Reagan Arthur Of Publishers Little-Brown Also Has Liability For Malcolm Gladwell’s Defamatory Mess

Posted by Peter Quennell


Reagan Arthur, Incompetent Editor, Little-Brown


Our post just above offers first corrections of Malcolm Gladwell’s hallucinatory screech on the case. 

Reagan Arthur is the VP and Gladwell’s editor at publisher Little-Brown, the book’s publishers on Sixth Ave in New York, an arm of the French group Hachette.

She seems to have done little or no due diligence at all. Nobody in Italy was consulted on the facts.

And yet Reagan Arthur allowed or encouraged Gladwell’s serious defamations of defenseless Italians and their fine justice system - which she would NEVER have done in an American case, one can bet.

Is Reagan Arthur just lazy, or just bigoted, or just incompetent, or all three?

Posted by Peter Quennell on 09/10/19 at 01:21 PM • Permalink for this post • Archived in • Comments here (6)

1. The Hachette Hoax: Mutiple False Statements That Were Easily Checkable

Posted by The TJMK Main Posters


Ironic headline? First thing, try telling the truth?

Rebuttals Of 33 False Claims

This is our first quick take on Malcolm Gladwell’s depiction of the case.

As we show, Gladwell lies extensively and pretty maliciously about Italians, Italians justice and the real case.

Not one Italian in the justice system was contacted by Gladwell or his publishers Little, Brown (a subsidiary of the Hachette group) to check any of the claims made.

Gladwell’s false take has been made into a major selling point for the book - the publishers’ press release emphasizes the Knox chapter.

2. Our First Quick Rebuttals

These quick rebuttals will be expanded-on in the coming series. We’d suggest you might first read up on all the smoking guns which Gladwell missed entirely.

[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.]

[10] Her name was Amanda Knox. [Seemingly solely in Perugia for drugs; she was not enrolled at the main university, and had no work permit, and little money though funding REQUIRING SUPERVISION was easily available from her Seattle university.] 

[11] She [said she] came home one morning and found blood in the bathroom.

[12] She and her boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, called the police [after the police had already arrived]. 

[13] The police came and found Kercher dead in her bedroom; within hours [untrue] they added Knox and Sollecito to their list of suspects [untrue; they did not even have status of WITNESSES].

[14] The crime, the police believed [untrue; this was a prosecution proffer, as the murder was believed unpremeditated] was a drug-and alcohol-fueled sex game gone awry, featuring Guede, Sollecito, and Knox. [Guede was not even known about for 2 weeks. Knox had framed Patrick and HE was locked up; she left him there for two weeks, and rightly served three years for this felony.]

[15] The three were arrested, charged, convicted, and sent to prison - with every step of the way chronicled obsessively by the tabloid press. [Which tabloid press?  Coverage was no different than numerous cases in the UK and US.]

[16] “A murder always gets people going. Bit of intrigue. Bit mystery. A whodunit,” British journalist Nick Pisa says in the documentary Amanda Knox - one of a vast library of books, academic essays, magazine articles, movies, and news shows spawned by the case. [Read our Netflix Hoax series on this. That “documentary” was created by Knox PR.]

[17] “And we have here this beautiful, picturesque hilltop town in the middle of Italy. It was a particularly gruesome murder. Throat slit, semi-naked, blood everywhere. I mean, what more do you want in a story.” [Pisa did numerous OBJECTIVE reports as we have shown.]

[18] Other signature crime stories, such as the O. J. Simpson and JonBenet Ramsey cases, are just as enthralling when you rediscover them five or ten years later. The Amanda Knox case is not. [There was a real victim here, Gladwell apparently forgets.]

[19] It is completely inexplicable in hindsight. There was never any physical evidence linking either Knox or her boyfriend to the crime. [There was a mountain of evidence, see the list of 400 points as described by the trial judge in 440 pages.] 

[20] Nor was there ever a plausible explanation [untrue; Gladwell completely misses the real sharp-elbowed, noisy, lazy, dirty, jealous Knox] for why Knox, an immature, sheltered, middle-class girl from Seattle [who was sleeping with a dangerous drug dealer] would be interested in engaging in murderous sex games with a troubled drifter [Guede was not troubled or a drifter; Gladwell sure is free with the racist remarks] she barely knew [untrue].

[21] The police investigation against her was revealed as shockingly inept. [No it wasnt, not even one item of evidence was discredited.]

[22] The analysis of the DNA evidence supposedly linking her and Sollecito to the crime was completely botched. [No it wasnt, defense observers watched ALL PROCESSING without complaint].

[23] Her prosecutor was wildly irresponsible, obsessed with fantasies about elaborate sex crimes. [Defamatory total nonsense, he has ZERO interest in fantasies and GAVE KNOX BREAKS such as the 17 Dec 2007 interview; and there were TWO prosecutors at trial and various others at appeal; at trial Manuela Comodi presented more than half of the case].

[24] Yet it took a ruling by the [infamously bent] Italian Supreme Court [Fifth Chambers] eight years after the crime, for Knox to be finally declared innocent. [Knox was not declared innocent. And it was not ITALY that spun the process out for eight years. It was mafias and families of the two perps repeatedly corrupting the courts that did that. The bent Fifth Chambers of the Supreme Court broke Italian law in dismissing hard evidence.]

[25] Even then, many otherwise intelligent, thoughtful people disagreed [otherwise intelligent? Even the Fifth Chambers said Knox was present at the scene of the crime].

[26] When Knox was freed from prison, a large angry crowd gathered in the Perugia town square to protest her release. [And Sollecito’s; they had seen a very fair trial in 2009 and knew the 2011 appeal was bent.]

[27] The Amanda Knox case makes no sense. [Exactly what cases do? Absurd point.]

[28] I could give you a point-by-point analysis of what was wrong [go right ahead if you can; but no more mindless cut-and-paste fictions from the vicious Knox PR] with the investigation of Kercher’s murder.

[29] It could easily be the length of this book [and all of it fictional, judging by this book. Both perps had large defense teams; where are THEIR complaints?]

[30] I could also refer you to some of the most comprehensive scholarly analyses [untrue] of the investigation’s legal shortcomings, such as Peter Gill’s meticulous [and seen as a hoax by numerous better experts] “Analysis and Implications of the Miscarriages of justice of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito” in the July 2016 issue of the criminology journal Forensic Science International, which includes paragraphs like this: 

The amplified DNA product in sample B was also subjected to capillary gel electrophoresis. The electrophoretic graph showed peaks that were below the reporting threshold and allele imbalance at most loci. I counted only 6 alleles that were above the reporting threshold. The electrophoretic graph showed a partial DNA profile that was claimed to match Meredith Kercher. Consequently, sample B was border-line for interpretation.

