Tuesday, January 21, 2020

Gladwell’s Lone-Wolf-Killer Hoax Was Abandoned By DEFENSES 10 Years Ago

Posted by Peter Quennell

Above: Malcolm Gladwell and Rudy Guede

This overview of the Gladwell series lists all posts.

1. Life-Cycle Of The Lone-Wolf Theory

The defense teams’ Guede-As-Lone-Wolf theory, if you can call it that, saw three phases.

Cooked up in mid 2008 by the floundering defenses, the theory takes knock after knock in 2009, and is quietly phased out in 2010, never to surface again - at least in an Italian court.

The defenses created it because they were trying hard to stop an enraged Sollecito and defensive Knox from very publicly pointing a finger of blame at one another. See this post and this post.

Within six months, it was dealt a near-fatal blow by Judge Micheli. See this post and this post and this post.

The theory took hit after hit in the Massei trial’s prosecution phase (see this post and this post) and lost all impact after Knox dug a deep hole for herself on the witness stand (see this post and this post).

More disasters followed in the defense phase (see this post and this post) and soon after (see this post).

Finally, the judges for both of Guede’s automatic appeals, which failed, endorsed the Micheli court and Massei court findings. Namely that massive evidence pointed to three assailants in a pack attack (see this post and this post).

Thereafter, the defenses used two alternative witnesses, Alessi and Aviello, to try to prove a pack attack that did not involve Knox or Sollecito. At the 2011 Hellman appeal both bombed miserably. (See these posts and these posts.)

Dozens of other posts here offer more detail. See for example this post, and this post, and this post. Also this post, and this post.

And of course all previous posts in this Gladwell series (scroll down to Part 3) described evidence that proves Sollecito and Knox were involved, both in the attack and the clean-up they did next.

2. Gladwell Revives The Zombie Theory!

Gladwell devotes the first quarter of his Knox chapter to the framing of Guede as a lone assailant and the shrill trashing of the supposedly stupid Italian prosecutors and police for supposedly “misreading” Knox and looking no further.

He provides zero proof; but the claims in the Knox chapter are used to promote his entire book anyway.

These are Gladwell’s claims about Rudy Guede, along with the first of our fact-checking, as previously posted in our series’ first post.

[1] On the night of November 1, 2007, Meredith Kercher was murdered by Rudy Guede. [The BLACK guy ALONE did it? A racist PR trope. ALL courts said the evidence proved 2 or 3 attackers. It was impossible AS DEFENSES AGREED to prove a lone attacker.]

[2] After a mountain of argumentation, speculation, and controversy, his guilt is a certainty [not his guilt ALONE].

[3] Guede was a shady character [no he wasn’t] who had been hanging around the house [he had friends downstairs] in the Italian city of Perugia, where Kercher, a college student, was living during a year abroad. [She was a high performer unlike Knox, enrolled at the main university unlike Knox, was well funded unlike Knox, and not on drugs unlike Knox.]

[4] Guede had a criminal history. [He had NONE. Only Knox & Sollecito had police records then.]

[5] He admitted to being in Kercher’s house the night of her murder—and could give only the most implausible reasons for why. [Knox and Sollecito each gave multiple alibis and contradicted one another.]

[6] The crime scene was covered in his DNA. [Covered? No it wasn’t. There was more Knox DNA.]

[7] After her body was covered [the courts all believed by Knox] he immediately fled Italy for Germany. 

[8] But Rudy Guede was not the exclusive focus of the police investigation [because Knox fingered PATRICK first] nor anything more than an afterthought [untrue] in the tsunami of media attention that followed the discovery of Kercher’s body.

[9] The focus was instead on Kercher’s roommate. [Not immediately; not till after, under no pressure, she REPEATEDLY accused Patrick of murder and admitted to being there when Meredith died.]

3. Gladwell’s Knox-PR Sources

What was the entire thrust of Gladwell’s book? A warning that strangers can fool you.  But that trap is precisely the one Gladwell has fallen into here.

