Friday, December 12, 2014

Why All The Desperate Attempts To Prove Rudy Guede Was A Burglar Have Fallen Flat

Posted by Peter Quennell

1. The Knox-Sollecito State Of Play

On average we get an email or two from readers in Italy every day.

Maybe half are from Italians and half are from foreigners who are resident there. This is from an appreciative American who is married to an Italian and now lives in Milan.

I go back to Perugia and my friends there as often as I can - everything there is very special to me. Perhaps this sounds a little strange but, to me, the city seems to have lost it’s innocence with Meredith’s murder. I still haven’t met anybody in Italy - from North to South (or from Switzerland either) who believes that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are innocent.

No-one in Italy any longer seems to believe that AK and RS or of course Guede were not involved. The courts have made their case.

There has simply been too much documentation, too much commentary broadcast on TV, too many disturbing facts coming to light like Knox having sex for drugs with a drug kingpin right up to the night of her arrest.

The incessant bickering of the two has become a bore. Trials against Sforza, Aviello, and Sollecito proceed and more charges against Amanda Knox and Curt and Edda Mellas remain.  Since this time last year neither of the two has won even one point.

2. More Proof Undermines The Guede Hoax

Can you figure out what the image at the top depicts?

This is the north end of the massif from the east. Right at the center is the law office of Dr Paolo Brocchi, whose office was burgled and whose laptop turned up in the possession of Rudy Guede in Milan. Meredith’s house is visible at top-right and Patrick’s bar, the English girl’s house and the courts are all off to the left.

At the bottom of the image below in the center is a narrow dark ally. Whoever broke in seems to have done so via that ally and a narrow balcony on the second floor of the law offices. 

The killer-groupies refer to Rudy Guede as the FORGOTTEN killer though there is no logical reason why. He doesnt hog the limelight but he is convicted and he is doing his time.

The killer-groupies claim Guede was a drug dealer (untrue), a petty thief (unproven), a knife wielder (untrue), who threatened a man (untrue), a police snitch (untrue) who killed Meredith alone during a burglary which went wrong (untrue). Quite a list of false claims. 

There is in fact zero evidence proving Guede acted alone. Meredith’s missing money was equivalent to money Knox could not explain.  Read the 45 posts here for all the proof the killer-groupies ignore.

Absolutely key to the verdict of the trial court were the TWO recreations of the attack on Meredith. Each pointed to three attackers. Both were presented in closed court. 

Please follow the images below to see how a burglar broke into Dr Brocchi’s office two and a half weeks before Meredith was killed.

The front door of the law office is at street level. Because the ground slopes down at the rear, the law office is one level above ground level. That is where the glass in the French doors was broken and the break-in may have occurred. 

Above and below: images of law office at the street level from the front,

Whether it was Guede or not (there are good reasons for thinking it was not) he or she broke in around the back, up that alley, in the dark, where there is a quite easy reach up to the floor of a narrow balcony outside the French doors.

Above and below, law office from back, balcony is at hard left not visible here

Above and below, law office from back, balcony is visible one floor up from ground level

Above law office from back, balcony is visible one floor up from ground level

What does that climb resemble? See the final image below. It fairly precisely resembles the climb in the dark onto Meredith’s balcony, also at the back, a route which two separate sets of burglars used in 2009.

It does NOT resemble at all the climb into Filomena’s room, much higher, in bright light, which to this day not one person has been able to emulate, and which would actually resemble a climb to the office windows at the front in bright streetlight . 

Those who claim that climbing into Filomena’s window was anyone’s known “modus operandi” are not telling the truth.

Above, Meredith’s house from the east with balcony used by burglars at the back

There were no fingerprints in the office and to this day nobody can say for certain what the burglary was really about.

Only that certain legal papers had been accessed and it is held probable in Perugia that someone was trying to interfere with a legal case. Two other offices at the back were bypassed. 

Neither Dr Brocchi nor Ms Maria Del Prato who encountered Guede in her nursery school in Milan pressed charges against him for assault or theft. Their testimonies at trial were low-key and puzzling but certainly did not leave Guede in a worse light. Neither had an axe to grind with him.