[This is a hoax. Some 29 of 30 STRs matched, as Gill knows very well. And this was a tiny fraction of a huge body of DNA, see the Wiki’s massive spreadsheet for hundreds of swabs and tests - which defenses HURRIED PAST as did Gill.]

[31] But instead, let me give you the simplest and shortest of all possible Amanda Knox theories. Her case is about transparency. [Nonsense. This was one of the most transparent legal processes in recent history; does Gladwell even KNOW about the massive number of documents?]

[32] If you believe that the way a stranger looks and acts is a reliable clue to the way they feel - if you buy into the Friends fallacy - then you’re going to make mistakes. [Totally irrelevant. This was NOT why Knox was charged.]

[33] Amanda Knox was one of those mistakes. [And Gladwell’s pretentious book is about how WE cannot see truth?]

Posted by The TJMK Main Posters on 09/10/19 at 02:00 PM • Permalink for this post • Archived in • Comments here (5)

2. The The Hachette Hoax: Gladwell “Strangers” Actually Pro-Mafia Trolls

Posted by The TJMK Main Posters



Unreliable sources: Mark Olshaker, John Douglas, Jim Clemente

1. Gladwell’s Book Thesis (Really)

It’s hard not to laugh. Gladwell’s thesis is actually: Don’t be taken in.

Strangers are not always what they seem. A mind-fail which, for some reason, he thinks happens to law enforcement all the time.

In other words: with conspiracy theorists and Russian hackers and Nigerian princes and bumbling cops all rife in the world today, do look before you jump.

That, or suffer buyer’s remorse. Don’t jump the wrong way. Really. That is what he came down to Earth to share with us mortals.

2. Gladwell Falls Hard For Fake Knox

See Gladwell’s take on the case in this previous post.

The dangerous shoot-from-the-hip Gladwell doesn’t actually know Amanda Knox. She is a “stranger” in his definition.

He clearly has no idea what the erratic, abrasive, irresponsible Knox 1.0 of 2007-10 was really like, the one that without question led the attack.

She was not in Perugia for serious study, everyone knew this. She was not even enrolled in a course that could earn degree credits at UW, her Seattle university.

Most of her days, she was doing drugs or hanging out with her dealer or hitting on customers in Patrick’s bar. Everybody started avoiding her.

Even Sollecito thought she was weird, after he got entangled in her Typhoid Mary wake. He blamed her from the time of his arrest, and still does. 

Nevertheless, Gladwell burbled on about her sheer amazingness thus:

“an immature, sheltered, middle-class girl from Seattle” who of course would never be “interested in engaging in murderous sex games with a troubled drifter.”

Hard to believe, but Gladwell’s best shot at framing this stranger, the real Knox, was wildly inaccurate.

Knox’s own parents and lawyers knew full well that she was a loose cannon. Everybody knew by early in 2008. Her own lawyers warned publicly that she was.

So they did all they could to adjust her default mode. She was taught to hate Dr Mignini, and try to act lovably daffy, and the PR became barbarically vicious.

But they were not exactly succesfull. Her trial was a disaster. Prosecution and experts did a brilliant job. Her condescending, callous stint on the stand shocked many. On some days, defense lawyers did not even turn up.

So after a unanimous and well-argued conviction in 2009, Knox was radically transformed. Now she was to be in “I’m the real victim” Knox 2.0 mode. No mention of Meredith’s name was to be made. Media was to be bribed or threatened. It was to be saturated with Knox happy-news. The Kerchers were to be stalked, and Italy and Italian justice were to be trashed, in the US and UK. 

Gladwell jumped aggressively to the support of this fake Knox and her defamatory, lie-based vigilante campaign, with no sign he had taken his own advice to look first.

He’s thus fallen in with very unsavory “strangers”. Shades of the professional hoax exposure Benjamin Radford similarly duped a while back.

To summarise:

  • Gladwell has chosen sides AGAINST the globally respected forces of Italian justice, which the FBI cooperates with a lot.

  • Gladwell has chosen sides WITH the looniest of self-serving conspiracy theorists, with the anti-justice mafias cheering them on.

Nice doing. And it gets worse.

3. Bizarre Logic Of Gladwell’s Position

In Gladwell’s take, numerous highly-trained cops, and some of the world’s best crime-scene analysts well known in FBI circles, and a dozen renowned prosecutors, and the Massei and Nencini juries, and over thirty judges, all ran some kind of gigantic hoax.

It gets worse. 

Knox’s high-powered defense did not say a word about this. They had a very easy route to complain but there was not even one complaint lodged. In fact, to the contrary, it was Knox they publicly complained about. One high-powered Rome lawyer walked right off the job.

It gets worse.

The US Embassy in Rome monitored the court and the prison at Capanne, and each time reported to Washington that all was fine. An Italian MP also monitored Knox and reported nothing wrong.

It gets worse.

In Gladwell’s take this is how all Italian media and 2/3 of the Italian population that was watching were taken in. They did not REALLY see three bent courts, or the wild battle between Sollecito and Knox that went on for years, or that mountain of evidence.

So why this huge globally unique hoax?

This is how Gladwell explains. It’s all because “they” read Knox wrong. He has zero evidence for it but that really is his claim. Those daffy Italians… “Gladwell’s here, Knox, I have them on the run.”

And it gets worse.

This was a hoax not only against Knox. It was also against the Italian, Sollecito, as well, who came from a well-connected and quite wealthy family who could pull strings (well, in theory; in practice they were forced to put their campaign on ice, and Sollecito’s sister got booted out of the Carabinieri for polluting the jury pool).

And even worse.

This hoax happened in a country which hosts 3 of the UN’s 10 apex crime institutes, which has a murder rate and prison incarceration rate only 1/7 that of the US, and which does not have even ONE Innocence Project case.

Parts 4 to 6 below summarize the hard facts in three key years: the real justice system, the real Knox, and the PR hoaxers behind one of the world’s greatest legal hoaxes.

They constitute a lot of depth. Read all of them when you have the time. For now a scan of all the the headlines will show how out to lunch Gladwell was in each area.



Unreliable sources: Doug Preston, Michael Heavey, Steve Moore

4. The Real Italian Justice System

Click for Post:  The Almost Unique Carefulness Of Italy’s Justice System

Click for Post:  Why Numerous American JUDGES Favor The Supremely Neutral Italian Kind Of System

Click for Post:  Compared To Italy, Say, Precisely How Wicked Is The United States?