No wonder he sounds so incessantly paranoid - he seems to have good reason to be. It seems profoundly easy for strangers to put one over on him.

Consider the sources for Gladwell’s Knox chapter. The very worst possible.

Despite the enormous body of real evidence online (this site has a word-count higher than 20 paperbacks; the Wiki’s is several times higher) it’s pretty evident that Gladwell’s sole sources were these two Knox PR hoaxes.

    (1) The Forgotten Killer ebook, a foolish and easily debunked Knox PR hoax put online in 2012, just before the Hellmann annullment (see this post) .

    (2) The Netflix faux documentary Amanda Knox, a foolish and easily debunked Knox PR hoax put online in 2016 (see this post).

And who was it that propagated those hoaxes? We’ve already described all the main perps, in this post: A Gullible Gladwell Was Duped By Malicious “Strangers” Actually All Vigilantes Of Knox’s PR

Typically the members of this pack exult over a supposedly saintly Knox (as Gladwell does); forget about the framing of Patrick - in fact, forget Patrick (as Gladwell does); forget that Knox rightly served three years for framing him (as Gladwell does); forget that Knox owes Patrick $100,000 (as Gladwell does); forget that Sollecito was always treated similarly (as Gladwell does).

And of course forget that all the courts without exception placed Knox and Sollecito at the scene of the crime (as Gladwell does), forget the myriad hard evidence pointing to Knox and Sollecito (as Gladwell does), and forget the three bent courts (as Gladwell does).

Does Gladwell have a tin ear for their racism? One wonders. The Knox PR vigilantes have long reviled Guede incessantly in false terms (as Gladwell does) and the internet seethes racist remarks against him.

Guede was not a drifter or petty criminal (as Gladwell supposes). In fact, Guede had an okay upbringing, he excelled at basketball, he was socially popular, he had held a secure job near Milan (the business folded), and he had no police record (unlike either Knox or Sollecito). In other words, no record either of drug-dealing or breaking-and-entering.

Guede was the only one of the three to attempt an apology of sorts to the Kercher family (the other two both stalked Meredith’s parents and visited Meredith’s grave unwanted), he gained a useful college degree in Viterbo, and he could well be the only one of the three to have a respectable career ahead of him. 

Rudy Guede and Malcolm Gladwell both have some African heritage. These various commentators (but not Gladwell) have gone to bat against the pervasive dog-whistle racism that Knox and her vigilantes still engage in and which Gladwell oddly seems tone-deaf to.

1. Why Race Matters in the Amanda Knox Case

2. Let’s Not Forget Amanda Knox’s [Racist] Lie

3. Black Lives Matter: Whitewashing the Amanda Knox Story

4. Netflix’s Amanda Knox Leaves People of Color Out of the Story

5. What Amanda Knox Taught Us About The Influence Of Racism In Court

6. Amanda Knox Blames Black Man For Sinking The Titanic

The celebrity TV host Oprah Winfrey did get fooled. But that was not typical. See in contrast for example Richard Dwyer who got the case and the PR just right.

4. Some 30-Plus Questions For Gladwell

Drawing upon the massive evidence available we have already highlighted in this series (scroll down to Part 3) the AK knife DNA, mixed blood of AK & Meredith, footprints of all three, faked break-in, RS DNA on the bra-clasp, AK’s lamp locked inside Meredith’s room, and RS’s damning footprint.

Our main poster Marcello posed these toughest 37 questions in this post: Questions For Knox and Sollecito: Why Claim Rudy Guede Did It Alone When So Much Proof Against? There are many more, for example watch this, on the faked break-in and crime-scene rearrangement.

So far, only a deafening silence from Sollecito and Knox in response. Perhaps Gladwell can now do better?

1) Rudy Guede had been to the apartment at least twice already on prior occasions and knew the boys who lived in the lower story. Why did Guede choose to NOT break-in to the lower story where he knew (or could ascertain) that all four boys were away on holiday, and therefore could break-in and rummage with some certainty of not getting caught?

