Friday, January 02, 2015

Rudy Guede As Serial Burglar: Pure Innuendo,  Court Testimony Provides ZERO Proof

Posted by Peter Quennell

Maria Del Prato in the inner courtyard in Milan from which her pre-school opens off

1. Summary Of The Hoax

For the defense teams and especially the army of PR tricksters a lot hangs on proving:

(1) Guede was a break-and-enter thief around Perugia (although he had only recently returned from a paying job in a failed restaurant north of Milan);

(2) Who chose to break into Meredith’s house (well before 9:00 pm? In intense light from up above? Via an impossible route? Not knowing if any of the four girls was home? And not knowing if there was anything of value?);

(3) Who had a history of violence or sexual depravity (though he was the only one of the three with no police record? and not even a single past accuser?);

(4) Who had a prior history of similar break-ins with three proven instances; had in fact been a serial burglar. 

Many TJMK posts debunk claims (1) to (3). In this post we will debunk the fourth one.

Up to the present day, no UK or US media seems to have ever reported in English the key segments of Guede’s 2008 trial or Knox’s and Sollecito’s 2009 trial that relate to this. Had they ever done so, the now-pervasive notion of Guede as sole perp - lone wolf - would never have gained the ground that it has.

All UK and US followers would readily understand why ALL courts said THREE attackers were at the scene and the breakin was faked. 

2. 2009 Trial Attempts To Incriminate Guede

All the testimony about supposed break-ins by Guede was presented by the defense on 26 July and 27 July 2009.  These were two lackluster half-days for the defense. 

3. Summary Of What It Amounted To

That trial testimony fell far short of providing the numerous Rudy Guede demonizers with all they now claim. Here are the witnesses the defenses called. 

1. Pre-school principal Maria Del Prato

She came across as understanding and fair. Maria Del Prato conceded that Guede probably had a key loaned to him by one of her staff which explained why no break-in charges were lodged.  Milan police did not just let him go, they checked his record with Perugia police (he had none and police knew little or nothing of him) and knew where he was for a possible later charge.

2. Christian Tramontano

Tramontano was a security guard and bouncer. There is a noted tendencies in those occupations to claim acts of bravery which in many cases never happened. This looked to cops like one such instance. His one-page police report filed late said he called the cops; there is no record.

He had claimed someone threatened him in his house in the dark with a knife who he much later said looked like a shot of Guede in the papers.He was never called to court. At a hearing in October 2008 Judge Micheli sharply denounced him in his absence as having made things up and wasted police and court time.

3. Lawyers Matteo Palazzoli and Brocchi

Matteo Palazzoli had first encountered the break-in scene during a Sunday night visit to his office and found his computer gone. He did not elaborate very much, and seemed glad to be gone.

His colleague Lawyer Brocchi who had the least involvement talked the most - but he could be read as pointing a finger away from what he believed really happened for brownie points with the court.

Here courtesy of Miriam’s translations is the key 2009 trial testimony

Click for Post:  Guede Hoax: Translation Of Lawyers Testimony #1 On Breakin Shows No Concrete Connection To Guede

Click for Post:  Guede Hoax: Translation Of Lawyers Testimony #2 On Breakin Shows No Concrete Connection To Guede

4. A Major Unfairness To Guede

We have knocked chips off Guede in the past, but how this testimony (albeit mild) opened the gates to a wave of innuendo was simply unfair. HE WAS NOT EVEN IN COURT.

Neither he nor his lawyers were there to cross-examine the witnesses or call more witnesses of their own and the prosecution did not ask even one question. Nobody asked what legal documents may have been involved.

This has allowed supposition to grow unchallenged, though it looked like a red-herring by the defenses at the time.

5. What Guede’s Team Could Have Brought Out

Note what Guede if his team had been present could have brought out:

1. Nobody in Italy is given precautionary custody simply for possessing several items none of which were reported as stolen which conceivably could have been passed to him by another perp. When those were later proven stolen Guede was charged and he was recently sentenced in Milan to another 16 months.

2. The French window one floor above the ground in the dark around the back would have been easy to break into on a Saturday night according to Matteo Palazzoli by simply climbing up the grill over the French window below and then using the balcony to break through.

