What Is The Legal Situation As Of Todays Hearing Of Rudy Guede, As Set Out By The Courts Themselves?
Posted by KrissyG
Update: The Florence court has agreed to do an initial review and has requested some documents and will convene again on January 10. The court could then trigger Criminal Code Article 636 which provides for a quick retrial focusing on that evidence relevant to what Guede’s team think was handled wrong, which rotates around the identity of the other two. There is tough evidence suggesting he was part of the attack so a simple release seems not in the cards. But there is tough evidence also suggesting that RS and AK were those other two, as Florence Judge Nencini in 2014 already showed.
What is Guede’s legal situation as set out by 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.
One starting point might be the recent crimepod broadcast by ex-FBI agent and ex- District Attorney & prosecutor, Jim Clemente, in tandem with Laura Richards, criminal psychologist and ex-Scotland Yard, wherein they attempt a ‘behavioural analysis’ of the Guede interview on RAI3an Italiana TV channel earlier this year with interviewer Franca Leosini.
My analysis below of their analysis will highlight some of the misconceptions about the case revealed by Clemente and Richards in this broadcast, which can be accessed here.
Sorting the Facts from the Spin
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 have referred 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 conversation 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.
Thus, 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.
A summary of the main findings of Judge Micheli
• 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
How the ‘True Crime’ Masters of Spin Clemente and Richards Act as PR-Agents for Knox and Sollecito
1. Is Clemente’s and Richards’ claim – one of Guede being the ‘lone killer’ grounded in any substance?
2. The timeline of the events from Guede’s point of view
3. Could Guede have been the sole killer?
4. How do Knox and Sollecito fit in with Guede?
5. The actual legal position with Guede, as laid down at Guede’s trial.
6. How this differs from the Fifth Chambers (Knox & Sollecito) Supreme Court’s controversial ruling in March 2015, acquitting the pair on the grounds of Article 530 Para II, ‘Not guilty: due to insufficient evidence’.
These are the claims of Clemente and Richards,which reflect the views of pro-innocence campaigners of Knox & Sollecito, critiquing Franca Leosini’s tv interview.
During their broadcast several ‘behavioral’ observations are made:
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.
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.’
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.’
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.
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.
6. Becomes very detailed and specific. He saying look, I’m very clean. Poor boy ‘found myself in Germany’. 101% - extending.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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’.
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..
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.
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’.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Timeline of events from 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.
Could Guede have been the 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.
Micheli’s Finding 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
The March 2015 Fifth Chambers Ruling acquitting 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.
*** UPDATE*** It has been decided that there will be a decision on whether to revise Guede’s verdict on 10 January 2017
Source: The Murder of Meredith Kercher wiki: http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Primary_Sources
News just out.
Decision on Guede’s verdict will be 10 January 2017.
Tommaso Pietrocarlo, an attorney on Guede’s defense team, said the court “will now be able to compare the two sentences”, stressing that his client’s conviction was based on the “necessary participation also of Amanda Know and Raffaele Sollecito”, something that the supreme Cassation Court has “absolutely ruled out”.
The attorneys representing Kercher’s family, Vieri Fabiani and Francesco Maresca, instead denied that Guede’s conviction implied that Knox and Sollecito had played a role in the murder.
Fabiani said there were no grounds to revise the trial because new evidence had not been presented and Guede’s conviction was not incompatible with the acquittal of Knox and Sollecito.
“What has not been proven is that the murder could not be committed without those accomplices”, as claimed by Guede in his petition, Fabiani noted. Maresca added that the petition to revise the trial was also “not sufficiently motivated”.
If you want the gloating of RS and AK to not persist for the next 50 years this IS the way to go.
It’s important to understand that this could and should be more than a matter of an appeal court interpreting the letter of the law. It should get into some of the evidence too.
There was severe (illegal) mission-creep on the part of two of the previous courts:
(1) Hellmann’s in 2011. Then the First Chambers in 2013 at length explained how he went too far and should not have interpreted much of the evidence at all.
(2) Marasca/Bruno’s in 2013. As the pending Mignini suit against Maori explains, the Fifth Chambers should not have got into the evidence at all (okay, should not even have got the case).
If mission-creep and some crazy stretching of the evidence (especially re the DNA) had not been allowed to rule then Nencini’s would have been the last word.