2) Why did Guede choose to break-in to the upper story of the villa mid-evening, when he surely knew Knox and Kercher would be staying at the villa for the holidays and could have been there or returned at any time to “catch him in-the-act”?

3) Surely Guede would have verified that no one was present by circling the cottage and checking if any lights were on in the windows? But Guede “missed” the really easy way in: the balcony in the dark at the rear, used in 2 burglaries in 2009.

4) If Guede did circle the cottage to make sure no one was there before attempting the break-in, why would he then choose the most visible and more difficult path of entry through a second story window, as opposed to the more hidden and easier path of break-in at the back of the villa, which he would have noticed while circling the villa?

5) Why would Guede choose to break-in through a second story window that was highly exposed to the headlights of passing cars on the street as well as exposed to night lighting from the carpark?

6) Ms. Romanelli testified that she had nearly closed the exterior shutters. Assuming her memory is correct, there is no way a burglar could easily verify if the windows were latched and if the inner scuri were latched to the window panes, which would make access to the window latch impractical unless one was armed with a core drill or an ax. Why would Guede, who was certainly familiar with such windows, choose to attempt the break-in through a window that he could not easily verify would allow him quick access?

7) Assuming the shutters were closed, Guede would have to climb up the wall and open the shutters before smashing the window with the rock. The night of the murder, the grass was wet from rain the previous day. Why was there no evidence of disturbed grass or mud on the walls?

8) Guede had Nike sneakers, not rock climbing shoes. How did he manage the climb up the wall with that type of footwear?

9) If the shutters were closed, or somewhat closed, how did Guede manage to lift himself up to the sill with only an inch of sill available to grab onto?

10) Assuming Guede opened the shutters, how did Guede verify if the inner scuri were not latched to the window panes, which would prevent access to the window latch? There was no light inside Ms. Romanelli’s room to reveal that the scuri were ajar.

11) Assuming Guede managed to check that the inner scuro behind the right-hand window was not latched, how did he manage to break the glass with a 9 lb rock with one hand while hanging on to the sill with the other?

12) Assuming Guede managed to check that the right-hand inner scuro was not latched, how did he break the glass with the rock without having glass shards fly into his face?

13) If Guede climbed down to lob the 9 lb rock at the window from 3 meters below, how would he do so to avoid glass shards raining down on him?

14) If Guede climbed down to lob the rock at the window from below, why would he choose a 9 lb 20 cm wide rock to lob up to a window 3 meters above him, with little chance of striking the window in the correct fashion?

15) If Guede climbed down again and climbed back up to the carpark (up a steep slope with slippery wet grass and weeds) to lob the 9 lb 20 cm wide rock from the car park, why is there no evidence of this second climb down on the walls?

16) Why did Guede choose a 9 lb 20 cm wide rock to throw from the car park, given that a large, heavy rock would be difficult to lob with any precision? Especially considering that the width of the glass in the window pane is only 28 cm wide, surely anyone, experienced or not, would have chosen a smaller, lighter rock to throw with greater precision.

17) If Guede lobbed a 9 lb 20 cm rock from the car park, such a lob would require some velocity and therefore force. Guede would have been roughly 11-12 feet away from the window, in order for the lob to clear the wood railing at the carpark. If the rock was thrown with some velocity, why is the upper 1/2 of the glass in the window pane intact, without any fracture cracks at all?

18) If Guede lobbed a 9 lb 20 cm rock from the car park, such a lob would require some velocity and therefore force. Why is there so little damage to the scuro the rock hit, so little damage to the terrazzo flooring impacted by the rock, and so little damage to the rock itself, which surely would have fractured more on impact with a hard terrazzo floor?

19) Why was there no evidence of glass shards found in the grass below the window?

