Friday, August 11, 2017

Netflixhoax 19 Omitted The Vital Context Of 200,000 In The US Wrongly Locked Up #2

Posted by The TJMK Main Posters

Is the US actually worse than North Korea of all places? In one respect yes.

Our first post a couple of weeks ago on false incarcerations concluded this way: 

The American prison population is proportionally six times the Italian prison population (why did Netflix omit that?). Mental illness among that population is rife, and few inmates have above average IQs.

Election-driven prosecutors plea-bargaining with threats may have wrongly put many of them there. Maybe 10 per cent.

That is over 200,000 Americans in the wrong place. Funny how Netflix (and the FOA fanatics) forgot to tell us about that.

“Over 200,000” could in fact be a considerable UNDER estimate. An estimated 177,624 innocent Americans pleaded guilty in one year (2013) alone.

Here is The New York Times on this subject this past Tuesday.

By Marc Morje Howard

The American criminal justice system is exceptional, in the worst way possible: It combines exceptionally coercive plea bargaining, exceptionally long sentences, exceptionally brutal prison conditions and exceptionally difficult obstacles to societal re-entry.

This punitiveness makes us stand out as uniquely inhumane in comparison with other industrialized countries…. There’s widespread agreement that current practices are unsustainable.

The United States is home to 5 percent of the world’s population, yet has 25 percent of the world’s prisoners. The grim reality of American justice is that there are 2.3 million people behind bars, five million on parole or probation, 20 million with felony convictions and over 70 million with a criminal record.

Though mafia-tool Netflix ignored them all in its crazed rush to defame the Italian system, every day in the US new reports on this world-beating iniquity are being televised or published.

Why does it happen? In large part because THERE IS PROFIT IN IT. Profits for private prisons and bail-sharks. 

The video at top is a trailer for a new documentary just being released: A Deal With The Devil Devil’ Takes On Unjust Bail System

By Susie Madrak

A plea deal is an arrangement to resolve a case without going to trial. This is an option most often taken by those who cannot afford bail and want to go home instead of wait days, months, even years locked up in jail. An estimated 177,624 innocent Americans pleaded guilty in 2013 alone. Does this sound like a just system to you?

The money bail system is broken: private companies achieve exorbitant profits by scavenging off of communities (primarily of color) living in poverty. Low-income Americans are sitting in jails for days, months, and even years for the most minor of infractions simply because they can’t afford to pay high bond amounts. The reality is that the majority of people in jails ““ over 70% - are there for one simple reason: their income status. This is both morally and legally wrong.

And from now until August 21, 2017, Brave New Films will be campaigning to #EndMoneyBail this summer in the state of California.

Premiere events around the state are scheduled in key legislative districts, with audiences ranging from Bay Area activists and advocates to Los Angeles poets and politicians. Social media launches will coincide each week, with new videos from Brave New Films and other partners in the California Bail Coalition. People who can’t attend premiere events and screenings can host their own in-home events with all of our films before they’re released publicly and everybody should call their Assembly members demanding they #EndMoneyBail this summer.

This three-part series continues here.



I didn’t know this was happening, let alone in America!
Thanks to TJMK for highlighting this extremely urgent issue.
Pete, of course we’re joking about Steve Moore. But what Steve Moore has done with this case isn’t funny. And I really hope someday someone tells him so.

Posted by DavidB on 08/13/17 at 10:29 PM | #

Hi DavidB

This shows how incredibly misguided Moore, Heavey, Fischer, etc, were, from Day One.

They really roasted the quite fair Italian justice system for YEARS and yet were blind to all of this?

If Netflix has acted as a mafia tool, they clearly have too.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 08/14/17 at 12:38 AM | #

As an email points out, Moore, Heavey, Fischer, etc, actually constitute two different groups.

Fischer and his band are simple dimwited bigots who cant make it in life in any other way.

But Moore, Heavey, John Douglas, etc, etc, in contrast were all PART OF THE AMERICAN JUSTICE SYSTEM themselves.

They all furthered the terrible injustice that is the subject of this post.  On that, did any of them ever speak out???

For example is there any public evidence that Heavey when he was Judge Heavey ranting on at the Presidents of Italy and the US (really) was ever bothered at numerous innocent people HE was consigning to the jug?