If the Supreme Court has evidence questions the code clearly mandates that they must be referred back down, in the 2015 Cassation appeal back down to the Nencini court.
This new court as an appeal court equivalent to Nencini’s CAN get into the evidence that the appellant (Guede) raises.
Which we presume is what the RS and AK forces were not hoping for.
IMV anything that can keep an avenue open for the Kerchers is to be welcomed, with the caveat we don’t want to see Guede walk scot free either (unless of course, on a remote chance he really is innocent of murder at least).
Whilst Guede has indeed been definitively convicted of aggravated murder, and the verdict has been fairly arrived at by Micheli who looked into all aspects carefully, where Guede does have a legal loophole is that Micheli specifically said he was guilty of aggravated murder and *explicitly* said it was *in complicity*.
In other words, he did not use the term as a figure of speech or a turn of phrase to make his MR eloquent, he meant it in the strict *legal sense* of the word; ie *with others*.
If we leave aside for argument the sexual assault, heinous as it is, if there *are no others* involved in the crime of murder Guede is *complicit* in, then it does make a mockery of Micheli’s MR.
In addition, Marasca-Bruno did not state, ‘there could have been just Guede as the sole perpetrator’, which could have been a modifier to Micheli; coming as it does, after, as of Micheli’s ruling had yet to be tried. However, M-B even explicitly said a random burglar (which he would be were he the sole perp who came in through the window) would not be of the type of a sadistic serial killer.
M-B stated the burglary was faked as a proven fact.
If it was faked, how could Knox and Sollecito have been at the scene, yet ‘not complicit’ in it? They, too, failed to summon help for Meredith, at the very least (look how they delayed calling the police; and Knox, not at all).
From a strictly legal POV, there are BIG contradictions in the M-B verdict.
Not only that, it also clashes with the Massei and Nencini verdicts, as though they never happened.
One may not agree with Massei or Nencini 100% or at all, but there is no doubting their reasoning is fair, legally logical and properly arrived at.
That’s my 2p worth of the situation.
This post is a lot to process. KrissyG, you have organized a whole lot of material, thank you, and clarified Guede’s current position. Guess we wait until January 2017 for further results.
His prison diary emphasizes the copious amount of blood which his memory saw when he “shut his eyes” to sleep, and Garofano said the spray of blood from neck which was nowhere to be seen on floor or upholstery in the room, would most likely have been sprayed onto the person who removed the knife, who was standing or bending down very near the victim.
Then Guede adds that his pants were soaked with blood, so he might have meant his pants were the recipient of the bloodspray, but Micheli has ruled him out as the wielder of the knife. That means maybe Guede was standing, kneeling or squatting or somehow holding Meredith’s left hand restrained while Amanda or Raffaele plunged the knife into the neck.
My point is that the spray on removal of the knife would then have hit AK or RS in the face, perhaps the eyes, which they reflexively closed. Could Guede be unconsciously referring to this when he speaks of seeing blood when he closed eyes.
A special shock for him might have been seeing AK’s white face or RS’s white face or both faces suddenly covered with red blood, a shocking sight that has remained in Guede’s memory, especially if he saw how it contrasted to the color her blood appeared against his own darker skin (although still red in appearance, though not the high contrast).
Guede’s use of the towels would have put him in more contact with the blood and he may be remembering a sense of futility at trying to absorb all of it or clear it from the floor. These things taken together (blood on white faces, closed eyes, towels wiping up blood, perhaps offering a towel to RS and AK, the massive amount of blood they hadn’t anticipated perhaps) all add up to Guede venting this to his prison diary, IMO.
I don’t believe he’s lying about his pants being soaked unless they were soaked with urine if he was badly frightened. That’s possible, and he may be covering up that minor embarrassment with another lie.
He mentions being frightened by “a noise downstairs”. He’s such a liar, it might have been not himself but AK and RS who were frightened thinking someone had come into the cottage downstairs; maybe the cat made the noise. Or maybe the noise was not downstairs at all but out on the street, a police siren or gravel crunching in the driveway and like a true liar Guede is pointing south when he means north.
Guede’s lies are mostly self-serving ones and the pants being soaked would not help his case, so I think his pants were soaked. A third possibility, maybe they were soaked with soapy water as he started to help with cleanup then gave up and left.