20) If Guede climbed the wall to open the shutters, climbed down and up to the car park to throw the rock, then climbed back down and up again to the window, how does he manage to hoist himself onto the sill without cutting himself on the glass that was found on the sill?

21) If Guede climbed the wall to open the shutters, hoisted himself onto the sill, tapped the glass with a 9 lb rock to lightly break the glass in a manner more consistent with how the window was broken, why did he throw the rock into the room, rather than let it fall into the grass below?

22) Why was no dirt, grass, muddy shoeprints or similar trace evidence found on the window sill?

23) Why was no dirt, grass, muddy shoeprints or similar trace evidence found in Romanelli’s room?

24) If Guede climbed the wall to open the shutters, climbed down and up to the car park to throw the rock, then climbed back down and up again to the window again, hoisted himself onto the sill without cutting himself on the glass that was found on the sill, unlatched the window and stepped inside Filomena’s room, how did he manage to get glass on top of Romanelli’s clothing that was found under the window sill?

25) Why would Guede, who would have spent a good 10 minutes trying to break and enter with the climbing up and down from the carpark, waste valuable time throwing clothes from the closet? Why not simply open the closet doors and rifle through the clothes without creating more of mess?

26) Why did he disregard Romanelli’s laptop, which was in plain view?

27) Why did Guede check the closet before checking the drawers of the nightstand, where surely more valuable objects like jewelry would be found?

28) Why were none of the other rooms disturbed during the break-in?

29) Assuming Ms. Kercher arrived to the cottage after Guede’s break-in, presumably when Guede was in the bathroom, why did she not notice the break-in, call the police and run out of the cottage?

30) Assuming Guede was in the bathroom when Ms. Kercher returned, why go to the extent of attacking Ms. Kercher in her room rather than try to sneak out the front door, or through the window he had just broken, to avoid if not identification, at least more serious criminal charges?

31) Assuming Ms. Kercher was at the cottage while Guede broke-in, why did she not call the police the moment she heard the rock crash through the glass, loudly thud to the terrazzo floor and investigate what was happening in Romanelli’s room while Guede was climbing back down from the car park and climbing back up to the window?

32) Assuming Ms. Kercher was at the cottage while Guede broke-in, Guede could have been on the sill already because he had tapped the glass with the 9 lb rock to break it. Therefore perhaps Guede was already partially inside Romanelli’s room when he was discovered by Ms. Kercher. In this case Guede follows Ms. Kercher to her room in an attempt to dissuade her from calling the police and the assault ensues. But then, if this scenario is correct, when does Guede have time to rifle through Romanelli’s clothing and effects?

33) Why is there a luminol revealed footprint in Romanelli’s room that has mixed traces of Knox’s and Kercher’s DNA ?

34) Why does this footprint not match Guede’s foot size?

35) If multiple attackers were required to restrain Ms. Kercher, holding her limbs while brandishing two knives and committing sexual violence, then who else was with Guede and why were no traces of this 4th (or more) person(s) found, either in shoeprints, footprints, fingerprints, DNA or otherwise?

36) If Guede and others were involved in the assault, why has Guede not acknolwedged them, and instead consistently hinted that, and finally admitting that Sollecito and Knox were with him during the assault?

37) If Guede and others were involved in the assault, why do the other shoeprints, footprints, DNA traces and fingerprints all point to Knox and Sollecito being present during the assault, in one way or another?

5. And 150 More Questions For Gladwell

The Wiki carries well over 100 Guede break-in disproofs, a few of them mentioned above, most of them new. See here and see here and see here.

And here are another 33 disproofs: some 20 posted by Cardiol MD and another 13 emailed by BR Mull.

6. Final Two Posts In The Gladwell Series

These will be next: combating Gladwell’s smear of Dr Mignini, and the real Amanda Knox. Then a tough letter to Gladwell’s publisher. There will be many other such letters soon. We now hold all the cards.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 01/21/20 at 10:23 PM in


For the record, Gladwell is NOT African ‘like Guede’.