Read about the campaign of two-faced Heavey here:

Posted by Peter Quennell on 08/14/17 at 02:51 AM | #

Knox in Rolling Stone interview. Daily Mail 8/13/17 covers the story. Headline: Amanda Knox opens up about coping after wrongful conviction, reveals she’s ‘terrified’ of killer Rudy Guede and would rather face prosecutor who put her in prison

Large photos of Mignini, he looks somber and pensive in black courtroom robes with lace collar over his suit. There’s a photo of Mignini and Amanda standing back to back in courtroom as she exits. Best is the beautiful headshot photo of Meredith with her gold eyeshadow, subtle makeup and delicate gold earrings. Two photos of Guede being escorted by police and one headshot of him wearing a black collarless shirt with white trim.

Knox makes Rudy the villain of the story while seeming to show respect for Mignini.

Knox again uses doubletalk, says of her experiences that they ‘very much changed who I was but also didn’t change who I was.’

Regarding Mignini, she said “If anything, I had to bring the prosecutor close to me and to my heart to understand where he was coming from when was doing what he was doing to me.”

“That’s something that is so hard for people who have been hurt, right? To bring the thing that hurts you close. The person that hurt you close.”

“I wouldn’t be the person I am now if I hadn’t been the person I was before, which was someone who was already inclined to love people and want to understand them, someone not wanting to be angry…”(for anger’s sake alone)

Posted by Hopeful on 08/14/17 at 06:43 AM | #

Why would she be terrified of Guede? Hmmm.

I think that last quote is revealing.

“I wouldn’t be the person I am now if I hadn’t been the person I was before, which was someone who was already inclined to love people and want to understand them, someone not wanting to be angry…”(for anger’s sake alone)

The hint of a confession? Talking about her relationship with Meredith? She will drop a clanger one day, that’s for sure.

Posted by James Raper on 08/14/17 at 12:40 PM | #

Precisely. Why terrified of Guede? Because he was at the murder scene, and so was she. His shifting lies of “she wasn’t there/she was there/a brown haired Italian young man was there/I wasn’t there” left such a fog of confusion that nothing Guede said carried much weight.

However, he might get out of prison soon and tell a straight story that he can corroborate, and throw Knox’s little exoneration brand into the mud.

Even if she could not face retrial, her laughable lies would be exposed and her house of cards crash royally. Egg on her face and the end of her world tour of lies. A new Netflix docu might have to be made and her recent kingdom built on falsehood after falsehood spoken to Innocence camps and bar associations might crumble under the reality Guede might reveal.

She would probably lose her job with the Seattle newspaper where she has spun out lie after lie about her innocence.

In one recent article she has concluded that perhaps no criminal should be “punished”, merely rehabbed, retrained and redirected in life (easier said than done); that incarceration necessary for that purpose is punishment enough. Beyond that all punishment is sheer vengeance and achieves nothing, Knox thinks.

She speaks lovingly of the poor wrongly convicted black guys but I think that song will be particularly repugnant to Rudy after being used and discarded by her one night madness.

Also she writes in Seattle paper about Michelle Carter who was painted as a femme fatale puppetmaster to the young man who killed himself. Knox bristles at the idea, comparing it with the media depictions of Knox as a femme fatale who controlled Rafaelle and Rudy to their destruction. She continually self-justifies in her public writings.

I think her fixation on Mignini is some kind of trauma bond.

She pretends to be gracious to Mignini with the generosity born of her success over him, but still she knows he was right about her guilt and she can’t help respecting him for seeing through her charade.

Mignini is a lighthouse of decency and truth, her complete opposite. Her attachment to him is very very real.

She can’t shake him off but she can’t despise him because he is honest, good, and irreproachable in seeking Meredith’s justice and she knows it.

So she can’t cubbyhole him or compartmentalize him. He is some kind of loved/hated father figure to her, IMO. Is Mignini the father Amanda wishes she’d had, a man of firm principle and courage?

Maybe Knox sensed Mignini’s real compassion for her at the time of her first interviews in Perugia, and wonders in retrospect if she should have confessed all to him and fallen on his and the courts’ mercy and wiped her slate clean like Guede is doing by fully paying for his crime. She could have hoped for a reduced sentence, instead of lying about everything to escape justice only to spend a lifetime with the sword of Damocles hanging over her head. She knows the discomfort and tedium of a life built on lies forever, a one-track life with the only focus being one awful night in November 2007. That miserable night will direct Knox’s focus during the many decades that lie ahead for her. Ten years have already passed from that infamous date, ten years she has been fooling her own family and the world about herself. 