Click for Post:  Italy’s Advanced, Effective, Humane Law & Order System Also Adopted By City Of New York

Click for Post:  Italy’s Unpopular Politicians And Mafia Fellow Travelers Against Italy’s Popular Justice System

Click for Post:  So Where Would YOU Want To Go On Trial? In Italy Or In The U.S.?

5. The Real Amanda Knox (Knox 1.0)

Click for Post:  Questions For Knox: Why The Huge Lie About Your ZERO Academic Intentions In Europe?

Click for Post:  Questions For Knox: Why So Many False Claims In Accounts Of Your Visit To The House?

Click for Post:  Questions For Knox and Sollecito: Why Claim Rudy Guede Did It Alone When So Much Proof Against?

Click for Post:  Questions For Knox: Why Does Book Smear Others On Drug Use, Severely Understate Your Own?

Click for Post:  Master Manipulators, Masks, and Murder: Parallels Of The Amanda Knox And Scott Peterson Cases

Click for Post:  Is The Raffaele Sollecito Defense Team About To Separate Him From A Radioactive Amanda Knox?

Click for Post:  The Amanda Knox Book: Good Reporters Start To Surface Amanda Knox’s False Claims In Droves

Click for Post:  Demonizations By Knox: Book Claims About Prison Traumas Contradicted By Many Solid Sources

Click for Post:  Omitted - How Amanda Knox Falsely Accused Dr Mignini Of A Felony



Unreliable sources: Netflix’s Morse, Blackhurst, and McGinn

6. The Real Strangers Gladwell Should Have Mistrusted

These mafia poodles seem the most likely to have duped Gladwell. Some of them wrote the crackpot “Forgotten Killer” (amazingly still on sale), a xenophobic, racist book which framed Guede as the sole killer, trashed many reputable Italians, and misrepresented the case.

Click for Post:  Exposing Peter Gill: An Opportunistic Expert Never At Trial and Never At Either Rome Police Lab

Click for Post:  New Mignini Interview Makes Doug Preston Look Increasingly Incompetent And Vindictive

Click for Post:  After 6 Years Michael Heavey Still Heedless Of Errors Pointed Out Again & Again & Again

Click for Post:  Disarray And Decay In The Pro-Knox Parade: Bruce Fischer’s Epidemic Of Malicious Claims

Click for Post:  How Greg Hampikian Abuses Two Positions of Trust In Serially Misrepresenting The Hard Evidence

Click for Post:  How With Myriad False Claims John Douglas Pushes To Forefront Of Pro-Knox Crackpots

Click for Post:  How With Myriad False Claims Steve Moore Pushes To Forefront Of Pro-Knox Crackpots

Click for Post:  How With Myriad False Claims Nina Burleigh Pushes To Forefront Of Pro-Knox Crackpots

Click for Post:  Netflix Hoax Producers Morse, Blackhurst, McGinn Commited Stalking Crimes

7. Galdwell’s Only Face-Saving Opportunity

Gladwell is clearly totally sold on the wrong paradigm. For now he is a dangerous inflammatory menace. He thoroughly deserves strong push-back, and needs to be in career-saving mode.

Best advice to Gladwell would be to bite the bullet, and belatedly learn from each of those posts. Then apologize and withdraw the misleading and insulting book, and try hard to get the Knox case right next time.

8. Our Next Post

Click for Post:  Explaining To “No Physical Evidence” Gladwell Just How MUCH There Was: #1 Knife DNA

Posted by The TJMK Main Posters on 09/14/19 at 02:03 PM • Permalink for this post • Archived in • Comments here (7)

3. The Hachette Hoax: Explaining How MUCH Evidence There Was #1 Knife DNA

Posted by The Machine


Carabinieri labs court exhibit 2013; 2007 charts at bottom

Long post. Click here to go straight to Comments.


1. Series Overview

This is the first in a series of short posts rebutting this claim Malcolm Gladwell made:

There was never any physical evidence linking either Knox or her boyfriend to the crime.

Gladwell is a renowned Canadian academic and author and contributor to The New Yorker. He is right now giving numerous media interviews to promote his new book Talking To Strangers.

We have already done some point-by-point analyses of what is wrong with Gladwell’s mistake-prone chapter on “the Knox case” (he only names Meredith once) here and here.

It was mentioned that Gladwell chose to go with the US conspiracy theorists (which the defense teams mostly ignored) rather than the trusted and globally respected Italian law enforcement.

If you’re expecting the renowned intellectual to comprehensively demolish the DNA and forensic evidence against Knox and Sollecito, and provide some exculpatory evidence that proves they’re innocent, you’ll be sorely disappointed.

I could give you a point-by-point analysis of what was wrong with the investigation of Kercher’s murder. It could easily be the length of this book.

But he doesn’t. He never will.

Gladwell’s claim that there was never any physical evidence linking Knox or her boyfriend to the crime is demonstrably false and would be news to the two defense teams.

My series will cover the multiple pieces of DNA and forensic evidence linking to them to Meredith’s murder: the double DNA knife (this post), the bra clasp evidence, the mixed-blood evidence, the bloody footprint evidence, and the staged break-in.

Others will cover the very telling Knox lamp and Meredith’s door. What impacted the unanimous jury was more complex still. See here.



Carabinieri central labs (Roma RSI) in northen Rome

2. The AK And MK DNA Knife

The knife shown at top was tested for DNA twice, in 2007 in the Scientific Police Labs in Rome, and in 2013 in the Carabinieri labs in Rome. Defence observers were present at all processing and raised no objections. The markers showing there are from the Carabinieri’s extraordinarily conclusive 2013 presentation.

At Knox’s and Sollecito’s appeal in 2011 Judge Hellman (a business judge with only one murder case, a fiasco, behind him) had appointed two independent experts. That was actually illegal as no new experts should be appointed at appeal stage. The elite Carabinieri labs and experts with vastly better equipment and training than the academic consultants were available then and the normal course.

Despite strong conclusions, the independent experts never finished their Hellmann-ordered testing, for reasons that made no legitimate sense. The elite Carabinieri labs completed the work, with devastating effect on the defence.

1. Gladwell’s wrong claim

The only physical evidence Gladwell mentions in his book is the knife evidence.