From wiki: ‘Gladwell was born in Fareham, Hampshire, England. His mother is Joyce (née Nation) Gladwell, a Jamaican psychotherapist. His father, Graham Gladwell, was a mathematics professor from Kent, England.[3][4][5] They resided in rural Canada throughout Malcolm’s early life.[6] Research done by historian Henry Louis Gates Jr. revealed that one of his maternal ancestors was a Jamaican free woman of color (mixed black and white) who was a slaveowner.[7]’

Posted by KrissyG on 01/23/20 at 05:01 AM | #

Hi KrissyG

Re “Gladwell is NOT African ‘like Guede’”. I think you misread. It was “Gladwell and Guede both have some African heritage”, which is actually correct, as Gladwell himself is proud to say.


In light of that I wonder why Wikipedia talks about “research” and “revealed”? Not their best work.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 01/23/20 at 06:39 AM | #

The very popular and respected celebrity TV host Oprah Winfrey also failed to connect up the dots. We posted on that here.


Posted by Peter Quennell on 01/23/20 at 08:45 AM | #

Knox’s prison clothes before wedding, comments beneath Daily Mail article:


.... thumbs her nose at Kercher family…Appalling

.... She’s a bloody nutcase! Who would do such a thing if they weren’t mentally unhinged????  ...Bridegroom should run…

.... this is so distasteful

.... This one is not all there mentally.

.... Never thought she was guilty or evil until now.

.... Attention seeker. Total cluster B personality disorder with heavy on the antisocial features.

@KrissyG, yes, the half nude mannequin in background of photo as she models prison clothes on Instagram shows a mannequin torso dripping with necklace chains.

At first I thought, since it’s in a sewing room it might be a seamstress tool for fitting clothes but it’s not on a stand for length of skirt or pants. It has no arms, no legs, no head and black underwear on it.

No doubt it’s “art” Amanda and Chris style. The partial nudity is nothing new. Knox in Perugia and before at UW was immodest for shock value. She seems to curb it nowadays for public appearances to create new decent image. 

The chains and necklaces on this tawdry mannequin probably are for Chris. Which Tiffany jewels will he wear to the wedding? Another actor without a stage, a rock star without guitar or band.

The comedy parade down the aisle pretending to be a wedding will offer belly laughs.

Posted by Hopeful on 01/23/20 at 01:40 PM | #

US denies extradition request for Harry Dunn suspect


Has the US Department of State ever granted an extradition request?

Posted by The Machine on 01/23/20 at 05:52 PM | #

The Dunn case is not unusual. I mentioned to you already that there is a huge diplomatic presence in NYC, Washington DC and other US cities.

Several of whom are getting away with crimes by quoting the Vienna Convention on any given day.

“Has the US Department of State ever granted an extradition request?”

At least several every day. Perhaps you mean of US citizens? Well, yes. Some law and examples here.





TomM and other lawyers who looked at the US-Italy treaty were pretty sure Knox could be extradited (she still might).


Posted by Peter Quennell on 01/23/20 at 08:06 PM | #

Two possible futures for Guede…

He’s still not, to my knowledge, an Italian citizen. That opens up the prospect of his being sent back to the Ivory Coast, especially if (as rumored) Sollecito’s team and especially Bongiorno are attempting to engineer that.

If they DO engineer that, so as to try to stop Guede spilling the beans any further on Sollecito, that maybe could stop him publishing in Italy.

But what is to stop him publishing once he is back in the Ivory Coast?

They must be aware that could happen. So, hug your friends close, and hug your enemies closer? Put him on the payroll?

Not Sollecto’s payroll because he is essentially jobless and without cash - it would have to be Knox’s payroll.

There were strong signs that Knox put Sollecito on her payroll after she kept him at a distance from her Modena show last year, and he became very noisily angry about that.

Then the two ex-lovebirds had a long phone call, and he presumably shook her down, for after that call he gushed about Knox more than he ever has.


