Tuesday, November 23, 2021

Tip For Good Reporters: NY Times’s Jessica Bennett Snowed By Knox On Guede As Sole Killer #1

Posted by The TJMK Main Posters



Juror amused at Guede tying opposing counsel in knots in 2011

This is the seventh in a multi-part series focused on provable realities in response to an inflammatory three-page report in the New York Times almost exclusively channeling dishonest and repeatedly-refuted Knox PR.

Post Overview

See how those reporters groveling to Knox never seem curious about who the “real killers” were?

An increasingly frantic Knox has incessantly been blaming all of the attack on Guede. She is sure to do it yet again, maybe even today, as Guede is now free to speak out.

But guess who turned their backs on the so-called lone-wolf hoax 10 years ago? It was Knox’s own defense.

Her team and Sollecito’s had demonized the absent Guede almost daily at trial in 2009, and brought in witnesses, every one of which proved incredibly weak. The prosecution simply sat there, amused.

And in the excellent explanation of the trial verdict by Judge Massei (already anticipated by Judge Micheli) the lone-wolf notion proved an enormous fail. Many of the reasons are explained below.

So at their appeal in 2011, Knox’s and Sollecito’s own defenses turned their backs on the failed lone-wolf ploy, and they instead brought in two witnesses (Alessi and Aviello) from different prisons for a Plan B.

The nefarious pair were meant to testify “Yes, it WAS a pack attack, we all concede that; but the pack did not include Sollecito and Knox; it was really some other guys”.

Well, that did not go well.

There were no other guys. Aviello was sick, so scared was he of a perjury charge. And Alessi was yelling to the judge that the defense had offered bribes.

Here now is a superb post by Marcello in 2013 definitively dismantling for Knox many main elements of the lone-wolf hoax.

1. Problems Of Your “Guede did it alone” Mantra

Your attempts to frame Guede for the entire attack sound racist, and they fly in the face of a multitude of hard facts.

Why are you and your more untethered supporters arguing to the media that Rudy Guede alone attacked Meredith (he could not have), that he was a drifter (he wasnt), a burglar (he wasnt), and drug dealer (he wasnt), and that his DNA traces are “all over Meredith’s room” (they werent)?

There are surprisingly few DNA traces of Guede in there, and outside Meredith’s door there is only evidence of (1) his prior use of the south bathroom, and (2) his shoeprints headed straight for the front door.

There is zero evidence that Rudy Guede was ever in the shared bathroom (the one with Sollectio’s bloody footprint on the bathmat) and zero evidence he was in Filomena’s room (the one with the broken window and the mixed DNA of Meredith and Knox). 

2. Evidence Against You Is Far, Far Stronger

Explain if you can about Sollecito’s bloody footprint. Explain if you can about the evidence of cleanup. Explain this and this about your multiple contradictory alibis.

Explain if you can why your own witnesses Alessi and Aviello were such disasters for your side in court. Explain your cell phone actions (or non-actions) and the timing and content of your phone calls, and explain your computer actions (or non actions).

Explain why in Sollecito’s book he claims he sent several emails throughout the night; but there zero records of such emails with his email provider. Explain why both Sollecito and yourself framed Dr Mignini for a crime in your books.

There are three compelling reasons above all why the Massei court and the Supreme Court will remain totally unbending on the point that Guede did NOT attack Meredith alone, and that it had to be a pack attack on Meredith.

  • One is the several full days of closed court testimony at trial by crime-scene and autopsy experts from Rome, who accounted for every point of evidence in Meredith’s room, and all the numerous wounds on her body, with depictions of a 15 minute pack attack which had to have involved three people. This seriously upset the jury and your own defense was essentially left speechless.

  • One is the prosecution’s video shown in closed court during Summations of the recreation of the attack on Meredith, which accounted for every point of crime-scene and autopsy evidence with a 15 minute pack attack involving three people.  This seriously upset the jury and your own defense was essentially left speechless
  • .
  • One is that the entry of an attacker via Filomena’s room is so absolutely unbelievable. Your own defense always knew this, and barely tried to make that sale (hence the witnesses Alessi and Aviello). There are seven other routes for a burglar to enter the house.

All of the seven are faster and quieter, and five of them are darker: two via the east windows, and three up onto the balcony and into the house via the louvre door or the kitchen window.

All seven routes would be obvious to any burglar, long before he walked all the way around the base of the house to beneath Filomena’s window (which he did several times in your scenario - while leaving no footprints at all). 

3. The Numerous Questions From Which You Hide

On or after 6 November you have both promised to appear in the appeal court in Florence. You are apparently too nervous to face cross-examination under oath, but you have said you intend to try to explain things.