Gladwell says very little about it. In fact, he can’t even be bothered to provide his own opinion - he just offers a puzzling quote from the much-challenged English expert Peter Gill:

The amplified DNA product in sample B was also subjected to capillary gel electrophoresis. The electrophoretic graph showed peaks that were below the reporting threshold and allele imbalance at most loci. I counted only 6 alleles that were above the reporting threshold. The electrophoretic graph showed a partial DNA profile that was claimed to match Meredith Kercher. Consequently, sample B was border- line for interpretation.

Gill is hoaxing the uninitiated here. It is not the height of the alleles that matter, it is the number of STRs, and there was an STR match in 29 of the 30 indicated. 

Besides, such isolation of one evidence item is forbidden under Italian procedure, as I explain below. It can only be taken in context and the context is damning here.

2. Prosecution’s real case

Charts created in 2007 for Meredith’s DNA and swabs from the knife are shown down the bottom here (click for larger images). They disprove Gill’s hoax which Gladwell swallowed whole.

The DNA found on the blade of Sollecito’s kitchen knife was an exact match for Meredith’s DNA. When you look at Meredith’s DNA chart superimposed on sample 36B, you can clearly see that all the alleles match up. And quite conclusively, 29 of the 30 STRs do match up.

In support, a number of independent forensic experts - Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni, Dr. Renato Biondo, Professor Giuesppe Novelli, Professor Francesca Torricelli, Luciano Garofano, Elizabeth Johnson, Greg Hampikian and Bruce Budowle - have all confirmed that Meredith’s DNA was on the blade.

“...the consultant [Professor Novelli] also did a statistical calculation with the purpose of determining the probability that the profile could belong to someone other than the victim Meredith Kercher. The calculation of the Random Match Probability came to one chance in 300 million billion.” (The Nencini report, page 230).

In support, Sollecito provably knew that Meredith’s DNA was on the blade when he lied about accidentally pricking her hand whilst cooking.

“The fact there is Meredith’s DNA on the kitchen knife is because once when we were all cooking together I accidentally pricked her hand. I apologised immediately and she said it was not a problem.”

Gladwell doesn’t explain how Meredith’s DNA might have ended up on the blade of Sollecito’s kitchen knife. Meredith had never been to Sollecito’s place, making it impossible for the knife to have been contaminated with Meredith’s DNA.

In support, Dr Stefanoni analysed the traces on the knife six days after last handling Meredith’s DNA. This means laboratory contamination can be ruled out.

In support, in 2009 Judge Micheli ruled out contamination during the collection phase because the knife was sequestered from Sollecito’s apartment on Corso Garibaldi by a different police team to the one that collected evidence from the cottage on Via della Pergola on the same day.

In support, in 2010 the Attorney General for Umbria Giovanni Galati made the following common sense observation for the Republic’s 2011 counter-appeal.

“It is evident that the “non-exclusion” of the occurrence of a certain phenomenon is not equivalent to affirming its occurrence, nor even that the probability that it did occur.” (The Galati appeal, page 57).

He goes on to explain that unless there is proof of contamination of the knife and bra clasp, you can’t simply claim there was in order to nullify this evidence:

...if one is not able to [67] affirm where, how and when they would have happened, they cannot enter into a logical-juridical reasoning aimed at nullifying elements already acquired, above all if scientific in nature. (p57).

In support, in early 2013 the Italian Supreme Court noted that contamination in the laboratory had been ruled out actually quoting those “independent” experts who showed a strong defence bias.

Laboratory contamination was also excluded by these experts [Conti and Vecchiotti].” (Judge Chieffi’s Supreme Court report, page 92).

Finally, in support, in November 2013 the Carabinieri lab re-test of the knife and sample stored was reported by Andrea Vogt thus.

The RIS Wednesday deposited their forensic report on trace 36i, a spot of DNA identified (but not earlier tested) on the kitchen knife alleged to be the murder weapon. “Cento Percento” (100 percent) said Major Berti, discussing compatibility. The RIS found that the DNA was compatible with Amanda Knox, and excluded that it was that of Sollecito, Guede or Kercher.

The RIS expert was asked only a few questions from attorneys and the judge. The judge asked why the RIS had done two amplications of the DNA and not 3 or 4. Major Berti described that two is considered the minimum number of amplifications necessary, according to today’s forensic standards, doing less (or more) might have diminished the reliability of the results. The judge also asked about the age of the equipment used. Berti responded that the forensic kit used this time has been commercialized since 2010 and available for use since 2011.

And our own comment on that.

Hard to see any game changers in today’s strong but undramatic testimony. The Carabinieri RIS DNA experts could not be shaken. All momentum remains with the prosecution and with the Supreme Court’s “givens” on the evidence, such as the presence of three attackers in Meredith’s room. The defenses seem to be giving up. They could have phoned it in.

So Gladwell swallowed the illegal Gill hoax. All the experts and courts got it right. All the alleles and 29 of the 30 STRs on the charts below do match up.

And from the start Gill makes a fundamental breach of Italian procedure in considering any piece of evidence separately and in isolation from the other pieces of evidence and making something of it.

That is to prevent such hoaxing, which has been rampant in the pro-Knox campaign. The Supreme Court in 2013 in annulling the 2011 RS and AK appeal outcome firmly stated that was unacceptable procedure under Italian law.

Gill doesn’t address any of the other incriminating pieces of evidence against Knox and Sollecito - the computer and telephone records that provide irrefutable proof that they both lied repeatedly; the staged break-in and the fact that it couldn’t have been staged by Rudy Guede; the bloody footprint on the bathmat which matched the precise characteristics of Sollecito’s foot; and the fact Amanda Knox knew specific details about the murder kept secret from the public.

Gill did admit in an e-mail to TJMK’s Swansea Jack that he didn’t know how the DNA was transferred and that he had simply made a list of all of the possibilities.

Thanks for your email.

I cant control how people interpret my comments.  I am not getting involved in a debate that specifically addresses the ultimate issue of innocence/guilt of individuals since that is the purpose of the court.  I can only comment on the probative value of the DNA evidence. I dont know definitively how the DNA was transferred - I simply make a list of all of the possibilities. I dont comment on the non-DNA evidence.

Regards, Peter


3. Past Posts Which Expand Proof

Click for Post:  Understanding Micheli #3: How Damning Is The DNA Evidence?

Click for Post:  Trial: Judge Massei Rejects Feeble Defense Bid To Throw Out DNA Evidence

Click for Post:  Questions For Sollecito: Why So Many Contradictory Explanations Of How DNA Got On The Knife?