Her gibberish about prison changing her but not changing her is code for, “I’m still the same, and I can’t change, not really. I remain defiant.”

We see Knox’s lack of change in her continued blindness to her own personality which she tells Rolling Stone is one of love and trying to understand people.

Wow. Just wow. Love and wanting to understand people and to not be angry for no cause. She doesn’t tend toward anger, huh?  A shame Meredith didn’t see much of that love and understanding from Knox the offensive, careless and insulting roommate from hell.

Knox doesn’t know herself at all. As Rafaelle said she lived in a dreamworld, a fantasy. Still does. No change. Just more lies, more fantasy.

There was also the great love and understanding Knox gave to Raffaele who after his early panicked waffling did shield her as a murder alibi to the bitter end but then after their prison ordeal he was persona non grata in Seattle when maybe hoping for Microsoft or Google work in that area and a fresh start for himself; a fresh start as she had sought in his 2007 Italy.

Knox doesn’t know herself at all and never did.

She is stuck in the high school mentality of her search for identity. Girl interrupted.

She has started to believe her own lies, and probably excuses herself from the violence done to Meredith on the grounds she was under the influence of drugs and alcohol. It is those substances she blames for Meredith’s murder, not herself or her loss of control, her lack of self-discipline, her loss of perspective on the night of the argument. She wasn’t really there, her drugged up self did the deed. Two different folks. She splits hairs, it was not her real self ‘with agency’, IMHO.

Even a court acquitted her, why not acquit herself she may reason. Between the drug fog of November and the high court’s release of her due to not enough evidence plus a few years she paid behind bars, those facts have become her rationalization to now believe she was never responsible for anything.

This majestic bubble could easily be burst if Guede gets out of prison and starts selling his story.

Guede may clarify many details of the crime and the exact reasons for Amanda’s tiff with Meredith.

The psychology of Knox’s motive might be exposed to the world, then all Knox’s lies would burst.

Thus she’s terrified of Rudy Guede, a man who knows all who might tell the truth, having nothing left to lose, unlike Raffaele who must maintain his fictions for emotional survival and to save face with Father.

Posted by Hopeful on 08/14/17 at 03:51 PM | #

Thanks Hopeful and James:

For our records here is the Daily Mail article by Jessa Scroeder:

Comments presently are mostly pro-Knox.

Here is the Rolling Stone article by Danielle Bacher which flowed from the presentation to the Westside Bar Association.

Comments presently are mostly anti-Knox.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 08/14/17 at 04:42 PM | #

Missing from ALL these recent media accounts is that Knox WAS definitively found guilty of calunnia and rightly served three years.

And that she STILL owes Patrick about $100,000.

Follow their history, and we can see strong reasons for Knox to freak out about a Guede Unchained.  My guess is that he will talk his head off.

He already did on RAI TV for an hour - and he came across as articulate, well-spoken and well-educated, and quite sympathetic.

Guede took the short-form trial in 2008 for one simple reason: he was scared that in a joint trial the other two would paint him as THE lone-wolf murderer.

But with his case come and gone in 2008 and both his appeals come and gone in 2009, he then had no easy way of stopping the other two from tarring him as THE lone-wolf murderer.

Their teams tried to do so in spades at the 2009 trial.

But despite that, they never proved Guede ever broke in ANYWHERE, or that he was a drug dealer, or had any history of violence - or that he climbed in that window.

In 2010 he was mysteriously beaten up in Viterbo - in a prison wing where attacks were meant to be impossible.

But despite that, short of saying he was an active part of the attack on Meredith himself, he DID try to nail the two repeatedly, as in responding to a framing by his ex cellmate Alessi:

And he tried again nervously in 2011 at the Hellmann appeal.

Thereafter he got out other similar statements, culminating in the extended RAI interview and the documentation for an attempt at re-trial.

Knox has huge reason to be worried.

By the way Guede did get a three year sentence in Milan for stolen property and we need to check again on his final full release date.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 08/14/17 at 05:48 PM | #

I think Guede will have served his 3 years for the stolen goods if the sentence was to be served concurrently. I think it unlikely that the sentence will run consecutively. I have a note that the Motivation for the stolen goods came out at the beginning of July 2013. When he is released he will, of course, be on licence but I can’t see that there will be any conditions that prevent him from speaking to the media though were he to profit from this or from writing a book that might be a different matter, but there might be ways other than his licence to prevent that in any case.