About the bloodspray that may have landed squarely on the knifewielder’s upper arm, neck, chest and face, maybe Knox had to carefully wash her ears because the spray had drenched her inner ears, (she once described a shower with Raffaele where he washed her ears very carefully).
The bloodspray might have drenched her earlobes and piercings and saturated the fine metalwork detail of her earrings, embedded a trace of damning blood there.
Guede’s lifelong addiction to lying is the problem. I think he lied about a date with Meredith. He lied about “fooling around” with her to excuse any of his DNA that might have been left during the attack, and to justify his presence in the cottage which was for nefarious Knox party purposes or drugs, maybe long before the assault took place. Still he was up to no good that night at the cottage.
His strong response to Meredith cursing at Knox about stolen money, I think is his guilt at being a thief himself, and he was probably expecting Knox to use some of the stolen cash to give him for drugs. Meredith’s anger he resents because it puts him under conviction for his thievery and deception of her, although he was not convicted of the actual theft, as the money purse was clean on the inside, he had merely moved it or handled it and left evidence on the outside of it.
He is lying about not seeing the face of the other male (Raffaele), he’s probably lying about the “black man found, black man guilty” which may have been his own interior monologue, or he had heard such a statement before in joking conversation with his own friends. He certainly knew Knox was at the crimescene. Although it’s not proven, I think he probably had previous to that night also met Raffaele having lived so close to his apartment.
Later when Knox began spending the nights and practically living over at Raf’s Garibaldi apartment, he would have seen her going into Raf’s door a lot and he already knew Knox So then when he spotted them at the door or near the apartment she might have casually introduced Rudy to her new beau, or did so at a club, even if just one time. Maybe Raffaele had earlier worn a Napapijri jacket, maybe it was a brand that Rudy envied, which is why he threw in that detail of the mysterious man who pulled a knife or a “scalpel”.
Rudy is lying about Meredith being fully clothed when he left.
Maybe the window wasn’t broken while he was there but was broken hours after he fled when the other two returned to stage the scene after argument, thought and discussion as to how to stage it, which Toto overheard in Piazza Grimana. I still wonder if certain folks from Bari had poor Toto killed in prison, perhaps as a sign to Guede. Toto’s testimony linked Raffaele to Amanda on the very night of the murder, so near the scene. He busted their alibis.
KrissyG, please explain because I’m confused as to why Francesca Maresca “denied that Guede’s conviction implied that Knox and Sollecito played a role in the murder”. ??? To put that in the positive form, Maresca would be saying that Guede could be convicted for murder but that doesn’t mean AK and RS are involved???
I’m really confused. It sounds like Maresca is defending Knox and Sollecito by arguing that Guede acted alone. Please enlighten me.
I don’t understand. I thought Maresca would argue that all three are equally culpable.
Re Maresca’s call see my comment above yours? It was his call to see that as the other two had already walked, one killer serving his time looked like better than none.
But Maresca is not close to the US situation and the PR and the money-grubbing and stalking of the Kerchers that could go on for 50 years.
From that perspective this looks from here like the wrong call - several emails from Italy say it looks like the wrong call from there too.
I dont think it will hold.
Totally baffled. Why are Fabiani and Maresca not pursuing the truth?
Thanks for this excellent article Krissy. Jim Clemente is still as ignorant of the basic facts of the case as he was when he used to appear in Alison Hope Weiner’s homemade YouTube videos a couple of years ago. He claimed in the podcast that Rudy Guede’s DNA was all over Meredith’s body and her room.
There was only one sample of Guede’s DNA on Meredith body and there were only four samples of his DNA in her room. His DNA was found on a vaginal swab, on the sleeve of Meredith’s tracksuit, on her bra, on the zip of her purse and on some toilet paper in the bathroom that Filomena and Laura shared.
…also a genetic profile, from the Y haplotype on the vaginal swab, in which no traces of semen were found; DNA on the toilet paper in the bathroom near the room of Mezzetti, where unflushed faeces were found; on the bag found on the bed; on the left cuff of the blue sweatshirt (described as a “zippered shirt” in the first inspection, discovered smeared with blood near the body and partly underneath it); and on the right side of the bra found by the foot of Kercher’s body…” (Judge Giordano’s sentencing report, page 5).