Click for Post:  Understanding Why The DNA Is On The Knife

Click for Post:  Appeal Session #3: The Carabinieri Labs Report On The DNA On The Knife

Click for Post:  An Investigation Into The Large Knife Provides Further Proof That This Was THE Knife

Click for Post:  Multiple Attackers and the Compatibility of the Double DNA Knife (Exhibit 36)

Click for Post:  How The DNA Processes And Evidence Points Were Deliberately Misrepresented

4. The Double DNA Charts

Charts created in 2007 for Meredith’s DNA and swabs from the knife are shown (click for larger images).

1. Knife swab


2. Meredith’s DNA


3. Both overlayed


5. Our Next Post

Click for Post:  Explaining to “No Physical Evidence” Gladwell Just How MUCH There Was #2 Mixed Blood

Posted by The Machine on 09/17/19 at 03:51 PM • Permalink for this post • Archived in • Comments here (13)

4. The Hachette Hoax: Explaining How MUCH Evidence There Was #2 Mixed Blood

Posted by The Machine


Meredith’s blood mixed with Knox DNA in five places

1. The Evidence Series

This is the second post in my series responding to Gladwell’s “no evidence” claim

We’ve already summarised what seems to be Gladwell’s position in the polemical “Knox chapter” in Talking To Strangers thus:

  • Gladwell has chosen sides AGAINST the globally respected forces of Italian justice, which the FBI cooperates with a lot.

  • Gladwell has chosen sides WITH the looniest of self-serving conspiracy theorists, with the anti-justice mafias cheering them on.

That seems to make him a classic example of his own thesis (be wary of strangers). We have listed those we suspect addled Gladwell in Part 4 (3) of this post. Widely discredited, they persist in keeping their theories online. 

2. Compelling Evidence At Trial

According to the forensic biologist team from the Scientific Police in Rome headed by Dr Stefanoni, there were five samples of Amanda Knox’s DNA or blood mixed with Meredith’s blood in three different locations in the cottage.

In the small bathroom a mixture of Meredith’s and Knox’s blood DNA was found in three places: on the cotton bud box, the side of the basin, and the bidet. Trial Judge Massei wrote this:

The mixed trace specimens found in the sink and in the bidet and on the box of cotton buds therefore signify that Amanda, soiled with Meredith’s blood, entered the bathroom which was right next door to the room in which Meredith had been stabbed; putting her hand against the door she left a mark on it and the dribble of blood which remained is a sign [proof] of this, and left a mark also - also with Meredith’s blood - on the light switch; she touched the cotton-bud box which was on the sink and left a mixed trace specimen of herself and of Meredith; to clean her hands she used the sink in which, through the act of scrubbing, she left her own biological trace mixed with that of Meredith, and used the bidet, most likely to wash her feet, which must have become blood-stained in Meredith’s room…

The Massei trial court, Chieffi Supreme Court, Nencini appeal court, and even Marasca/Bruno Supreme Court, all endorsed this bathroom scenario. No other was even voiced, which Gladwell “forgets” to say. 

The bathroom swabs show that Meredith and Amanda Knox MUST have both been bleeding at the same time. This is overwhelming proof that Knox was at the cottage when Meredith died and took part in the fatal attack, which Gladwell “forgets” to say.

The fourth swab of mixed DNA was in the corridor. The fifth was in the center of Filomena’s room, plus one trace of Meredith’s blood alone by the window. No Guede DNA was found in that room, which Gladwell “forgets” to say.

All DNA processing was in front of defense observers, which Gladwell “forgets” to say. Amanda Knox’s lawyers had to concede that her DNA had mingled with Meredith’s blood, which Gladwell “forgets” to say. They confined their rebuttal to suggesting arcane ways that could have happened, all with zero proof, which Gladwell “forgets” to say.

Jury members confirmed that it was damning evidence. Barbie Nadeau points out in Angel Face that the jurors accepted the mixed blood evidence as firm.

The defense’s other biggest mistake, according to interviews with jurors after the trial, was doing nothing to refute the mixed-blood evidence beyond noting that it is common to find mingled DNA when two people live in the same house. (Barbie Nadeau, Angel Face, page 152).


Meredith’s blood with Knox DNA in Filomena’s room

3. Confirmations By Other Experts

Dr Renato Biondo, the head of the DNA Unit of the Scientific Police, reviewed Dr. Stefanoni’s investigation and the forensic findings in 2008.

He confirmed that all the forensic findings were accurate and reliable. He praised the work of Dr. Stefanoni and her team:

“We are confirming the reliability of the information collected from the scene of the crime and at the same time, the professionalism and excellence of our work.”


Additionally the DNA and forensic evidence was also reviewed by Dr Luciano Garofano the retired creator of the Carabineri’s elite laboratories in Rome and other cities.

He confirmed that Amanda Knox’s blood was mixed with Meredith’s blood in the small bathroom and Filomena’s room in Darkness Descending by himself and Paul Russell. He explains how he could tell.

“However, here is the electropherogram and you can see that the RFU value is very high, so the sample is undoubtedly blood, which is the body fluid that provides the greatest amount of DNA.

In some cases you see higher peaks of Amanda’s DNA than Meredith’s. Amanda has been bleeding. (Luciano Garafano, Darkness Descending, page 371).

Luciano Garofano also asserts that there was copious blood loss by Amanda Knox on the night of the murder.

“Let’s say the assassin used the basin and bidet to wash the knife: if you look at the electropherograms you’ll see that there seems to be more of Amanda Knox’s blood than Meredith’s. There is a copious blood loss by Amanda.”  (Luciano Garofano, Darkness Descending, page 374).

Additionally both Judge Massei and Judge Nencini who presided over the 2009 trial in Perugia and the 2012 appeal in Florence respectively regard the mixed DNA samples incriminating pieces of evidence against Amanda Knox and proof she had tracked Meredith’s blood into the small bathroom and Filomena’s room where the break-in was staged.

They believe that in one or two instances Amanda Knox’s DNA could be from “epithelial rubbing” rather than blood but either way two sets of DNA are there in five instances. (Unless we’re emitting a body fluid, epithelial DNA is all we leave, a lot, by pressing hard with a hand or a foot.)

Additionally the FINAL Italian Supreme Court ruling stated the mixed DNA evidence was “eloquent proof” she had come into contact with Meredith’s blood and had washed it off in the small bathroom, which Gladwell “forgets” to say.