Knox was very vulnerable to a Sollecito shakedown because he threatens her fictional media narratives.

First she is the one for now hauling in the blood-money relying on those narratives.

Second, pre-arrest he was treated the exact same way that she was (actually police were further down the road with him, in the questioning on 5-6 November).

Third, Sollecito cracked BEFORE Knox did (he then pointed to her as the instigator and never backed up her final alibi in the courtroom).

Fourth, the Italian male Sollecito was not a “hated, loose-morals American” and he was not “brutally questioned for 57 hours” and he was not “demonized as a woman” and the tabloid media were not “out to get him”.

Fifth, he even had to concede recently in a Florence court that he had lied in his 2012 book about Dr Mignini asking him to roll over on Knox at their trial. Knox also lied about Dr Mignini in her book.

The bottom line? All of this threatens Knox’s wailing money-grubbing “I’m the victim” narratives. Hence the alleged Knox payment or payments to Sollecito last year.

So, which door would you choose? (1) Guede will publish. (2) Guede will shakedown. (3) We’ll demolish all of their castles of cards sooner.

A very fraught situation…

Posted by Peter Quennell on 01/24/20 at 04:52 PM | #

@Peter Quennell, verrrry interesting about Guede possibly publishing after he’s released from prison, or he might shake down Knox by a little ongoing blackmail: “If I publish you perish”.

Verrry interesting how Sollecito shook her down for his $share when she waltzed into Modena Innocence conference, threatened his turf.

I wonder which would profit Guede more—tapping Knox for occasional hush money—or spilling all the secrets at once in a book, then going on the interview circuit to defend his book, becoming a semi-celebrity the Knox way? Dueling Dupers.

Would his life be threatened a la Rocco if he exposed dear Raf? He’d be wise to use his prison-earned degree in history and try to get a job teaching, if anybody will hire him. He might return to Ivory Coast or be deported?

Will Raffaele really marry his new fiancee? Does she have family money? No doubt he follows Knox’s nuptials, Knox’s new home co-owned with the Kovites and located on an island accessible only by ferry.

Hail and floods can reach many places.

Posted by Hopeful on 01/24/20 at 10:05 PM | #

Okay, Hopeful, it seems the bottom-line is in: you were clearly an Italian in a former life!

Italians love observing and deeply understand these three-way kabuki dances which fascinate you and so many others of us here too.

They are the way the most telling indicators of guilt of all the three come leaking out.

Kabuki, three-dimensional chess, is so grounded in Italian personalities, their humor, their history of great warring families, their culture, their operas, and even their tough slander laws.

The Italian news and entertainment media are endlessly full of subtle hints, of innuendo, of polite but telling nudges and winks.

It seems a main reason why so many Italian-Americans enjoy winning in American politics, see the list of current representatives (including one N Pelosi, currently driving one D Trump nuts).


Italian entertainment media and in particular the #1 show on RAI (the BBC of Italian TV) Porta a Porta thrive on these kabuki dances.

See the mid-2010 report on the TV shows by “Cesare Beccaria” an Italian poster of ours here (mid-2010 after trial but before first appeal is when Knox was being retooled and when the Knox PR moved into personal-destruction overdrive).





This entire post below is a multi-episode narrative of Sollecito’s kabuki game intent on driving the plodding binary Knox pretty well nuts, for reasons every Italian understood.


This below is what Sollecito did to the plodding binary Knox just a mere seven weeks before the Fifth Chambers of the Supreme Court ruled, for a reason every Italian understood (they all knew about Rocco of course, and Bongiorno’s unsavory ties).


Here below in belated response is the plodding binary Knox trying to blunt “Honor Bound” Sollecito’s actual ruthless attacks:


(Knox did get her own back on Sollecito in one big way. She did not marry him (not did anyone else despite his attempts) so he was forced back to Italy. Shades of Frank Sforza; remember him?)

And Guede on many occasions showed he has some kabuki skills. He baited the other two many times.