Will Jim Clemente ever actually read the official court reports, or will he always speak from a position of ignorance?
@Peter Quennell, thank you, now I think I get it: Maresca argues that despite the lack of clear ID of Amanda and Raf at the crime, it’s still clear that Guede took part in the murder and should be right where he is (not that AK and RS are clean, but that doesn’t change Guede’s certain guilt).
Maresca feels it is better one of the culprits is behind bars than none. Maresca wants to not allow the doubt over the other two to be used as an excuse to release Guede.
Thanks. The brain fog has lifted.
Rudy is up for parole in 2018. His journey in prison is nearly over, come what may with Florence.
After 2018 he would have nothing to lose legally if he spilled the beans, correct?—other than the good graces of the Sollecito family which may be his main concern.
But other larger considerations might get him to talk turkey after 2018, Maybe that is sword of Damocles hanging over AK and RS when Rudy’s released.
Italian newspaper Cronaca reports:
Rudy Guede was present in the courtroom and spoke a few minutes with his lawyers Thomas Pietrocarlo and Monica Grossi from behind the bars. Between now and January 10, “the judges will now have a way to compare the two judgments because that on Rudy also presupposes a necessary participation of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, which the Supreme Court has absolutely ruled out,” said the lawyer Pietrocarlo.
After the hearing this morning the Court of Florence. “Rudy is getting on very well and is peaceful because he has initiated a process with an absolutely autonomous life beyond these facts and a clear one regardless of the outcome of this review…. What is not proven is that you can not commit the crime except with those competitors, which is what I would argue for Guede in his request for a review.”
Lawyer Vieri Fabiani who along lawyer Francesco Maresca represents the family of Meredith Kercher. “It seems to us that there is no contrast between the two judged because the revised reasons must be new evidence or a contrast between two judgements that need to be absolutely incompatible with each other. Since there does not seem the case, there can hardly be a revision or a process to be redone.
“According to the attorney Maresca also “the request for reconsideration is not sufficiently justified, it does not seem there are grounds. The Court of Appeal will consider at first the admissibility and then the eventual acceptance or not. I believe that there is no conflict of judgments but simply a different interpretation of the conduct of persons who were present in the house. “
So, in a few weeks the admissibility of the petition will be decided, whether it fits the criteria - and I should imagine Guede’s lawyers will have assessed it and framed it in such a way that it does - and then either rejected or a hearing listed for an appeal-type hearing, of the issue/s in question. Or does it still have to go through a review process first…?
@hopeful I hear what you are saying. In this piece I tried to be as coldly objective as a law court would be and trying to avoid any conjecture other than that of the courts (Micheli mainly).
The enigma of Guede is, is he poor boy, a testosterone fueled callow youth forcing himself onto a girl - and Italy has a culture where its men are renowned for being ‘peristent’ - or an incredibly clever sociopath who managed to take two innocent strangers with him?
If the former, then it recalls the Greek mythology of Icarus, the reckless idealistic youth who flew too close to the sun and tragically crashed to the earth. He had an undoubtedly unsettled and deprive childhood, but yet also had the kindness of strangers; the Tiberi-Mancini family who watched over him, she his teacher and he the teacher’s son, who even whilst Guede was on the run tried to keep tabs on him
His teacher describes him as someone who had never shown any hint of violence. His work record is not dissimilar to many of Europe’s youth where a good job is hard to find. He seems to have had a good circle of friends, regularly playing in basketball leagues and constantly partying and celebrating with his social circle. He was otugoing and gregarious and had even once been semi-engaged to a woman named Veronica.
One would imagine that anyone witnessing someone being attacked in that manner would suffer severe post-traumatic shock. It could be the red and the blood he describes as being everywhere made a deep impact on his psyche, even if in the unlikely event he simply witnessed it, rather than inflicted it. If as Massei describes, Guede restrained Meredith from behind and it was the other assailants cruelly flicking at her left cheek and under the chin, together with numerous other cuts and bruises, eventually doing their worst to stop her from screaming, then it is no wonder he knows he is culpable anyway, and of course we know why he ran away and stayed away.
He didn’t come forward about the mystery man, nor has he ever described the role of the other perpetrators as described by the courts, except as an unconvincing narrative.