Another element against her [Amanda Knox] is the mixed traces, her and the victim’s one, in the ‘small bathroom’, an eloquent proof that anyway she had come into contact with the blood of the latter, which she tried to wash away from herself (it was, it seems, diluted blood, while the biological traces belonging to her would be the consequence of epithelial rubbing). (Judge Marasca’s Supreme Court report).

4. Discounting Rudy Guede

Guede could not have tracked Meredith’s blood into the small bathroom and Filomena’s room because his bloody footprints only led straight from Meredith’s room and out of the cottage (see my next post) which Gladwell “forgets” to say.

This fact has been noted by multiple judges and the Italian Supreme Court. The 2009 Massei trial report:

Rudy, who, on leaving Meredith’s room (according to what the shoe prints show), directed himself towards the exit without deviating or stopping in other rooms.(The Massei report, page 379).

And the 2013 Chieffi Supreme Court report:

the investigative data collected immediately after the event, such as Rudy’s shoeprints (along the path of his flight) and the traces of the victim’s blood detected in many spots in the bathroom used by Ms Knox and [49] Ms Kercher, surely carried there by third parties present in the house after the murder.“ (Judge Chieffi’s Supreme Court report, page 66).

5. Additional Posts Confirming

Click for Post:  Netflixhoax 13: Omitted - How The DNA Processes And Evidence Points Were Deliberately Misrepresented

Click for Post:  The DNA Hoax: Ways To Rebut The Drive-By Critics Of The Case On The DNA Dimension

Click for Post:  Carabineri Labs Might Prove Fourth And Conclusive Scenario For The Mixed DNA Samples In The House

Click for Post:  Beyond Massei: On The Seemingly Insuperable Mixed Blood Evidence By All The Expert Witnesses

Click for Post:  Explaining The Massei Report: The Mixed Blood Evidence Samples As Seen By Judge Massei

Click for Post:  Questions For Knox: 15 Questions That Drew Griffin On CNN Tonight SHOULD Have Asked

Click for Post:  Our Take On The Case For The Prosecution: #1 The DNA Evidence


Meredith’s blood alone, by window in Filomena’s room

6. Our Next Post

Click for Post:  Explaining to “No Physical Evidence” Gladwell Just How MUCH There Was #3 Footprints

Posted by The Machine on 09/20/19 at 09:15 PM • Permalink for this post • Archived in • Comments here (12)

5. The Hachette Hoax: Explaining How MUCH Evidence There Was #3 Footprints

Posted by The Machine



Bare footprint in corridor matching Sollecito in EXACT dimensions

Long post. Click here to go straight to Comments.


1. Series Overview

This is the third in my evidence series of posts, a main part of our de-hoaxing of Malcolm Gladwell..

This post responds further to Gladwell’s bizarre “no evidence” claim in his Talking To Strangers.

It summarizes four sets of bloody footprint and shoeprint evidence, which all must have happened in the minutes and perhaps hours after Meredith died.

The four sets are: (1) strong evidence of Sollecito’s bare foot on the bathmat, (2) strong evidence of Knox’s and Sollecito’s bare feet in the corridor and in Meredith’s room, (3) strong evidence of Guede’s shoeprints leading from Meredith’s bedroom to the front door, and (4) indicative evidence of Knox’s shoeprint in Meredith’s bedroom.

Only shoeprints were attributed to Guede. There is zero evidence that he ever removed his shoes and not even a scenario of why he ever should have done.

Here’s a tip to our many new-ish readers, some great advice which might have curbed Gladwell’s disaster:

In the REAL world in the Italian courts these items (presented only once, at trial, and not at any appeal level) were very compelling items of evidence. Some topnotch experts, the best in Italy, presented their scientific outcomes at trial.

In the real world the thoroughly outgunned defenses had only weak and dispirited comebacks. ONLY what was put across and challenged in the courtrooms really mattered. 

But in the FICTIONAL world of the Knox “public relations” army of online thugs with its appalling ignorance and misrepresentations, many of them malicious and self-serving, the hoaxing of these items really switched into overdrive.

NONE of their fictional ramblings mattered in Italy. Almost nobody in Italy was paying attention, and at times the defense teams were clearly irritated by them.

Here is a good hoax example.

In mid-trial in 2009 Kermit created the Telling Case Of The Doctored Footprint powerpoint which shows just how far these misrepresentations were taken. 

Why can you believe we are not hoaxed or hoaxing?

Simple. Because every one of our analyses and reports is based on trusted reporting and court transcripts and an enormous body of official documents, many of them professionally translated.

The 2009 trial’s very intense evidence phase (some three times as many days as the defense phase) was never repeated. Only one jury observed it. But the Chieffi Supreme Court in 2013 and the Nencini Appeal Court in 2014 put many of the evidence findings at trial on steroids.

2. The Bathroom

It’s impossible to overstate the significance of the bare bloody footprint on the bathmat.  It is such significant evidence for two reasons:

(1) it matched the precise characteristics of Raffaele Sollecito’s foot;

(2) it could not possibly belong to Rudy Guede because there were irreconciliable differences with Guede’s foot.

Here are our main analyses. The first post links to half a dozen earlier posts which in some cases go into great depth.

Click for Post:  Questions For Sollecito: Can You Realistically Account For The Hard Evidence On The Bathroom Mat?

Click for Post:  The Incriminating Bathroom Evidence: Visual Analysis shows the Footprint IS Sollecito’s

At Guede’s final 2010 (Supreme Court) appeal Judge Giordano pointed out there were bloody footprints not attributable to Rudy.

It is one of the reasons why all courts including three times the Supreme Court definitively ascertained there were multiple attackers.

Judge Giordano also noted that the forensic experts attributed the knife wounds on Meredith’s neck to different knives.

In the 2013-14 Supreme-Court-ordered repeat of the Knox and Sollecito appeals of the 2009 trial verdict, Judge Nencini pointed out these irreconcilable differences between the bloody footprint on the bathmat and Guede’s foot.

“Guede’s foot presents irreconcilable differences with the bathmat imprint“ (The Nencini report, page 275).

These definitive rulings need to be writ large for Malcolm Gladwell, Peter Gill and the other high-profile supporters of Amanda Knox in the media because it completely debunks the myth that Rudy Guede acted alone.



Rudy Guede shoeprints in red

3. The Corridor

There were both shoeprints and footprints in the corridor. The five Luminol-revealed footprints (from bare feet) were assigned by the experts Dr Rinaldi and Dr Boemia as follows: One was compatible with Sollecito’s right foot, and two others were compatible with Knox’s right foot.