This is very far from the supposed scenario for Guede breaking into Filomena’s window

    (1) during Perugia’s late rush-hour on a weekday evening with a lot of cars and people still around,

    (2) under a great deal of light both from the street lights and the carpark lights above,

    (3) bypassing several other much easier entrances all of them in deep dark,

    (4) while leaving no prints and no DNA anywhere outside the window or in the room,

    (5) on a day when as far as he knew all four girls were in town (in fact three of them still were).

3. Zero fingerprints were found in the lawyers’ offices though a great many items had been touched.

4. What appear to be the tools of a habitual burglar were left at the scene.

5. The burglar alarm dial-out had been disabled by someone who knew the special trick to doing that.

6. The copier was switched on and some quantity of copy paper and several USB drives with legal data were gone.

7. A front window had been opened and then not fully closed, seemingly to pass things through to someone waiting with a car.

Payback or warning by a legal opponent? Such things are not unknown. Neither lawyer ever systematically reported a theft to the police. No comprehensive investigation was ever begun.

Paolo Brocchi claimed he didnt even know that one of his cellphones was gone. Matteo Palazzoli never gave the serial number of his computer to the police. Palazzoli could only weakly testify that Guede came by - to say he was not the real thief.

Each seemed embarrassed to be put on the stand by a flailing defense and simply anxious to move on.


We do have our own frustrations with Guede but they are real: how he got the automatic reduction in sentence for the short-form trial without coming clean, how he maintains even now that Meredith invited him in.

But the wheels came off the Lone Wolf theory at Guede’s 2008 trial and Cassation has locked that in stone.  The Knox people are so busy babbling that they never stop to read or think, or they would fall silent at these:

Posted by Peter Quennell on 01/02/15 at 08:52 PM | #

OK I’m going to play Devils Advocate here and point out something that, rather obviously, the FOA have not considered.

Just suppose for a wild moment that their petition to governments was successful and one granted Knox an inquiry into the evidence? After all they insist that.

(a) A retrial would exonerate Knox. (Sollecito can bug off.)

(b) They insist (using the Joseph Goebels play book) that there is no evidence.

(c) They insist that Knox was wrongly convicted because the Italians are protecting Mignini.

(d) They refuse to even consider the possibility of guilt. (Once more with feeling: Joseph Goebels) And

(e)The usual cadre of the self aggrandizement bunch, be it the children at GroundReport or the usual suspects who are in it for the money (Moore, Fischer, Curt Knox, Chris Mellas et al) plus the gullible fools who, without any concrete proof to support it, just believe Knox could do no wrong, aka Karen Pruett.

(f) They want people to believe that it’s all propaganda and lies, and that her “confession” was coerced through sleep deprivation and threats which Knox originally said wasn’t true then conveniently changed her story once more to say it was.

OK so far. Big question therefore is whose going to pay for it? The Italians won’t and neither will the State Department under whose purview this belongs.

When you consider any government review of anything and the work involved it costs about four to five million. It’s that high because there would be a review of all the evidence in which case with the end result being still the same…... ie guilty.

We on the other hand, have correlated cross checked and read everything including the forensics the autopsy plus Knox statements in her own words. Plus Sollecitos plus the other girls in the flat plus Lamumba plus the phony break-in and anything that has gone to trial has been corroborated and cross checked by direct testimony (see the post above and elsewhere).

We have read Sollecito’s statements and lies and Knox’s lies plus her lists of names which she offered without any coercion at all (“the best lies I can think”) and the arresting cops plus the interview which the FOA grandly claim was a tag team of twenty or so cops working on Knox to elicit an incriminating statement. Sorry FOA but she offered up Patrick Lumumba when she said she was there and covered her ears.

So concerning the petition with 1500 signatures, most of them made up, and to repeat myself.

Who’s going to pay for it? and what will the FOA do if that hypothetical review was to take place and found her guilty once more?

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 01/02/15 at 09:12 PM | #

Excellent Grahame

Unless they really catch fire these petitions are a sure indicator of weakness not strength. There must be immense frustration at the 1500 half of whom are made up - that will show up in any check.