So the Milan police and courts finally acted against Guede merely for being in possession of a couple of items of stolen property. Nothing more.

If Guede had no already been convicted he would have served no prison time.

But as we recently reported he gets an additional 16 months in prison and his work-release is denied.  Guede’s final appeal to Cassation has just been turned down.

The killer-groupies should move along. Demonizing Guede with false claims and lying to justice departments (their new angle) will never ensure Knox remains free.


Grateful thanks to one of our intrepid sleuths in Perugia for the shots.

Meredith walked past those offices with Sophie Purton on her final walk home.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 12/12/14 at 07:19 AM | #

For the sake of clarity I assume we are talking of the rear french door/window (shown shuttered and with a balcony)? That, to anyone in the UK would be the first floor i.e the first floor above the ground floor. Or is it the window above, which would have to be accessed via the roof?

Posted by James Raper on 12/12/14 at 01:18 PM | #

Hi James

Good question. This was not explored at Guede’s trial late in October 2008. Translation of Brocchi’s testimony at the Knox-Sollecito trial in 2009 is still to come though Google Translate in this case does quite a good job.’s_Testimony

Under the images below are the two paras from Judge Massei’s report translated by the PMF team.

As with both the courthouse and Meredith’s house, the building is on a slope (first shot below) and the ground at the back is more than a meter but less than two lower down. There is an extra basement-level floor there.

At the street-front there are several glazed grates at that level; at the rear there is a French door without shutters at that level directly behind the gate. At the front the office is at the UK 3rd floor; at the back it is at the UK 4th floor.

Brocchi testified that his office is at the back, between three and four meters from the ground there above a small piazza. His secretary’s room where the French window was broken and his office both front onto that balcony.

The break-in occurred on the night of 13-14 October.  Brocchi said a new alarm had not yet been activated, but the burglar showed some specialist knowledge in disconnecting its phone connection anyway.

A rock was used to break through the double-glazing and the glass was scattered, with some clothes on top.

The heating was turned on, the medical supplies were checked out, and many papers were ransacked and placed into a huge pile. No fingerprints.

Brocchi gave a long description of which papers were searched, which could interest you, and maybe point you to a reason why this breakin occured. Some USB flashdrives were gone.

He also describes some interactions with Milan and Perugia police which suggests they all worked hard on what was in US terms a very minor case. No sign they gave Guede breaks.

Found on Guede in Milan was the Sony Vaio notebook computer that belonged to another lawyer, Matteo Palazzoli, and a Nokia 6310 cellphone that belonged to Brocchi.

The USB flashdrives with data on them and a Canon portable computer printer were not reported recovered as of the 2009 trial and the computer had not yet been returned.

On the 29th of October Guede appeared at the law-office entrance in basketball gear with a ball, and apologised to yet another lawyer, Luciano for having the computer which he claimed he bought from someone in Milan.

Maria Del Prato testified that Guede remained calm and unthreatening in the nursery school in Milan until the police arrived. This contradicts the idea that when he is disturbed on a break-in he attacks.

Popper recently posted here that Italian police dont keep anyone locked up for minor crimes if they have their address. Guede was allowed to go, nothing unusual about that.

Guede failed at trial to convince that he had purchased the stolen goods and he will serve more years.



Massei Report page 33:

The witnesses Paolo Brocchi and Matteo Palazzoli, lawyers, testified on the subject of the burglary of their legal office, located in via del Roscetto 3, Perugia, on the night between Saturday October 13 and Sunday October 14, 2007. The thief or thieves had entered through a window whose panes had been smashed with a rather large stone; the glass was scattered around, and they had found some of their clothing on top of the glass (p. 10, hearing June 6, 2009). From the first inventory they did, they found that a computer, a cell phone, USB keys and a portable printer were missing. On October 29, a colleague in the law office had called the lawyer Paolo Brocchi to tell him that in the corridor was a person who said that he had been found with some goods in Milan, goods that had been declared stolen by the lawyer Brocchi, but which he claimed to have purchased legitimately in Milan. Later, the lawyer Paolo Brocchi recognised this person as Rudy Guede (p. 20, hearing of June 6, 2009).