As a direct result, Guede has ended up as nationally the least disliked of the three - despite being the only one ever handcuffed, and the only one put in the cage in the court.


I wonder. Why did Gladwell not pick up on any of this? Arent’t subtleties normally Gladwell’s “cup of tea”?

Posted by Peter Quennell on 01/25/20 at 11:01 AM | #

In retrospect, we could maybe use a post (any volunteers?) on the balcony in the dark around the back, and why Filomena’s window was “chosen” for the supposed break-in instead.

The defenses and some media outlets tried to prove that for the “serial burglar” Guede with a “record of scaling heights” (he had none) climbing into that window would have been a walk in the park.

Every attempt failed. One on YouTube that had a rock-climber getting up to the window (via the window bars added several years later!) did not bother to explain why he would not have cut himself on the broken glass on the window-sill or when reaching through the smallish hole at the bottom of the glass pane to open the window latch quite far above.

Not one defense or media attempt timed a climber entering the top floor via that far more logical route, the balcony - used twice by actual burglars in 2009.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 01/27/20 at 10:35 AM | #

For anyone whose “system-broken antennae” has come alive, looking for the cause of Kobe Bryant’s fatal crash, take a look at these (I hope the NY Times report shows where you are and is not behind their pay-wall):



The pilot accepts to take a risk. Even though he was flying through “milk”.

See what happens near the end of the video (which already has over 2 million views).

The chopper is wandering way off course, and is at too low an altitude to talk with the control towers.

That Sikorsky model (made in Connecticut a few miles north of NYC) has a plush cabin separate from where the pilot or pilots sit.

Kobe might have had no clue as to what was going on, and no chance to call the shots.

This is so like John Kennedy Jr’s fatal crash a few years ago off Massachusetts, the pilot (Kennedy) also got lost.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 01/27/20 at 02:31 PM | #

Memo to self: don’t fly in any chopper where one cannot see out of the front.

Not a system fix, exactly, but until one comes along?

However, the last chopper I was in (over the “dinosaur island” of Kauai) we could all see out the front, and last month maybe that very same helicopter crashed.


Posted by Peter Quennell on 01/27/20 at 04:26 PM | #

Marcello covers all the obvious points. There are so many of them that it is ridiculous that anyone could take a genuine break in seriously.

Above all we have to remember that the supposed intruder was Guede, who was reasonably familiar with the cottage, having been there (to the boys’ downstairs flat) on at least two previous occasions (and thus be aware that the back of the cottage afforded the easiest and safest means of access to the girls’ flat i.e via the easily accessible balcony at the rear).

Furthermore, to gain access via Filomena’s window he would have had to pass the back of the cottage three times, to prise open her shutters, to collect the rock and cast it, and then to climb the wall.

None of it makes sense.

Posted by James Raper on 01/28/20 at 04:21 AM | #

@James Raper, I always appreciate your lucidity.

Posted by Hopeful on 01/28/20 at 10:46 AM | #

Okay, I declare my comment of 01/27/20 at 10:35 AM annulled, we already carry a good balcony post by Kermit with a great Powerpoint.


You can see that this, the first of two first mysterious break-ins via the balcony in 2009, was in February 2009, and it distracted just a little from the prosecution’s early presentations at trial.

We discounted this as a ploy by the defenses though - the last thing they needed was attention drawn to that easy way in, thus making the arduous Filomena window route look as totally absurd as Marcello and James R remark.


It looked absurder still when, in light of new translations in 2014, we got around to checking out the ONE proof on the internet that Guede was a demon at climbing up walls.

1. This was a really easy climb for almost anyone as the shots in posts and comments show.

2. The point of entry here was A BALCONY IN THE DARK AROUND THE BACK. Ring a bell?!!




Oh and the Guede demonizers have to make everyone presume that 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.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 01/28/20 at 12:13 PM | #

As we are now close to list-making nirvana in this one post, the Wiki’s additional 100-plus Guede break-in disproofs are now linked-to in Part 5 of the post.