It’s hard to know what to make of this character. Is he an opportunist, hoping to grab some of the celebrity status of Knox and Sollecito, touring the country doing book signings and talks about his awful time in jail and how he was framed by Mignini, joining Innocence Projects and calling himself an ‘exoneree’ and putting in for €‘000’s in compensation?
Or is there the vaguest chance he was indeed just a poor boy, an over-amorous passerby, who was sucked in and set up by his sly co-perpetrators?
He certainly doesn’t LOOK like a street gangster. Or is this the guise of a monster? Like Knox, he could ask us, ‘Am I a monster in sheep’s clothing, or am I you?’
In our two posts on this Guede development we linked to one or other of our analyses of Marasca-Bruno. I’d recommend those hungry for detail to read all 16 posts.
More will follow. Links in the right column are to these posts:
Cardiol critique (four posts)
Machiavelli critique (one post)
Prosecution critique (two posts)
Catnip critique (four posts)
James Raper critique (five posts)
Bruno wrote the report while having a major health issue of some kind. Because of that it became several months overdue and was pushed out hurriedly, quite possibly without any of the other judges even having read it.
One gets a sense of the seriously surreal in reading it.
Reactions around Rome were said to be pretty scathing, as the law is terrible and the science is terrible and the facts are terrible. The conclusion is really legal nonsense.
The Fifth Chambers does not normally handle murder cases and no reason was given why this appeal was whisked away from the First Chambers.
Like Hellmann, Bruno and Marasca are not murder judges, and their way of shooting down telling points one by one is exactly what the First Chambers said Hellmann should not have done in throwing out most off his judgement.
Here is something on which our critique writers all differ from Guede’s lawyer. From KrissyG’s translation above of the report in Cronaca:
Rudy Guede was present in the courtroom and spoke a few minutes with his lawyers Thomas Pietrocarlo and Monica Grossi from behind the bars. Between now and January 10, “the judges will now have a way to compare the two judgments because that on Rudy also presupposes a necessary participation of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, which the Supreme Court has absolutely ruled out” said the lawyer Pietrocarlo.
No, even Bruno did not rule it out. He merely said the evidence was not quite sufficient.
Italian law allows for grading of verdicts from iffy to absolutely determinant and what Bruno wrote was at the very iffy end of the spectrum. He never explained why RS and AK should not be charged as accomplices which would have been automatic in US and UK courts.
We even wondered if he was no longer persuaded by his own arguments, now he had got into the guts of the case, and was INVITING a challenge from the Council of Magistrates or the First Chambers or Nencini.
In my view, Marasca dropped the ball - he should have challenged it, to the President or Council of Ministers or CSM. But maybe the heat was getting too much for him as his comments this week sorta confirmed.
I hope Mignini and Comodi get to present the prosecution case. It will be only the 2nd time for this - they didnt for Hellmann or Nencini (though Crini was pretty good) and they were NOT EVEN PRESENT AT THE FIFTH CHAMBERS HEARING!!!
Thus allowing Bongiorno to rant on dishonestly to the judges about corrupt and incompetent cops and prosecutors for hours.
The best outcome IMV would be for the review to happen and an appeal ‘trial’ referred back to the courts, AK and RS participation confirmed, and RG’s appeal to ultimately fail AFTER the true facts are out (unless, of course he really is just a bystander).
This will hopefully stop any of them gaining financially from their crime and making false claims of innocence.
As Guede is nearing the end of his custodial sentence, without a means of getting an overturn, there is now nothing left but to confess and tell the Kercher family exactly what happened to their daughter and sister.
If there is an inconsistency between the final judgments on Guede and AK/RS it is that the quality of the reasoning is very different. Almost non-existent in the case of the deadly duo. However to argue that Guede should benefit from the same munificence would be a rather shabby ploy and bound to fail.
That said, there was no murder weapon attributed to Guede and there was the judicial finding that he had not struck the fatal knife blows (be it that I don’t know how this could be known) and his account was at least largely consistent with the forensic evidence. I don’t think that highlighting the aforesaid inconsistency will get him anywhere but I suspect that it is a point which he nevertheless wants to make before he gets parole.
But also we are left with multiple attackers and AK, and probably also RS, being at the cottage at the time of the murder. If AK and RS were not involved then there must have been one or more additional attackers for whom there was no forensic evidence, any one of whom may have struck the blow and whom none of the three have made any attempt to identify. Credible?