The lawyer Palazzoli, who testified at the same hearing, and who was a colleague in the same law firm as Brocchi, declared that the broken window was “a French window opening onto a small balcony overlooking the inner courtyard of the building; beneath it, corresponding precisely to our window, there is a door equipped with a metal grille…” (p. 41, hearing of June 26, 2009). He also stated that he had been notified that the computer which had been stolen from him had been found in Milan.

Palazzoli filed in Milan to have the computer returned but it was already being held by Perugia police. He did not file a request with them and as of the 2009 trial did not have the computer back.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 12/12/14 at 02:42 PM | #

Theory?  At the back, that balcony sure is high up, and whoever it was that entered the offices could more easily have broken in at any of the lower three levels and simply walked up the stairs.

That and the state of the legal papers and the stolen PC and flash drives makes me think this was somehow a professional job, and the person really entered via the front door with a rock to simulate a break-in.

Good grief. RS or AK Part One?! Kidding of course, though there had been a local media report, burglaries are so rare, and they could maybe have learned though Filomena’s room was ransacked before the rock hit the glass.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 12/12/14 at 05:11 PM | #

Thanks Pete. So definitely that window. The metal grille looks flush with the railings on the balcony and so there would have been no or little overhang. Easy. Then there are the shutters which, although not much of an impediment, would still have to be jimmied if, as one would presume, they were latched together.

And indeed whoever it was who broke in apparently had tools since Brocchi says that on top of his leather briefcase were found, neatly arranged, screwdrivers, pliers and a hammer, orientated towards the window.The heat had been turned right up and left on, drinks from a cabinet partially consumed and papers rifled etc.

Whoever broke in also seems to have known that the newly installed alarm system had not been activated. Notwithstanding that Brocchi noticed that the dialer had been disabled without damage to the alarm and since Brocchi himself wouldn’t have known how to do that he assumes that the burglar had some competence with alarms.

I checked and no, no one had dumped in an unflushed toilet!

I wonder why Brocchi hadn’t activated the burglar alarm? Rather strange.

One can speculate about the burglar but it does seem like someone who was rather disgruntled and the connection may have been closer to home than the lawyers would like to admit.

I have a dim recollection of seeing a photograph of what I think was the back of another property which Guede is alleged to have burgled as well, according to the FAO. If that’s right then again there was another balcony with easy access to it.

Posted by James Raper on 12/12/14 at 05:47 PM | #

Brocchi says that his studio was on the first floor but then corrects himself and says that actually it was the raised ground floor.

Posted by James Raper on 12/12/14 at 05:55 PM | #

Hi Jaames

That “disgruntled” and “closer to home” made me laugh!

To suspicious minds this could indeed look like a professional threat or payback hit, leaving the feckless Guede red-handed and carrying the can.

And maybe again scared that he knows too much for his own good.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 12/12/14 at 06:12 PM | #

Ps Neither Brocchi nor Palazzoli, defense witnesses, were asked even a single question by the prosecution.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 12/12/14 at 06:39 PM | #

Hi again James

“Brocchi says that his studio was on the first floor but then corrects himself and says that actually it was the raised ground floor.”

I agree. The transcript does say that. I’ve emailed Perugia to maybe go and take another look. I will take the labels off the images till we hear back.

It would actually be fine if the breakin is on a lower floor, that makes it even less like Filomena’s window. The key point of the post is it is a balcony around the back in the dark like the one at the house.

And quite possibly Guede was not the guy.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 12/12/14 at 08:58 PM | #

Good, but I think that your sleuth has got the right building at the back, and she/he has lined up the shuttered window central to the picture.

A catch might be that Brocchi’s law firm has moved since but in his testimony he described a gate leading to a small court (if we can call it that) and said that the door with it’s metal grille was in a plumb line immediately below his window. That’s what we can see in the picture.

As you say, what this shows is how easy it was to get in unobserved and how similar a break in round the back of the cottage would have been to this. So if it was Guede why wouldn’t he use the same modus operandi at the cottage?

In any event the bottom line is that there is only a suspicion but no evidence at all that he broke into the law office.