To repeat, only shoeprints were attributed to Guede. There is zero evidence that he ever removed his shoes and not even a scenario of why he ever should have.

As I’ve already pointed out, numerous judges, including judges from the Italian Supreme Court, have noted that Guede didn’t even enter Filomena’s room - where the break-in was staged - or the blood-spattered bathroom after he had left Meredith’s room.

...asserted that the bloody shoeprints of the aforementioned [Rudy Guede] indicated the path he took from the unfortunate Meredith’s room to the main door of the house, without going into Romanelli’s room, given that ‐ as was previously stated ‐ the traces of blood of the victim mark the path taken by Guede without any deviation. (Judge Chieffi’s Supreme Court report, page 64).

Note: “without any deviation”.

...the investigative data collected immediately after the event, such as Rudy’s shoeprints (along the path of his flight) and the traces of the victim’s blood detected in many spots in the bathroom used by Ms Knox and Ms Kercher, surely carried there by third parties present in the house after the murder. (Judge Chieffi’s Supreme Court report, page 66).

Note: “along the path of the flight”.

The trail of Rudy Guede’s bloody shoeprints is significant evidence also because it proves that he couldn’t have been one of those to stage the break-in at the cottage, or to track Meredith’s blood into either the small bathroom or Filomena’s bedroom.

The Italian Supreme Court definitively ascertained that Rudy Guede didn’t stage the break-in in Filomena’s room.

And it should also be noted, as the judges of the lower courts have correctly held, that following the murder an activity occurred intended to simulate an attempted theft, which the judges of lower courts and the defence of the same appellant agree was an operation done by others and not by the defendant [Rudy Guede]. (Judge Giordano’s Supreme Court report, page 18).”

The Italian Supreme Court also definitively concluded (no possibility of appeal) that Amanda Knox was at the cottage when Meredith was killed, and that she had been the one to track Meredith’s blood into the small bathroom.

Given this, we now note, with respect to Amanda Knox, that her presence inside the house, the location of the murder, is a proven fact. (Judge Marasca’s Supreme Court report).

Note: “proven fact”.

“Another element against her [Amanda Knox] is the mixed traces, her and the victim’s one, in the ‘small bathroom’, an eloquent proof that anyway she had come into contact with the blood of the latter, which she tried to wash away from herself’. (Judge Marasca’s Supreme Court report).

Judge Massei and Judge Nencini attributed the bare bloody footprints in the hallway that were revealed by Luminol to Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito because they matched their feet.

Both seem to have been rearranging the crime scene half-naked, barefoot, and possibly with gloves on. 

Malcolm Gladwell and his favorite expert Peter Gill have completely ignored the trail of Rudy Guede’s bloody shoeprints in the hallway that were revealed by Luminol

Judge Massei made the common-sense observation that the Luminol must have been reacting to blood because there was an abundance of blood at the cottage and there’s no evidence of any other substance at the cottage that also reacts to Luminol.

“It was also said of the traces highlighted by Luminol and of how these very traces, because of the certain presence of blood in abundance in the house and because of the lack of indication, beyond the mere hypotheses made, of substances which could actually have been present and present in various areas, indicate that Amanda (with her feet stained with Meredith’s blood for having been present in her room when she was killed) had gone into Romanelli’s room and into her own *room+ leaving traces [which were] highlighted by Luminol, some of which (one in the corridor, the L8, and one, the L2, in Romanelli’s room) were mixed, that is, constituted of a biological trace attributable to [both] Meredith and Amanda, and others with traces attributable ‘’only to Amanda (the three found in her own room and indicated as L3, L4 and L5) and only to the victim (one found in Romanelli’s room, the L1). (The Massei report, page 380).

DNA expert Luciano Garofano says the Luminol-revealed footprints at the cottage are in blood because of their high luminosity and the DNA test indicated the presence of Meredith’s blood.

But let’s see what the prints actually mean. First of all, from their sheer luminosity they are blood. The DNA test showed Meredith’s blood in all cases except for two places in which we have a mixed Amanda and Meredith sample.

In 2015 Judge Marasca’s Fifth Chambers (wrongly entering into the evidence - it is actually the domestic-crimes court) dismissed the Luminol prints as evidence because the TMB (Tetramethylbenzidine) tests that are used to confirm the presence of blood were negative.

However, Luminol has been found to be five times more sensitive than TMB. This explains why the TMB tests yielded negative results, but the Luminol didn’t.

Both tests are presumptive. A negative TMB doesn’t mean that there was no blood. The fact that Meredith’s DNA was found in three of the traces highlighted by Luminol indicates that it was reacting to Meredith’s blood and not bleach.

Bleach destroys DNA. The Luminol couldn’t have been reacting to bleach anyway because bleach dissipates after a couple of days and there will be no trace left. The Luminol tests at the cottage were carried out on 18 December 2007, a deliberate and routine delay to allow bleach traces and other red herrings to disippate.

You could argue that the Luminol could have been reacting to another substance such as fruit juice or rust. But does anyone really believe Knox and Sollecito had dipped their feet into a bucket of fruit juice or rust and then walked around the cottage? The trial jury didn’t.

4. Meredith’s Bedroom

Two imprint experts from the Scientific Police - Dr Rinaldi and Dr Boemia - testified at the trial in Perugia that there was a woman’s bloody shoe print on the pillow in Meredith’s room that matched Amanda Knox’s foot size.

Chief Inspector Boemia claimed the shoe print was made by a woman’s shoe brand, ASICS, and it couldn’t have belonged to a man.

Chief Inspector Boemia’s investigation of merchants and shoe manufacturers led him to identify a woman’s shoe brand, ASICS, on which he then focussed his attention in consideration of the specific form of the sole, whose width was equal to 40mm, which contained a circle just next to the hind part of the heel.

Inspector Boemia reiterated during the course of his deposition that the photo 105 print could not have corresponded to that left behind by a man’s shoe, taking into account the different range in width one would expect from a man’s shoe, measuring around 60mm in width.’  (The Massei report, page 343).

Professor Luciano Garofano also believes there was a WOMAN’S bloody shoe print on the pillow in Meredith’s room.

“Now is the question of the small shoeprint in the pillow. There is neither the heel nor the toe, so it’s hard to say the size of the shoe. You could estimate that has been made in the area of size 37 or 38, which of course, is Amanda’s size. Hard to prove, though.” (Luciano Garofano, Darkness Descending).

The two defenses were provided with chance after chance to discredit these three areas of evidence. They never did, and their only comeback was to try to divert all eyes elsewhere.