Posted by James Raper on 08/15/17 at 01:14 AM | #

Assuming that Guede was to begin talking on his release then he should take legal advice as he will need to be careful. He will, after all, be subject to whatever conditions attach to his release and the law as to what he can and can’t do, or say, just like anyone else.

However it is a judicial truth that not only he but Knox as well were present in the cottage at the time of the murder, so he has some leeway on Knox, if not Sollecito.

Bongiorno has already made a number of threats and the Sollecitos do seem to have had some sort of a relationship with the mafia via the late Rocco Sollecito, boss of the Ndrangheta in Montreal but born in Bari, where the Sollecitos live and Raffaele was born too. Francesco was seen attending a private memorial service for Rocco at a church in Grumo Appula, just outside Bari.

However I don’t see Guede saying much anyway, except from a safe distance.

It would be ironic - with all those illegal immigrants risking drowning trying to get into Italy -  that Guede might end up trying to travel in the opposite direction, for his own health.

Posted by James Raper on 08/15/17 at 02:00 AM | #

I should think Raff will be desperate to see Rudy deported back to the Cote d’Ivoire.  However, it might contravene the Human Rights Act as Guede has not lived there since age 5.

It’s interesting that Sollecito panicked when Rudy was arrested, writing that he might say strange things about him. 

When Guede did the RAI3 interview Malladotte with Leosini Raff almost had a nervous breakdown, desperately trying to get an injunction to stop the programme and threatening to sue for libel.

No sign that he ever did file a writ.

In a way it is intriguing to watch the three ‘psyche’ each other out.

Knox saying she is ‘very scared’ of Guede, some 7,000 miles away, speaks volumes about someone who wasn’t the slightest bit fazed by the murder of her roommate, loudly rueing having to pay any further rent, whilst everybody else was in pieces.

Posted by KrissyG on 08/15/17 at 10:14 AM | #

Hi James Raper and KrissyG

“However it is a judicial truth that not only he but Knox as well were present in the cottage at the time of the murder, so he has some leeway on Knox, if not Sollecito.”

That stealth-mode judicial truth seems to me Solecito’s Achilles Heel.

The more RS blusters, the more public attention is drawn to the FINAL Cassazione report that James etc so neatly took apart.

Remember NOBODY in Italy has published anything like the analyses of that final report we have. The average Italian is a lot more in the dark than we are.

We even offered to pay Italian lawyers to do a take on the final report - but not even one would bite. Taking apart a Casszione report we can safely do here, but no Italian lawyer would come out ahead in their career.

(This pervasive sense of threat seems to have hampered the Kerchers’ lawyer Maresca at the end as well. Lose at Cassation and try harder to win the next time around.)

In fact, ONLY Guede via the interview on RAI has really conveyed to Italians what the final report did say.

Here’s Eric Paroissien’s excellent subtitled videos of what Guede got to say - on a program widely watched and still up on YouTube, with over 20,000 views of Eric’s version alone.

James and KrissyG both note that there have been idle threats to sue in the past.

There sure have. Bongiorno threatened Aviello’s gang for saying she offered them bribes; no suit. Both legal teams threatened Lifetime TV for airing what was a pretty accurate take on Knox and the case; no suit. Others too.

Guede’s Rome team know this, and having had a loss in Florence (over a new trial), are said to be chomping at the bit. And even with her political sway I doubt Bongiorno engineers Guede’s return to the Ivory Coast.

His public constituency in Italy is a lot bigger than RS’s right now.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 08/15/17 at 05:11 PM | #

On the subject of Guede’s statements before the Hellmann appeal court, I have been thinking about this again, particularly with regard to the 5th Chambers’ criticism of Nencini’s treatment of it.

It is something of a confusing subject I would agree. The 5th Chambers spoke of an evasion of the guarantees dictated by article 526 of the Criminal Procedure Code, whereby a witness with incriminatory evidence must submit to cross-examination, otherwise his evidence is inadmissable. Nothing wrong with that.

So, let’s have a look again at what happened when Guede appeared.