Posted by James Raper on 12/12/14 at 11:44 PM | #

In order to survive in hostile territory one has to know how to steal. We were taught (and as every criminal knows.) you get in by the easiest method available, usually the front door. Once inside and before you steal anything at all you make sure you have an escape route, usually either a ground floor window or the back door. The idea that Guede did anything different is just plain stupid. Not that it has been proven that he broke in anyway. Front Door…........ Knox had the key did she not?

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 12/13/14 at 12:02 AM | #

Hi James and Grahame

Perugia says James has correctly zeroed in on the point of entry (or faked point of entry) one level up, the French windows with the closed gray shutters.

There are mini-balconies at that level, and one larger one up above. A shot through a gate now added to the post provides sort of another view.

So definitely the modus operandi throughout doesnt point at all to Guede, and it also doesnt point to Filomena’s window at the house.

Another hoax bites the dust. The other burglary claimed as Guede’s probably comes from the attention-seeking imposter to whom Judge Micheli gave such a hard time.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 12/13/14 at 12:33 AM | #

Warning: A new hoax account set up on Twitter with fake pictures of #amandaknox crime evidence

Transparent attempt to get us to retweet it and thus lose credibility.

Thanks to Google Images I was able to find from where the pictures had been lifted.

Typical of them to try and attack the Wiki by linking those disturbing images. Please do not RT or fave this account; I see some of us already have. Though by all means, follow to see what it’s doing 😊

A similar account has already been suspended.

Posted by Ergon on 12/13/14 at 01:49 AM | #

Tks Ergon. Johnny Yen pointed me to the trial testimony of Officer Volturno.’s_Testimony_(English)#Oreste_Volturno.27s_Testimony

He went to Bari to investigate a tip that Sollecito had used scissors to attack a girl but the records had been pulped and the dean of the school back then didnt want to talk.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 12/13/14 at 02:14 AM | #

Hi James:

Still keeping an open mind about whether the entry via the window was real, or faked? As it could have been if it was an inside job - about which the police had suspicions, which could explain why the prosecution asked the two law partners not one single question on the stand.

Still, about those French doors as a credible point of entry. It does seem a pretty easy climb, at least as easy as getting up onto Meredith’s balcony. As you know that type of narrow balcony is not for barbecues or cups of tea, they are simply a legal requirement in Europe and the US to prevent babies falling out when the French doors and shutters are open.

Clicking on the images above expands them. We can see several garbage cans in the foreground just beyond the gate. Any fit man of average height or above should be able to stand on one of those and reach the balcony with his finger-tips. He could then swing himself up in a few seconds and use the balcony to attack the glass doors. .

There is a huge “elephant in the room” silence from the numerous perpetrators of the Guede hoax on the issue of why would Guede choose Filomena’s window when under their scenario the burglar would have had to walk right by the rear balcony at the back - in the dark - three times - without leaving a single footprint.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 12/13/14 at 02:20 AM | #

Wouldn’t be surprised that attack did take place, Peter, pity the records had been pulped.

Posted by Ergon on 12/13/14 at 02:29 AM | #

Nothing stays hidden forever. Sollecito will of course pay dearly for everything he has done and been hushed up. Luciano Aviello had been offered 70’000 euros for his testimony, the money was for a sex change.

He also stated that he was in love with Sollecito. Hope they manage to share a jail cell. I’m sure that Sollecito knows this, but perhaps he has forgotten so I am reminding him here just in case he reads ‘True Justice.’

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 12/13/14 at 02:59 AM | #

“We were taught (and as every criminal knows.) you get in by the easiest method available, usually the front door.”

Thanks, Grahame, you’re my man! I dig your military training (and music, by the way), and appreciate you’re sharing info here with us. I’ll work with you on Bummers (Robin Hoodssein), but that will take some time 😊

For now, Cheers 😊

Posted by Bjorn on 12/13/14 at 06:49 AM | #

Funny how after I exposed the fake account with its gory pictures earlier today the utterly repellant #amandaknox groupies Annella, Marie, Sienna Reid and dopre1 say I put them up? Uh huh. You’re just pissed I did the research and outed you.

Also keeping in mind what Raffaele Sollecito thinks of you.

