, luminol, bathmat footprint), the inactivity of Knox & Sollecito’s phones in advance of the crime and for the rest of the night, their false alibis and inability to “˜remember’ what they did that evening, together with the apparent staged scene of the burglary, clean up and repositioned body.

The case against Rudy Guede When comparing Guede’s original account with his later recorded interview, it is safe to note that much of what he says is:

“¢ To try to establish justification for being at the cottage at all.  To do this, he claims to have made a date with Meredith the night before.  However, when he made a date with a Latvian girl in a similar circumstance, they wanted to swap telephone numbers, with Guede having to memorise hers as he did not have a phone at the time.  He does not say this for Meredith.

“¢ To try to justify his DNA being on Meredith’s body, he precludes this by claiming the contact was consensual.  In his conversation with Benedetti he expresses he knows none of his sperm will be found.  In his Prison Diary he makes no mention at all of Meredith talking about her mother being ill.  Micheli points out that his later claim that Meredith spoke about her mother’s specific condition was already widely reported in the papers since 4 November 2007, by Meredith’s aunt. 

He claims in his testimony the Formula 1 final race (21 Oct 2007) was BEFORE the Rugby World Cup (20 Oct 2007) ““ and Micheli does not pick up on this ““ to evade the fact he didn’t say hello to Meredith when he visited the cottage to watch the F1 race downstairs.  In his Prison Diary he claims Meredith told him she had “˜someone special’ back home, implying she was free in Italy.  However, we know Meredith was in an exciting new relationship with Silenzi, from downstairs, so would not have made herself easily available.  None of the British girls corroborated Guede’s claim to have made friends with Meredith.

“¢ Guede in both his original Prison Diary account and in the Leosini tv interview in Jan 2016, expresses disapproval of Meredith cursing out Knox over the missing rent money.  In the interview he becomes quite agitated.  Thus, Guede takes Knox’ side in this dispute and is not a friend of Meredith’s.

“¢ To try to justify running away without calling for help for Meredith, despite his claim it was “˜another man’ who did the killing, Guede says he was worried he would be blamed because he was Black and because the man said so, before running off.  He claims he was frightened off by “˜a noise downstairs’.

“¢ Most incriminating of all is the description of the blood.  Micheli found as a fact that Meredith was stabbed in the neck and then immediately fell backwards into a supine position because (a) of a bruise on the back of her neck indicating a violent jolt, (b) because there is no spray of blood on the desk where one would expect it to be and (c) it was a logical position by which to carry out the sexual assault by Guede.  Her left hand was restrained.  Dr Arpile an expert witness said this was a characteristic of a sexual attack.

“¢ In his Prison Diary in Koblenz he recalls the stabbing of Meredith was being like the time he was whacked over the head with a stick by his father and blood spurted out of his head “˜like a fountain’.  This suggests he may have witnessed the “˜fountain of blood’ spurting from Meredith?

In his Prison Diary Guede makes much of the sheer volume of blood.  He sees blood everywhere, and sees nothing but “˜red’ when he closes his eyes to sleep.  Massei in the later trial of Knox and Sollecito, does not agree with Micheli that she was stabbed whilst standing and then falling onto her back, and rules that Meredith was killed whilst forced into a kneeling position.  Where then, did the spray of blood go, when the knife was pulled out, if there is none to be seen on the furnishings and upholstery?  Garofano in Darkness Descending offers his expert forensic opinion that the blood surge would have gone all over the person who withdrew the knife.

Guede by his own account relates that his pants were “˜soaking wet’ and he’d had to cover them up with his sweatshirt as he ran home fleeing the scene.

“¢ Guede states that on his way out, none of the windows were broken and Meredith was full dressed.  The broken window and condition of the body were all widely reported so it could be argued that Guede states everything was intact when he left as a self-serving narrative to preclude himself as the culprit.

4. Back To Micheli’s Findings Of Fact

Micheli ruled that Guede’s claim to have struck up a first date with Meredith was proven false and therefore it was not Meredith who let him into the cottage.  As Meredith was in a new relationship and no-one could corroborate any date with Guede, she did not consent to any sexual activity with him.  In addition, Knox would not need to ring the doorbell as she had a key and in any case, had Meredith locked the door from the inside, she would have in effect locked Guede in for the night, not to mention locking out Knox.  Therefore, as the burglary was staged ““ clothes rummaged first and then window broken, bits of paper from the burglary on top of the duvet on top of the body ““ then it must have been Knox who let him in.

Micheli directs that it is a legal fact that Guede did not wield the knife based on submissions by the prosecutor and that the crime was in complicity with the others.  This was due to the fact that even if Guede only intended a sexual assault, he became culpable of murder “˜as soon as the knives were produced’. 

Micheli legally acquitted Guede of the theft of the phones as he ruled that they were taken “˜to cause their sudden removal’ and not for lucrative gain.  He ruled that the autocall to Meredith’s bank Abbey National logged at circa 22:11 was due to the phone falling from her person to the floor due to her wanting urgent contact with her sick mother, and indeed, there does appear to be an outline in blood in the shape of a phone.

Micheli ruled that Guede did not go through Meredith’s bag as his DNA (which was scant at the scene) was midway on the clasp at the top of the bag, indicating Guede had gripped it to lift and move it, as there is no DNA or blood stains inside it.  In addition, there were multiple differing footprints of sundry persons at the murder scene, as highlighted by luminol, a forensic instrument to make visible invisible blood which had been cleaned up.

“¢ Complicity:  “Above all if the certain facts include the consequent outline of that supposed “˜unknown’ (the presence of the three at the scene of the crime) they are abundant, and all abundantly proven”. ““ Micheli

5. Cassation Ruling 2015 On Knox and Sollecito

This merely stated that the pair were acquitted because of “˜insufficient evidence’, not because they were “˜innocent’.  Knox was placed at the scene of the crime and Sollecito probably so. The attackers were estimated most probably at three. All attempts to prove they were other than Knox and Soillecito fell far short.

It specifies that Knox did wash off the victim’s blood from her hands and did cover up for Guede.  It stated that the pair told “˜umpteen lies’ and that their behaviour remains “˜highly suspicious’.

So does Guede have a case, based on the final definitive facts, as set out, above?

We shall see.

All sources: Wiki and TJMK.

UPDATE:  It has been decided that there will be a decision on whether to revise Guede’s verdict on 10 January 2017