And again there is the staging which was not seriously contested by the 5th Chambers and certainly not attributed as a judicial finding anywhere to Guede. Why would any unidentified attackers engage in this?
Good work James.
Re your first para, many also noted an inconsistency between the fiery mouthful the Fifth Chambers uttered in March and what they wrote nearly 6 months later
The first was after being subjected to Bongiorno’s blast about “incompetence” hour after hour, and the second maybe after realizing the true strength of the evidence.
As you know we’ve been told that final phrasing might have even been deliberate, wink wink, we are offering the way to a future challenge.
Bongiorno was quite publicly shocked at the March outcome, maybe realising that it was a bridge too far.
At a guess she was equally unhappy at the September document, which put her client probably there and didnt really make the outcome bulletproof.
Certainly she and RS have been shrill and defensive and really ticked at Guede.
Right on Clemente. As KrissyG shows Clemente is really, really out to lunch on the case.
Of all those who had no other axe to grind (like Preston) the “ex FBI profilers” have been the very worst on the case.
Clemente didnt write stuff (or did he?) but he parrots what John Doulgas wrote in his 2 books and presented to the State Department.
See this? He has done it again here!!!
The report aired in September had Clemente doing his “profiling” live on camera. Several times he would seize on some miniscule point - such as the way JonBenet’s brother Burke was leaning in an interview - and build a giant castle of dogmatic conclusions.
If you want to watch rank amateurism at work (and who doesnt!) watch Clemente “nailing” Burke in the documentary - in a way that would make any jury laugh out loud.
He’s not yet I think the target of a lawsuit but chances are that he will be.
I’d like to say Happy Christmas to all.
Except the other two murderers of Meredith Kercher, Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito - condemnation to them.
A very Merry Xmas to all the wonderful contributors to this splendid site, be they main article writers or commenters. The dedication, integrity, intelligence, and sheer dogged determination in the pursuit of justice for tragic Meredith is both humbling and inspiring to behold. If true justice is ever eventually achieved, then this site will have played no small part in it. I have no doubt the Kerchers feel the same way.
In particular, special Xmas wishes must go to Peter Quennell. The amount of personal sacrifices he has made in terms of time, energy, attempts by the Knoxen to ruin his reputation, family life etc must be enormous. A lesser man would have given up the ghost a long time ago; especially in the face of seemingly corrupt judicial decisions and Knox’s continued humiliation of the Kerchers publicly whenever her poison pen or amateur dramatics are deployed. You sir deserve an award of some description.
As Meredith’s lovely family have their tenth Xmas without their beautiful daughter/sister, I wish them and all who come to this site with an open mind and an open heart, a wonderful Xmas and a peaceful and happy New Year.
To Knox, Sollecito and Guede and those who advocate on their behalf or knowingly lie, cheat and cover up for them, I fervently hope they get everything they deserve. And more.
Merry 🎄 Christmas
Happy Christmas to Peter, Ergon and all who are fighting for justice for Meredith. I hope Jan 10 ruling keeps RG where he belongs while opening up the case for more examination of the evidence and exposing the shameful 5th chambers verdict. Knox and Sollecito belong in jail with Guede.
Tomorrow is Meredith’s 31st birthday. She was born in 1985. December 28, a special date.
True Crimes has posted a video about Amanda Knox’s numerous lies:
Please tweet and retweet. Thanks.
Interesting news item about Laura Richards. Seems the self-attributed title ‘criminal behavioral psychologist’ is Richards giving herself large. There is no such qualification in the UK.
According to the DAILY MAIL she has rubbed several people up the wrong way, including the detective involved in the Milly Dowler murder. He threatened to sue Richards over her claim in her forthcoming book that she herself was central to the investigation.
Did anyone give her a trumpet for Christmas?
Just saw your greetings, whatswisdom. Hope you had a Merry Christmas, and wishing you and everyone on True Justice For Meredith Kercher a very happy new year!
Hi Peter, Burke Ramsey’s lawyer L. Lin Wood filed a $750 million defamation lawsuit in Michigan December 28 against CBS News, Jim Clemente, Laura Richards, and other experts who appeared on their show http://courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/JonBenet.pdf