Posted by Ergon on 12/13/14 at 09:43 AM | #

Liz Houle has written an article for The Examiner highlighting the antics of the FOA lunatics on Twitter:

Please tweet and retweet. Thanks.

Posted by The Machine on 12/13/14 at 02:45 PM | #

Merry Christmas, folks. Great stuff on Lord Lucan, the Sam Vaknin narcissist piece and post where the American in Milan says nobody in Italy “from north to south” thinks Knox is innocent. Too right.

Now Knox has gone dark, probably writing yet another book of fiction illustrated with stained glass scenes of herself and hiding out with her secret latest boyfriend as he competes with her to produce his own H.O.T. music video, inspired by her.

She’s probably querying her newpaper editor and other FOA contacts for new ideas on how to make money. She may be contacting Lisa Basile and exchanging poems with her and ideas for creative websites like gofundme under assumed name.

Will Mr. Ghirga get a Christmas card?

If she is not at odds with her mom and dad by now it would be a miracle.

Let me guess, Edda and G’ma Huff want to return to Germany for Frohe Weinachten and Kristkindlemarkt and Old World Christmas and forget about the last seven years in Seattle. I wouldn’t blame them at all.

Sadly, Knox won’t be joining them or will she? Uncle Ewe may be forgiving or Aunt Dorothy. The bahnhof was ever her friend, make that two friends kissing in cramped compartment with poor Deanna left sitting alone on train.

Knox can return to photograph the exact same café table in Berlin where she sat and drank wine.

More likely if she’s not in New York City or Brooklyn with a certain musician fellow (his parents will not be pleased) she’ll probably spend Christmas with Madison Paxton and play guitar and get very drunk and give fingerless gloves as gifts hidden inside a copy of her book, fall asleep and dream of possible escape routes to sunny South America.

She might be getting an apartment in Brooklyn and enjoying the trains.

Madison is probably pregnant by now.

Posted by Hopeful on 12/13/14 at 05:33 PM | #

Hi Grahame

Thanks for the mention of another pervasive hoax: the Aviello one.

Aviello was the mafia snitch who turned the Hellmann court into a zoo in 2011 when he testified (with no photos allowed) that his brother (still missing) and one other did it. He was very abusive of the prosecutor.

He is now being prosecuted in Florence and was already back in prison in Ferrara for threatening a guy and killing his dog.

His cellmates did implicate the Sollecitos and Giulia Bongiorno for bribes offered and as all these people have a habit of rolling over on one another Aviello could repeat that during trial.

Note the big change of tune this year in Bongiorno. Enemy #1 was Judge Nencini in the first quarter. Seemingly belatedly growing a brain, she has turned her big guns on the Knox team.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 12/13/14 at 07:33 PM | #

Thanks Hopeful, timely comment.

Knox does seem to have disappeared these days. Her harassing of the Kerchers was not only foolish but illegal, and her book and her email to Judge Nencini and her role in jailing the Perugia drug kingpin were all foolishnesses on steroids and all hard to live down on the return trip to Italy.

As a convicted felon she could possibly be denied entry to European countries though there is generally a threshold of three-plus years in prison and questions about criminal records are not always asked.

Germany would probably waive her through. Her book was published there in German and some 80 percent of the German readers have given it five stars. Germany was the only country in Europe where the book was published and libel laws there are pretty lax..ört-werden-Amanda-Knox/dp/3426276062/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1418492548&sr=8-1&keywords=amanda+knox

As we’ve noted a few times Italy has TWO options for the retrieval of Knox if the ruling goes against her in March: formal extradition, and the worldwide issuance of an Interpol Red Notice.

The renegade CIA operative Robert Lady was never the subject of a formal extradition request by Italy but the Interpol Red Notice made life hell for him and had him scampering back to the US from Central America.

After which he went underground, and went broke, and lost his health, and muttered incessantly about suing the CIA and the State Department. Thats a guy Knox could learn a lot from. 

Her only paid gig though (if it is paid) is for the West Seattle Herald, though I guess she could be in the NY area and maybe getting help as the publishers of her book still seem for now to believe in her.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 12/13/14 at 07:49 PM | #

Of course they believe in her Peter after all they laid out the cash.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 12/14/14 at 05:10 AM | #

I’m perfectly happy that a burglar(s) entered Brocchi’s office via the french doors off the balcony. According to Brocchi (or his partner) the burglar(s) exited via the front (street side) windows.