It wont be the US that pays and what other government cares? The State Department monitored the trial and appeals (and Knox in prison) and has an extremely accurate understanding of the process, which to their eyes was quite fair.

They know Knox did drugs up to the night of her arrest. They know that she has a felony, is a convicted felon for life. They know she had sharp elbows and was increasingly disliked. They know that her “studies” in Perugia could be taken care of in several hours a week. They know that she was working illegally without a work permit - and then shafted the employer who was kind enough to take the risk.

Right about them forgetting Sollecito, too, he is likely to do any Knox on the loose an immense amount of harm. If there was any leadership with a brain in their careening bus Job One would be to stop them babbling, and sit down and read and think.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 01/02/15 at 10:04 PM | #


You were in real crimefighting for real governments and you will know how they are pestered by status-craving wannabees and fakes.

Private security guards are among the worst, hence the term “security guard syndrome” where they turn into media-hungry drama-queens “first with the news”.

Steve Moore is essentially a jobless security guard now which explains a lot. Christian Tramontano was a bouncer at a nightclub just closed down because of mafia links so he is a jobless security guard too.

Judge Micheli instantly spotted Tramontano as a drama queen with security guard syndrome and disbelieved that he ever encountered anyone in his house.

And yet ignoring this the babblers for Knox still build huge structures upon his claims.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 01/02/15 at 10:54 PM | #

Sorry to report that Doug Bremner, who very foolishly repeated Gman Moore’s lie that harry rag=John Kercher Jr. (originally sourced from Dr. David Anderson) and took it down for a few months, has now put it back up again on his blog and Facebook page.

As March 25 draws closer, they seem to be getting more vicious and the attacks on the Kerchers will continue.

Bremner blog

Bremner Facebook

Posted by Ergon on 01/03/15 at 01:54 AM | #

Doug Bremner is bipolar and delusional. Even his own sister has said that. The entire Kercher family now never goes online. Neither John Sr nor Arline are at all well.

Essentially what the Doug Bremners are going is knocking years off all of their lives. Murder all over again. Stalking of victims and their families is a felony both in the US and UK.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 01/03/15 at 02:30 AM | #

Matteo Palazzoli and Paolo Brocchi didnt point decisively at Guede, but unsurprisingly they werent going to stick their necks out and publicly float any other theory.

Very stoic!  Putting that another way, smarter to shrug off some broken window glass and rustled legal papers and stolen USB drives than to wake up to a horse’s head in one’s bed.

Some murky things do go on in Italy, although without doubt the police and prosecutors who persevered to get Meredith’s case right are the good guys, and those who impugn them are in bed (knowingly or unknowingly) with some very bad guys.

Preston and Heavey and Dempsey and Moore and Fischer and Burleigh and Sforza and Doug Bremner (and George Clooney!) as fellow-travelers of the mafia, and the rogue masons, and the satanic sects?  How much more naive can one get?! 

It is really time some of them woke up a bit, there is enough already in the open to educate themselves and there is going to be a lot more. 

Preston’s furtive evidence-planting operation and his Monster of Florence book were really a huge whitewash - see this post and especially the incriminating wiretaps;

Here are the summaries of two more wiretaps of the clowns trying to lead the cops toward the planted false evidence pointed to the Sardinian guy they were framing to become world-famous while simultaneously taking heat off the bad guys.

The criminal operation stands out even more egregiously in conversation n. 16950 of February 13. 2006, between Mr. SPEZI, the deviser of the plot, and his right hand man Nando Zaccaria; and when RUOCCO gives Mr. SPEZI “information” about the name of the person who allegedly attended the villa, Mr. SPEZI himself calls Mr. ZACCARIA, and, while making him understand that Mr. Gianfranco Bernabei had already been contacted and the report-complaint had been given to him, he adds: “So he called me.. not him Gianfranco… the other guy, we have an appointment at 2:30pm, because he knew about the name”; and ZACCARIA cries out: “Beautifullllll!” with satisfaction.