Rudy Guede was called to the stand in connection with Alessi’s allegation concerning him. Guede had written a letter to his lawyer on hearing of Alessi’s allegation and that was read out in court once Guede had confirmed it’s authenticity. A selective quote from it -

“As this individual is now falsely stating things that I never told him and that I have never said, things that are not in heaven or on earth except in his or, rather I should say, their rotten declarations, it is my intention to state black on white that I have never confided anything to this filthy person, since I have nothing to confess, or anything else, and all that I had to say I’ve already told to the judges….”

The letter concluded -

“I hope that sooner or later the judges realize my complete lack of involvement in what was a horrible murder of Meredith, a lovely wonderful young woman, by Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox.”

Was this an allegation in respect of which Guede had some personal knowledge? If so, was it a statement that was admissible in evidence? To clarify this, and perhaps sensing it could be inadmissible, Guede was questioned further by Bongiorno.

Bongiorno : “I believe it is my right to at least ask Mr Guede whether, after years in which we pursued it, if he wants to tell us the truth about this murder.”

RG : “May I respond? Well, since this letter has been read, I think I’m here today to answer Mario Alessi’s false statements in criminal proceedings. And therefore, just as is written in the letter everything I had to say I have already told the judges, already told my lawyers, therefore I don’t plan on answering this topic.”

Bongiorno : “Therefore you don’t plan on answering?”

RG : “Yes.”

That one answer should have been enough to render any allegation against Knox and Sollecito, in so far as it was evidence at all, inadmissible.

However Dalla Vedova, lacking experience in criminal advocacy, pressed on. Alluding to the statement of Knox and Sollecito’s responsibility -

Vedova : “Well, why did you write it?”
RG :    “ I wrote it because it was a thought that has always been in my mind.”
Vedova : “But therefore it is not true ?”
RG :    “No, it is absolutely true.”

RG :      “If I am permitted one final word, you see, the problem is this; it’s not as though there is my truth, or the truth of Tom or Dick or Harry. There is only one truth; the one I lived through that night, the one I have always described, that’s all.”

No further questions from Dalla Vedova.

This exchange is interesting if only for juridical reasons, the issue, which became important later, being whether or not Guede had submitted at any stage to a cross-examination. In his exchange with Bongiorno Guede had made it clear that he was not going to answer any questions from the defence pertaining to his “evidence” as to what had happened on the night of the murder, but in his later exchange with Dalla Vedova it appears that he did exactly that. It was put to him that what he had written was not true, and he had denied that. In short, be it very briefly, he had been cross-examined. Or does that seem too contrived?

Also, and if so, and as a further exercise in judicial reasoning, the point could be developed, given who messed up on the attempt at cross-examination, and who he was representing, that Guede’s statements were admissible as against Knox but not Sollecito.

As I have also said elsewhere it is difficult to conceive of an effective cross-examination anyway, beyond the latter exchange, given that both Knox and Sollecito had claimed that they were not there.

It seems to me that the most they could have done was put it to Guede that he was a liar, effectively what Dalla Vedova did.

Of course Guede’s statement was a bit wishy-washy but the 5th Chambers did at least turn one element of that “thought” into a judicial truth.

Posted by James Raper on 08/16/17 at 02:07 PM | #

Hi James Raper

I’m with you. It may be helpful to add several elements as contexts to Guede’s situation here.

(1) In 2008 Judge Micheli was very hard on him and awarded him 30 years (while sending RS and AK onto trial of course).

(2) Guede had been through a second “first trial” by proxy in 2009 with THESE SAME DEFENSE LAWYERS acting as a prosecution.

Days and days were given over to this trial-within-a-trial and Guede had zero representation in court. The prosecution largely sat by idly.

They tried hard to paint him as a serial burglar. This failed on three fronts. The lawyers office breakin was pretty obviously done by two others intent on getting an edge on those lawyers. The Milan “breakin” wasn’t one because he had been given a key to enter. The Perugia witness who claimed Guede was in his apartment was shot down as a grandstander by Judge Micheli.

Also they tried hard to prove he entered the house alone via Filomena’s window. Another big fail. Their own paralegal, a very tall guy, could not make it through that window, and the physical evidence was against them.

They also argued it was HIS bloody footprint on the bath mat, though no reason was given for his bare feet and for contrary shoeprint evidence elsewhere.

The location of Meredith’s cellphones near his place was used against him.