This all seems fine to me: breaking in from the street would attract attention if anyone passed by. Leaving by a street window would carry the same risk, but on the other hand if there was a lot of booty you could get a car to that window.

Palazzoli (the partner, who discovered the break in) tells us that some number of reams of paper were missing (heavy, and not valuable) and that the photocopier was turned on. I deduce that more than one burglar was involved, and that it wasn’t a straightforward opportunistic break-in.

Posted by Sallyoo on 12/14/14 at 03:55 PM | #

Thanks a lot Sallyoo

We are getting both transcripts translated and will post them, one of the translators kindly stepped forward (as they always do). In Italian here they are.

A third partner, Dr Luciano Morini, who later encountered Guede at the door, did not testify. The two testified on 26 July 2009, one of many days of rudderless defense testimony which did not occupy a whole day - even though several of Knox’s Seattle friends were trying to think of nice things to say about her.

Nina Burleigh and other dishonest PR shills leave a great deal out of their summaries of this incident, anything that points away from Guede gets left out. Take a look at this which Burleigh published on the schizophrenic CNN website this year.

Prosecutors’ reluctance to deeply investigate Guede is understandable; they don’t want to know. But Guede may be the most interesting character in the story. Born in Ivory Coast, brought to Italy at age 5, he is more Italian than most immigrants, but, like other immigrants, he is legally just a guest in the homogenous country, not a citizen, required to report to the authorities annually (which was why his fingerprints were on file in Perugia).

What reluctance to deeply investigate Guede? They did a good job and know Burleigh got many “facts” wrong. They had what they needed for all trials and appeals to find him guilty in every instance. He didnt win a single break except the automatic reduction in sentence because his lawyers were smart enough to take the short-form trial.

In the months before the Kercher murder, Guede was broke and showing signs of mental illness, and was involved in three and possibly more home invasions, according to police reports, trial testimony and interviews with victims.

Guede was not involved in any home invasions, Micheli scathingly dismissed one publicity-seeking fraud who claimed he did, and there are no police reports pointing to him except the Milan one which now ultimately has cost him another 16 months.

His apparent modus operandi was to break into what he thought were empty houses and make himself at home. A few weeks before the Kercher murder, someone broke into a Perugia law office through a second floor window, according to trial testimony from the lawyer who practiced there, turned up the heat, rearranged small trinkets, drank an orange soda from the refrigerator and appeared to have slept on the couch before making off with a laptop.

Merely re-arranged some “trinkets” whatever they are?! In fact desperate to pin it all on Guede, what Burleigh conveniently leaves out is that the burglar or burglars did much more than that.

It included sorting and apparent reading and copying of documents and making off with a heavy load of copy paper and some USB flash drives loaded with data while leaving some burglar tools behind. And leaving zero fingerprints throughout.

And omitting Guede’s visit to the office to say the break-in was not by him. Burleigh lies by omission a lot.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 12/14/14 at 06:07 PM | #


“Guede was not involved in any home invasions, Micheli scathingly dismissed one publicity-seeking fraud who claimed he did, and there are no police reports pointing to him except the Milan one which now ultimately has cost him another 16 months.”

The publicity seeking fraud would be Christian Tremontano. He was a witness for the prosecution at the trial of Guede. He claimed that on the 23rd September he was asleep in his house when he awoke to the sounds of a prowler inside. He confronted this prowler who was going through his things. The prowler seized a chair to fend him off and then produced a pocket-knife. In this manner the prowler was able to flee through the front door.

Mr Tremontano says he reported the incident to the police who told him to make an official complaint. He never did as he claims that although he went to the police station there was a long queue and he couldn’t be bothered.

Micheli didn’t find his evidence of assistance because his ID of Guede as the prowler was anything but positive. Tremontano had seen a photograph of Guede on his arrest and thought there was a similarity but was unable to describe the prowler in court and was only able to say that he thought it was Guede.