In conversation n. 17095 of February 19. 2006, Mr. SPEZI calls Mr. ZACCARIA again and urges him to explain him (to the Flying Squad chief) thoroughly about the “six small boxes”, that is to convince him that the objects are related to the murders. Mr. ZACCARIA tells him that he already explained it to the other guy and says: “If they go there they must look very well.. at everything…”, and Mr. SPEZI: “What I mean to say… if he finds a hairpin this doesn’t mean anything to him…”, making him understand that he will need to “work” him out.

Mr. ZACCARIA adds in the end: “Then I told him, well while we go… when it’s… when you are going… he says anyway he advises us”. Mr. SPEZI says he agrees and Mr. ZACCARIA reassures him saying he [Bernabei] doesn’t know anything about the case and never dealt with it, then he complains about that the nowadays officers are incapable of doing their job. Thus the chief of the Flying Squad, Dr. Fillippo Ferri, will need to be led by “malicious” Mr. ZACCARIA. Then Mr. SPEZI asks Mr. ZACCARIA to advise him when he goes there (to the Villa). Anyway we remand to the unequivocal content of the conversation, at pages 6, 7 and 8 of request n. 114/06 G.I.De.S.

The rogue Florence prosecutor’s case against Mignini was also a whitewash, as were the actions of the Narducci 22 to try to kill the well-founded murder investigation.

(Cassation confirmed that Narducci was indeed murdered, and there was a bodyswap, when scathingly smacking down Judge Micheli’s belated ruling of nearly 1000 pages that it was merely a suicide.) 

We have posted quite a lot about all of this, though the connecting of all of the dots of the big picture is still ahead of us. These are two overview posts for starters.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 01/03/15 at 05:40 PM | #

OK Just out of curiosity I went to Bremners Facebook page. The similarity between him and Curt Knox plus Frank Sforza is striking because of their similarity. If you look at their expressions you see two things. One is Anger and Two is Fear.

This is telling because it says that both of them are scared of discovery which is the hallmark of cowardice. In other words, psychologically they are cut from the same cloth. People like these put forward a front of aggression in order to hide the fact that they are scared. Steve Moore gives the same vibe only not as much, since he has had a modicum of training in personal discipline, although given his background very little. In other words he has not been indoctrinated as in comprehensive in-depth military training.

People who elicit the expression best described as “Don’t Mess With Me” do not and should not scare anybody at all because of it’s basis is cowardice, and thereby they are at best just childish bullies who stamp their little feet trying to get their own way. In other words they have contributed nothing to this world except phlegm and halitosis. 

On the other hand the people who do scare me elicit no emotion at all. People such as David Berkowitz, Jeffery Dahmer, etc, do not consider killing people or harming small animals such a big deal. In other words they have no emotion, which in a war situation can be viewed as a positive thing, but only if it has its basis in the destruction of enemies of the state. (The Nuremberg defense.)

Doug Bremner and Curt Knox exhibit a mind set just like that of a dog’s “back off’” which is more likely to lose it at some critical moment. People such as this were weeded out of Special Ops because they were unstable and thereby a danger to others since, presented with danger, they would run away, or if captured they would tell everything they knew within the first five minutes of interrogation.

This is not to say that Bremner, in the normal course of day-to-day is anyway dangerous at all, because he (plus Curt Knox/Steve Sforza) placed in a dangerous situation would turn tail and run. That is because they can only attack others through surrogates since they do not have the fortitude to do it themselves. (We used to call it “The Bottle”) Bremner attacks the Kerchers because he can, but if faced with direct aggression he would fold like a cheap suit, proving once and for all just what insects they really are. So please ignore their screams of frustration at being ignored which, more than anything, they cannot stand.

Speaking of lack of emotion and thereby the ability to do harm to others without a second thought consider the lack of expression upon the faces of

Karla Homolka,
Casey Anthony,
Jodi Arias.
Mary Ann Cotton,

or in England
Myra Hindley,
Rose West etc;

Then when you consider Amanda Knox the similarity is strikingly obvious.  The lack of expression, lack of empathy, sociopath to the enth degree where all of these people use others to further their own ends. Consider Knox’s reaction upon being faced with the discovery of Meredith’s body at the cottage and her comments at that time such as “Shit Happens”. Then consider her reaction when told that Sollecito had taken away her alibi because only when threatened directly did she break down, scream and cover her ears with both hands, and accuse Patrick Lumumba.