(3) Judge Massei (with no proof) painted him as the prime mover in the attack on Meredith. His appeals did not reverse that and were sharply worded against him.

(4) Next, Guede was beaten up in Viterbo but would not pursue charges. It took Alessi’s false claims to partially reestablish his backbone.

(5) With all this as his bitter experience Guede was very nervous in front of Judge Hellmann, and Mignini read his statement for him.

Had Bongiorno really got stuck into him, he may have helped take down the other two, but he had no sympathetic lawyer in court to “cross-cross-examine” him as the prosecution was essentially hands-off here.


None of us that I know of were thrilled with Guede, especially when he rained more hurt on the Kerchers.

But we also saw the lone wolf theory as a major fail here.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 08/16/17 at 05:27 PM | #

She claimed to be scared of Patrick, so one has to sceptical she is ‘very scared’ of Rudy.

The fear is not a physical one, it’s fear of what he might say.

Perhaps the pair will meet when the cheeky so-and-so visits Perugia, or so she threatens in *PEOPLE*.

Defiant to the end, huh?

Posted by KrissyG on 08/17/17 at 12:45 AM | #

Hi KrissyG

Right. Sollecito claimed to be scared of Guede back in late 2007 when Guede was nabbed in Germany. He was scared of what Guede could say too.

Knox lies about Guede in her book, sounding a lot like his chief demonizer Nina Burleigh:

Guede had been caught breaking into offices and homes and stealing electronics and cash.

Untrue. He hadn’t.

The [Milan] police were on the verge of arresting him for that crime but released him without giving a reason. I couldn’t understand how they’d let Guede slip through their fingers. All I could think was that if he’d been put behind bars then, Meredith would still be alive. It didn’t make sense to me that they had let him go but had leapt to arrest me.

Untrue. This is the beginning of the FOA myth that he was on the payroll of the police.  In fact he was charged, for stolen property, and sentenced to three years.

And as to why she was locked up and he wasn’t? There’s a world of difference between possible possession of a couple of stolen items and what was a pretty depraved murder - with four Perugia judges and Cassation (not Mignini) concluding RS and AK could be a threat to the public if they were let out.

Odd how she leaves that out. 


In the timeline I posted just above in support of James’s point I should maybe have included aspects of the constant drumbeat against Guede in the media by the PR of Sollecito and Knox.

This example is from Knox’s book.

In early January, Raffaele’s father went on a popular Italian news program to convince viewers that his son had had nothing to do with Meredith’s murder. “The bloody shoeprints in the villa were made by Rudy Guede,” he said. The pattern of eleven concentric circles on the sole of Guede’s Nike Outbreak 2s matched the prints on the floor. Dr. Sollecito produced a duplicate pair of the Nikes so TV viewers could see. A corresponding shoebox was found in Guede’s apartment, he added.

The prints couldn’t have been made by Raffaele’s newer Nike Air Force 1s, he said. “They had just seven concentric circles.” By show’s end he had removed the possibility that Raffaele had been at the murder scene and put another strike against Guede. Raffaele’s family must have felt euphoric.

The popular Italian news program Porta a Porta had no comeback. It should have been: “What about this…......??”

Posted by Peter Quennell on 08/17/17 at 03:32 PM | #

This is what Hellmann said about Guede -

“Rudy Guede, several times, in fact, had been the protagonist of burglaries in apartments or offices…..”

In fact?

He continued -

“But - it is said - is it possible that Rudy Guede, being known since he had sometimes visited the house, did not experience a psychological scruple in surreptitiously entering it because of such visits? The answer, however, is yes: the personality of Rudy Guede as it emerges from the testimony of witnesses, does not show any particular respect for others. He not only, as already mentioned, had accrued experience as the perpetrator of thefts in buildings owned by others…….but time and again, in the street, above all when drunk, he had also bothered young women…..”

So? Given that he stated - against all the evidence, and the only judge to say so - that the break in was not staged but a genuine one, are we expected to believe that Guede shattered the glass and undertook the precipitous and dangerous climb onto Filomena’s window ledge in order to plant an unsolicited kiss and doing so whilst drunk?! I can’t even begin to imagine that. Buster Keaton, eh?

What planet was Hellmann on? Was he on drugs?