Micheli was also puzzled why the prowler would go for a chair first (defensive) and then a knife (offensive) since handling both at the same time would only encumber him.

Micheli also noted that Guede says that he used a chair to defend himself against Meredith’s attacker, a fact which, according to Micheli, was in the public domain by the time that Tremontano went to the police.

Tremontano in the Guede trial is a bit like Kokomani in the AK/RS trial. Both had something to report but the court did not find them entirely helpful.

There is no information I can find as to how the prowler was supposed to have entered Tremontano’s house. However if the prowler was able to flee through the front door then presumably that would have been the point of entry as well.

Finally, a gold watch was supposedly found in Guede’s possession at the Milan nursery, which allegedly belonged to his neighbour whose property had been burgled. This was apparently a heirloom. I am not sure where this information comes from but it is in one of Karen Pruett’s Ground Report articles.

If there was any truth to this I would have thought that the police would have returned the watch and that Guede would have been charged with theft/handling.

So we have two confirmed burglaries one of which was residential and the other business premises. Not the 3, 4 or more residential burglaries that Burleigh is trying to pin on him. I can imagine her scouring police reports for September/October for anything, just anything, to add to the Milan incident.

The other side pump out all their suppression of evidence nonsense but Tremontano was a prosecution witness who alerted the AK/RS defence to the possibility that Guede had a police record for breaking and entering.

Posted by James Raper on 12/14/14 at 11:15 PM | #

Nice work James. Let me guess. That excellent summary was not put together from the posts of the increasingly shrill…  !!

In Milan Maria Del Prato herself said it looked like one of her own staff had given Guede a key so there was no case at all for a breakin there.

In Perugia Paolo Brocchi and Matteo Palazzoli were not too comfortable on the stand, quite possibly because they were pretty sure Guede was not the one (or more) moonlighting on their legal work.

In Perugia Christian Tremontano did not report a breakin and had no clear look at the supposed burglar and appeared to Micheli to be thrilled to be “first with the news”.

Anyone who attended the Micheli hearings in September and October 2008 (read: defence) knew about the breakins and possible, possible connections to Guede.

Defense called Del Prato and Brocchi and Palazolli to the stand in July 2009 but not Tremontano; so much for his credibility.

Defense later called Aviello also who said it was two others and in effect Guede wasnt even involved; so much for their conviction that Guede acted alone - or even acted. 

Judge Micheli sentenced Guede to life in prison and didnt need a silly hypothetical to make his judgment more secure.

But Judge Micheli also explained at length why Guede could not have acted alone.

That was sustained by the appeal court and Supreme Court.

About Milan Popper and Yummi have repeatedly explained that no-one in Italy gets locked up pending trial merely for one or two items of stolen goods. Milan police knew where Guede was and at time of trial sent for him.

Despite all of the above, the killer-groupies have been ignorantly leapfrogging one another like rabbits to take the hardest line with the most invented “facts”.

The silly killer-groupie Joseph Bishop wrote this on Ground Report after Guede had already been charged with the crime for which he just got 16 months. All the claims in bold do not stand up.

In the weeks leading up to the murder, Guede was in the midst of a one man crime spree that had been fully been brought to the attention of Italian authorities. These Italian police officials chose to do absolutely nothing in response to repeated citizen complaints concerning violent crimes that they had seen him commit.

If Italian police had simply done their jobs and taken Rudy Guede out of circulation, then Meredith would never have lost her life.  In the years following the murder, Italian authorities have done everything in their power to stonewall any investigation of their failures in the case.  This selfish and illegal obstruction of justice has helped to keep two innocent young people, Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, behind bars for a murder they did not commit.

In the trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito defense attorneys were forced to rely on the testimony of people who had themselves been robbed and threatened by Rudy Guede because the police officials who had investigated the crimes refused to come to court and testify….

In the United States and other Western democracies, law enforcement officers are bound by oath… <b>Italian law enforcement does not play by these rules.

Italian police failed utterly and absolutely to investigate Rudy Guede following the murder of Meredith Kercher. As part of any responsible post-murder investigation, police should have carefully investigated his illegal acts prior to the murder, particularly ones that bore an apparent similarity to what was observed at the crime scene….