NO!! People who show no emotion at all I am wary of, because they are the most dangerous. On the other hand, such people as Curt Knox and Doug Bremner, Steve Moore, plus the others, are chaff in the wind and mean nothing at all. They, like Amanda Knox, Jodi Arias, Aileen Wuornos etc; have contributed nothing to society or this world and like Wuornos their collective madness will become more obvious as time passes.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 01/03/15 at 11:37 PM | #

Hey, Grahame, absolutely right on the interpretation of facial expressions, but I think Knox’s actually shows fear, which is most obvious in her eyes, see for example:

<iframe width=“560” height=“315” src=”//” frameborder=“0” allow=“autoplay; encrypted-media” allowfullscreen></iframe>

at 0:27, 1:34, 6:31 (notice also the fascinating inverted forehead lines visible @ 6:31, something I’ve never seen on other people, I have researched it and found only a speculation that it is a sign of “general wickedness”, not very convincing, but believable, given what we know).

With the proper type and amount of pressure, Knox *will* break down again (she already has), so far she has been somewhat shielded from all that by the monstruous PR machine.

Knoxy knows she “done” a bad, bad thing, for sure, and is certainly dangerous, but her eyes are betraying her fear.

Happy New Year, everyone.

Posted by Bjorn on 01/04/15 at 05:04 AM | #

You’re right I never noticed that before and it is unusual in the aspect of being unique. I have never seen that before in anybody else either.

I’m not sure about the general wickedness speculation but I will take that under advisement and keep an eye open to see if there are any others of the same kind.

Thank you for the heads up.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 01/04/15 at 05:20 AM | #

The Knox YouTube:  How in Gods name do you do that?

It’s as though the muscles at the back of the head, or over the cranium, contract pulling the facial muscles upward instead of down.

Has she had ‘Botox’ injections I wonder? Boy! Salem Massachusetts would have had a field day with this.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 01/04/15 at 05:25 AM | #

Hi Bjorn and Grahame

Not for the first time, Knox’s expressions and body language are observed as saying one thing and her words quite another.

SeekingUnderstanding and others have often remarked on this in the Psychology posts.

The falsities and faux self-pity revealed in that very interview were even picked up in Italy. Play this version of the YouTube here.

<iframe width=“560” height=“315” src=“” frameborder=“0” allow=“autoplay; encrypted-media” allowfullscreen></iframe>

Posted by Peter Quennell on 01/04/15 at 03:44 PM | #

Yes, Peter, thank you, I do remember SeekingUnderstanding’s (and others’) competent observations, and I do remember the chipmunk version of the interview, which should really be the official one, it always cracks me up big time 😊

Posted by Bjorn on 01/04/15 at 06:46 PM | #

Hello Bjorn, and my sincere good wishes for the New Year to you and all here.

Thankyou for reminding me about the chipmunk spoof, it is very funny.
I watched the clips above again, but with no sound at all. I believe the great extent to which AK is acting or performing - and trying to impress - really does show in this silent mode.

It would seem that Paul Ekman, the body language expert, would agree with you about the perceived fear. On several counts, these raised forehead lines - in this context - would seem to spell out fear.
Quite why, or indeed how, they manage to curve inversely, is open to guessing…perhaps an idiosyncratic feature?

The forehead, the eye area, and the mouth area all seem to be disjointed…no one message at all.
So confirming the contrariness, confused state, and fear, - yet again. Combined with a desperate and devious duplicity - what an illustration of insincerity. It is so clear without the sound.

Hopefully this year will see the beginning of the end to all this performing, and long deserved closure can begin.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 01/04/15 at 11:18 PM | #
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 Sound Familiar? Callous Attacker Who Smirked At Trial Turns Into A Whiny Victim

Or to previous entry Guede Hoax: Translation Of Lawyers Testimony #2 On Breakin Shows No Concrete Connection To Guede