Posted by James Raper on 08/18/17 at 11:56 AM | #

Hi James

One could write a book (hint!) on the one-sided trial-within-a-trial of Guede by the defenses in 2009 from the transcripts of which Hellmann is extrapolating this stuff.

Throughout that trial Guede was under the black cloud anyway of a 30-year sentence (only later reduced under the formula) and Judge Micheli’s stiff criticism in his Jan 2009 report. Plus he so obviously lied at his own appeals late in 2009.

Still, I bet when Massei and Mignini read Hellmann’s report they regretted not giving Guede more of a “defense” at the trial-within-a-trial in 2009.

Guede was called to the trial but that was in early April in the prosecution portion, and he chose to have nothing to say.

His trial-withing-a-trial came in the defense portion of the trial in the second part of the year when he was not present - in fact, probably not even hearing about it.

This trial-within-a-trial was in fact MOST of the defense portion.

The full force of it only became fully apparent to us as trial transcripts were translated for the Wiki and some TJMK series. Examples of what we posted.

Impressive that the Massei jury was not really snowed by it (they might have been a little bit; someone pushed to make Guede the prime mover in Meredith’s attack).

Even before the English transcripts though, there were some extremely insightful posts here on Guede’s predicament.

By Michael:

By James Raper:

By Cardiol MD:

By Cardiol MD:

By Marcello:

Posted by Peter Quennell on 08/18/17 at 01:52 PM | #

Terrific analysis and the historic comments by people like @Cardiol MD display perfectly the forensic and fair nature of the contributors to this fantastic site. Peter is the seamster who pulls together the many different strands and transforms them into the cogent, and frankly quite beautiful, garment that is TJMK. Bravo sir.

As for Guede, I just can’t see any real upside for him to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. He has carefully cultivated his own victimhood status (just like the other two cretinous main protagonists) via his heinous assertion that Meredith was a willing partner in some kind of sexual encounter; an encounter which was allegedly halted by the lack of a condom but which it is screamingly obvious that he concocted because he knew evidence of his filthy digits would likely be found inside Meredith.

I do believe that he was involved in restraining Meredith whilst the other two verminous imbeciles tortured and ultimately murdered her and I think it very likely that he did have an attack of conscience when the full realisation of what he had done quickly hit him as Meredith lay dying.

I am also prepared to believe that he may have been motivated by several factors via a vis:

1) His fairly well documented lust after Knox and her siren like qualities. Qualities that she deployed often during the phase of her life where she admits in her stupid book that she thought that her raison d’être at that point was to sleep with as many men as she could during her time “studying” abroad.

2) Possible fear of Sollecito, mainly (was Guede aware of the family reputation?), but Knox also when the violence exploded. He may well have felt that their knives would turn on him if he didn’t comply and my guess is that they probably shouted instructions at him to restrain Meredith at some point.

3) Being overcome by some form of mass hysteria once the blood lust had started. I believe this is a fairly common phenomenon when people who might otherwise never have participated in violent crime become embroiled when they are present when it starts.

My two younger sisters (twins) had a school friend who was murdered many years ago when they were in 6th year at secondary school. The boy had been set upon by a group of youths who had initially been intent on robbing and assaulting him but the attack degenerated into a vicious murder where most of the participants were described by the trial judge as being overcome by mass hysteria leading them all to rain blows with knives, fists and feet on the poor guy, who ended up almost beheaded and unrecognisable. This particular group of vermin now walk the streets as free men.

Anyway, I just can’t see Guede ever telling the truth. He knows the public backlash would be enormous and he would live his life as a pariah. I think he has managed to create an image now of someone who can integrate back into society and he appears to have received a more sympathetic hearing in the court of public opinion in Italy than the other two who seem to be generally hated.

Personally, I find Guede just as hateful as the other two and perhaps more so in some ways for his character assassination of Meredith (painting her as some kind of loose moralled harpy in the Knox mound) which must be particularly painful for her family.

I do hope he continues to be a huge thorn in the side of Knox and Sollecito but I fear that this is the most that we can hope for. Better than nothing I suppose.

Posted by davidmulhern on 08/19/17 at 10:09 AM | #

Make a comment


Where next:

Click here to return to The Top Of The Front Page

Or to next entry Netflixhoax 20 Omitted The Vital Context Of 200,000 In The US Wrongly Locked Up #3

Or to previous entry Meredith’s Perugia #38: Popular Beaches In Italy’s Deep South She Will Never See