    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 where 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 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 the 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 the 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 restain Ms. Kercher, holding her limbs while brandishing two knives and committing sexual violence, then who else was with Guede and why no traces of this 4th (or more) person(s) were 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?

4. Italy Is Not Buying The Racist Mantra

If the mantra of Knox & her strange gang remains “the black guy did it” and “Italians are brutal, corrupt and stupid” then they should PROVE that. Mere fact-free ranting in the US will never prove Knox was not involved.

Comments

Alessi and Aviello, supposed key witnesses to the “real” pack attack in 2011 as explained above, were not even mentioned in The Forgotten Killer, a seriously silly book in 2012 by Preston & Moore trying to blame it all on Guede.

Turqoise in London have been asked to square that one. I think perhaps their original hit-piece project is already dead. 

********** 

There are a lot of excellent insights in the Comments under relevant past posts. For example The Machine posted this in August 2019.

Rudy Guede should come clean and give an honest account of what happened. I don’t think he will because he doesn’t want to admit his own part in Meredith’s murder and confess to sexually assaulting her.

Like Amanda Knox, his accounts of what happened are a mixture of fact and fiction. They have both given very brief and clearly incomplete accounts of what happened in the cottage on the evening of the murder - which is very telling. They are withholding the details of their own involvement.

Amanda Knox repeatedly mentioned meeting Diya Lumumba near the basketball court in Piazza Grimana in her statements and Antonio Curatolo corroborated her claims she was in Piazza Grimana on the evening of the murder. She was clearly referring to Rudy Guede. She said Diya Lumumba was infatuated with Meredith and in his prison diary Guede said he found her beautiful.

Both Knox and Sollecito mentioned Meredith’s loud scream and their claim that Meredith screamed loudly was corroborated by Nara Capezalli and Antonella Monocchia.

A number of Rudy Guede’s claims have been corroborated i.e. Knox and Sollecito were involved in Meredith’s murder, Diya Lumumba had nothing to do with Meredith’s murder, Sollecito owned a knife that looked like a scalpel, Filomena’s window wasn’t broken before Meredith was killed, there was lots of blood in the hallway, Knox was hanging around with people who were part of the drug scene in Perugia, and bringing back men to the cottage, Meredith had complained about Knox - not Filomena or Laura; and Knox and Meredith quarrelled that evening.

 

Posted by Peter Quennell on 11/24/21 at 08:13 AM | #

I am back to looking around at what people are thinking Knox’s syndrome could be.

Without naming any, I notice they usually point to the kind desperate to be admired, but with a tin ear, who descends into enormous rage when she thinks she is brushed off.

Couple that with cocaine, and with zero supervision, and with a real fear Meredith had just taken her job, misinterpreting why Patrick had said no need to come to work, and with her burning her way through her savings at an eye-popping rate, and knowing Meredith’s rent-money was right there… 

Hmmm. Poor Meredith. Knox’s barbaric cruelty was full of intent.   

Posted by Peter Quennell on 11/24/21 at 10:05 PM | #

Knox is going through the motions of leaning on Guede, but it seems rather cautious and so-far not widely reported.

This was in the Daily Mail.

Amanda Knox tells Rudy Guede to ‘clear my name once and for all’ and ‘bring closure for Meredith Kercher’s family’ as he completes his sentence for the British student’s murder

This was in the New York Post

Amanda Knox begs Meredith Kercher’s killer to finally clear her name

This was in The Independent

Amanda Knox tells freed killer Rudy Guede: ‘Restore my reputation’

This was in the International Business News

Amanda Knox Slams Meredith Kercher’s Killer For Failing To Restore Her ‘Damaged Reputation’

Posted by Peter Quennell on 11/25/21 at 09:33 AM | #

Sollecito seems to have issued only this single very brief statement on Guede,  and only in Italian.

Rudy Guede free, Raffaele Sollecito: “He never told the truth… So Amanda Knox and I went to prison for 4 years”

Toward Guede he has always been cautious, except only in “his” book that the Knox people wrote along with the anti-Italy shadow-writer Andrew Gumbel.

Try downloading the book and seeing just how many false claims the book makes against Guede, they appear everywhere in the book.

https://tinyurl.com/45e8pnb8

Putting words in Sollecito’s mouth like that is one of the reasons Sollecito keeps chipping away at Knox.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 11/25/21 at 10:46 AM | #

Make a comment

Smileys



Where next:

Click here to return to The Top Of The Front Page

Or to next entry Tip For Good Reporters: 20 Forensic Proofs Guede Did NOT Attack Meredith Alone

Or to previous entry Tip For Good Reporters: NY Times’s Jessica Bennett Uses Mafia Playbook To Smear Dr Mignini