If they had tried they might noted his propensity to lie; his tendency to act without accomplices; that he often ransacked the crime scene over an extended period of time; that he entered though elevated windows broken with rocks;  that he ate from the refrigerator; that he stole cell phones.  Most important of all was his use of knives as weapons…

The similarities between Guede’s modus operandi in the law office break-in and what was found at the Meredith Kercher crime scene was stunning. In both incidents he had entered through an elevated window broken with a rock, he had no accomplices, he stole a cell phone, and he extensively ransacked the scene for no apparent reason….

Despite having definitive knowledge of his participation in two burglaries, Milanese police never charged Rudy Guede with anything.  They simply put him back on a train to Perugia where he could be somebody else’s problem.

Yeah. Right. Over a dozen false claims in that short quote. And here are more.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 12/15/14 at 04:34 AM | #

Hi Pete

Yet other examples of pure, blatant, projection….especially in the second and sixth paragraphs of the quote.

Shocking, especially the assumption that this modus operandi of transferring blame can just be continued ad nauseum.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 12/15/14 at 07:59 AM | #

Hi SeekingUnderstanding

Right. Modus operandi: Feverishly make stuff up. Ignore hundreds of hard facts. Dont go to Italy. Dont attend court. Dont interview police. Dont interview prosecution. Dont read court documents. Demonize police. Demonize prosecution. Believe every word Knox says though she served three years for criminal lying. Dont publish in Italian. Be even more shrill than the previous claimant. Thump your chest about how stupid and corrupt those Italians are, though you have no Italian, and no qualifications at all to investigate crimes. Keep Mariott’s and the Knox-Mellases’ fingerprints off it. Get naive experts and understaffed news media to lie to Americans and Brits, though not to Italians. Harass the victim’s family. Make money out of all of the above.

Oh and assume if a guy is interviewed by the police on suspicion of throwing a large rock through a window, he will go out and do it again less than a week later.  Even though the kitchen window and French door on Meredith’s balcony can be opened with the simplest of tools as proven twice in 2009.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 12/15/14 at 03:03 PM | #


Posted by James Raper on 12/17/14 at 11:23 AM | #

Young man climbs up to Filomena’s window

He patently uses the bars on her window. Somehow I can’t see Guede picking out shards of glass (which he didn’t cast down on to the ground) and then squeezing through the insufficient aperture he left with it’s lethal cutting edges.

Posted by James Raper on 12/17/14 at 12:15 PM | #

James In November 2007 there were no bars on the window or am I wrong here? However even if the bars were there how do you get through the bars????

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 12/18/14 at 04:20 AM | #

It only addresses climbing up…not in.

It doesn’t make sense. Either the supposed entrant carried the rock up, so climbed up with no bars and only one hand free….??....or they threw the rock earlier (from where?), and no glass at all fell on the sill or the ground, (and should have been under the clothes AND computer).

None was displaced by climbing through, which was further done without a scratch, bleed or mark. Then after all that effort nothing was stolen, which AK and RS mysteriously knew without checking.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 12/18/14 at 09:37 AM | #

Richard Branson has commented on the case and provided a link to Injustice in Perugia on Twitter:

Posted by The Machine on 12/18/14 at 09:21 PM | #

It would appear Richard Branson does not have the time to read in any depth or detail.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 12/18/14 at 11:26 PM | #

Thanks Machine & SU.

Richard Branson wrote: “Questions need answering in the Amanda Knox case, everyone deserves fair treatment & a fair trial #readbyrichard”

He seems to have concluded Knox did not receive fair treatment, & a fair trial.

The only Questions needing an answer. Is “Has Branson read the Court Reports?  and if not, why not?

Posted by Cardiol MD on 12/19/14 at 05:51 AM | #

Did Donald Trump read the court reports?

Posted by Ergon on 12/19/14 at 07:18 AM | #
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.

Where next:

Click here to return to The Top Of The Front Page

Or to next entry Knox Interrogation Hoax #17: Fifth Opportunity Knox Flunked: RS Supreme Court Appeal

Or to previous entry The Victim As Seen Through The Eyes Of A Past Abuser: Insights From Dr Sam Vaknin