And here are two more lists of disproofs, pushing the total toward 200: Cardiol’s twenty and BR Mull’s thirteen.



Posted by Peter Quennell on 01/28/20 at 03:41 PM | #

Getting to see the full mosaic of this case is like peeling an onion stretching out over a full decade.

So many transcriptions of audio tapes and translation had to be done, at a guess totaling over 10,000 pages by now.

In 2014 volunteer ZiaK an expert linguist kindly translated the 2009 testimony of Dr Chiacchiera, one of the two Perugia cops (after the communications guys) to be first on the scene.

This was dramatic testimony for sure, maybe for the jury THE conclusive evidence against Lone Wolf.





The third link (the second post by Cardiol MD) has been added to Part 1 of the post above.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 01/30/20 at 08:10 AM | #

Or maybe the closed-court forensics and attack reconstruction swung the jury the most against Lone Wolf. Tough call. Forensic expert Cardiol MD also posted about the forensics, here.


Posted by Peter Quennell on 01/30/20 at 09:46 PM | #

It’s telling that Malcolm Gladwell has never mentioned the fact the Italian Supreme Court ascertained there were multiple attackers and there was a staged break-in at the cottage. This strongly suggests that he hasn’t read the official court documents.

He claims he could pull the prosecution’s case to pieces, but he has never put his money where his mouth is. I’ve challenged him repeatedly on Twitter, but he keeps hiding in his ivory tower and he refuses to come out. He’s an unworldly academic and a fraud who is not prepared to substantiate his claims. I don’t understand why he is so widely regarded as a great intellectual. What am I missing?

Posted by The Machine on 02/02/20 at 05:11 AM | #

Hi Machine

I know there are those reading here who liked some of Gladwell’s other books. For myself, I have browsed only this one and The Tipping Point.

Several reviewers point out that this book is essentially stridently anti-cop, political and emotional and dark rather than scientific.

One Amazon reviewer said they had to stop reading because of the orgy of cop-bashing near the end. But the book seemed to have most Amazon reviewers souped up and thumping their chests.

We in UN development despised such books generally, because they merely promote paranoia and division, and make it much harder for development and growth to proceed.

Gladwell’s Tipping Point was frankly a joke in the UN. There already were far better and more operationally useful books available on that phenomenon, and my colleagues and I engineered or experienced numerous tipping points around the world.

I’d suggest that this very series of 10 posts and counting, including several of your own, is beyond the tipping point now.

Early on, Gladwell MIGHT have tried for that master list of supposed “mistakes” made in Perugia that would fill more than an entire book.

But now?

With all our disproofs, including these 200 disproofs of the mere first 1/4 of his chapter? Gladwell is now terminally behind the curve and, given his silence that you mention, he seems to have realized that.

This could cut short his career, and he may be living in fright.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 02/03/20 at 10:36 AM | #

This telling pattern of behavior actually still continues, right up to today.


Neither Knox nor Sollecito blame Guede for all of the attack on Meredith for very long - they each poke out the suggestion and then back away.

Since their premature release in 2012, both Sollecito and Guede have blown hot and cold about Lone Wolf.

In his 2012 book Sollecito (or his shadow writer Gumbel) brushed right past all of the myriad disproofs above to attempt to prove Guede was the sole attacker - Guede is referred to 110 times, and there is a long scenario.

And yet ever since Sollecito has blown hot and cold about Guede, pushing the notion but then backing away. 

In her 2013 book extended in 2015 Knox (or her shadow writer

Posted by Peter Quennell on 02/05/20 at 11:12 AM | #

Make a comment


Where next:

Click here to return to The Top Of The Front Page

Or to next entry On Guede As Sole Attacker Gladwell Doesn’t Get Strong Backup - From Knox Or Sollecito

Or to previous entry Meredith’s Perugia #40: Among The 10 Best Under-Rated Italian Destinations