5. Our Next Post

Click for Post:  Explaining to “No Physical Evidence” Gladwell Just How MUCH There Was #4 Staged Break-In

Posted by The Machine on 09/26/19 at 09:00 AM • Permalink for this post • Archived in • Comments here (5)

6. The Hachette Hoax: Explaining How MUCH Evidence There Was #4 Faked Break-In

Posted by The Machine



Jury in 2009: “How did huge rock fit through tiny crack?”

Long post. Click here to go straight to Comments.


1. Series Overview

This is the fourth in my series de-hoaxing the Gladwell claim of “no evidence”.

The zombie “there is no evidence” hoax that Gladwell bizarrely revives was never attempted in Italy. News of it caused giggles and irritation in Italy as this post on the pricey and ineffective Knox-Mellas family lawyer (who soon exited, no surprise there) attests. 

It was a claim very frequently made (and then shot down) by the self-serving hoaxers listed in Part 4(3) of this post.

2. How Guede As Stager Was Ruled Out

Malcolm Gladwell ignores yet another of the myriad incriminating area of physical evidence against Amanda Knox: the break-in hoax.

That the providing of even the slightest proof that the break-in via Filomena’s window was real, and not faked from within, was one of the worst failures by the defenses.

All courts up to the Italian Supreme Court (several times) determined that the break-in was faked, and it was not faked by Guede as Gladwell presumably thinks

These determinations are judicial facts, not subject to appeal. In the Supreme Court report concluding Guede’s legal process in 2010 with his guilt reaffirmed, Judge Giordano wrote:

And it should also be noted, as the judges of the lower courts have correctly held, that following the murder an activity occurred intended to simulate an attempted theft, which the judges of lower courts and the defence of the same appellant agree was an operation done by others and not by the defendant.” (Judge Giordano’s Supreme Court report).

In 2013 the Italian Supreme Court criticised Judge Hellmann (in the course of their annulment of his bent 2011 “not guilty” outcome of Knox’s and Sollecito’s first appeal) for ignoring these judical facts because they are held to be indisputable.

...to the reconstruction made in the context of Rudy Guede’s murder trials, the outcome of which became definitive with the judgment handed down by this Court on 16 December 2010, during which the simulation was held to be undisputed and certainly attributable to individuals other than Guede.

Judge Chieffi explained why it’s an indisputable fact that the break-in at the cottage was faked in that Supreme Court report.

The conclusion that the crime had been simulated was based on a series of facts with a high level of probative value constituting a valid inferential basis, on the strength of which the first instance statement of reasons produced a logical dissertation (pages 35‐42) anchored in the facts that:

(1) nothing (not even jewellery or the computer) was missing from Romanelli’s room, which was the focal point;

(2) there was no evidence of climbing on the outside wall of the house over the distance of 3.5 meters from the ground to the window through which the phantom burglar supposedly entered, nor was there any trace of trampling on the grass on the ground underneath the window;

(3) there were no traces of the blood of the climber on the window sill, which he would have had to grip among the glass shards in order to sneak inside the room;

(4) the glass shards were found on the inside but not on the outside of the window, a sign that the rock was thrown with the outside shutters closed, forming a shield that prevented pieces of glass from spraying to the outside;

(5) the shards were found in abundance on top of the clothes and objects ransacked by the alleged intruder, proving that this ransacking had occurred before the window was broken;

(6) the sound of the rock, hypothetically thrown from the ground, had not startled the young English woman so as to make her call for help outside the house before being attacked (given the lapse of time between the throwing the stone and the climbing up the wall). (Judge Chieffi’s Supreme Court report, pages 63-64).

Judge Chieffi also noted that the trail of Rudy Guede’s didn’t go into Filomena’s room because his bloody shoeprints led straight from Meredith’s room and out of the cottage.

...asserted that the bloody shoeprints of the aforementioned [Rudy Guede] indicated the path he took from the unfortunate Meredith’s room to the main door of the house without going into Romanelli’s room, given that ‐ as was previously stated ‐ the traces of blood of the victim mark the path taken by Guede without any deviation. (Judge Chieffi’s Supreme Court report, page 64).

This is the core explanation of the Supreme Court for determining why Rudy Guede could not have faked the break-in.

It’s worth repeating and highlighting this fact: there were shards of glass on top of the clothes and objects on the floor of Filomena’s room. This proves the window was broken AFTER the room was ransacked.

Four witnesses, including two police officers, said there were shards of glass on top of the clothes on Filomena’s floor.

Michele Battistelli, the Postal Police inspector, expressed himself on this point in the following way during the prosecution hearing at trial on 6 February 2009:

... it was a little topsy-turvy, in the sense that it was mostly … There was clothing out, thrown around a bit, and scattered pieces of glass. Glass pieces were on the floor and the curious thing, which stood out for me, is that these glass pieces were on top of the clothing.

I noticed this to the point where I started playing with the notion, in the sense that I immediately said that, for me this was a simulation of what I was seeing, basically this…

The things that I noticed, the camera, the computer, if they played into the theory of a hypothetical burglary, I saw that inside the house practically everything was there. There was a laptop, a digital camera, things that can be easily taken, so…”. [Transcript of the 6 February 2009 hearing, Trial Court, Page 65 et al.]

And testimony from Filomena herself:

Picking up the computer I noticed that I lifted some glass, in the sense that the glass was on top of things. I remember very well [the glass] on top of the computer bag because I was careful as it was all covered with glass.

We mentioned this, saying, the burglar was an idiot, he did not take anything… the jewelry is here, the computer is here… and in addition to the fact that he didn’t take anything, the pieces of glass are all on top of the things.(Filomena Romanelli, Amanda Knox’s housemate, at trial).

Pernicious Knox troll Bruce Fischer tried to claim, unsubstantiated as is usual for him, that the break-in wasn’t faked because Filomena’s clothes were already on the floor.

But in her trial testimony, unshaken by the defenses, Filomena made it crystal clear that her room had been ransacked.

I entered my room and I saw the broken window and everything in chaos, the clothing, a big mess, everything was all disheveled, everything ... Everything scattered, there was the open closet, a mess on the desk, everything out of place.

In his 2009 trial report, Judge Massei noted that she was tidy:

As she is usually very orderly… (The Massei report, page 53).

In 2014 at the rerun of the first appeal, Judge Nencini highlighted the fact there were shards of glass on top of the clothes and objects on the floor in his report.

The fact that the glass fragments from the window wound up on top of the strewn clothing and objects… is surely incompatible with a breaking of the glass in a phase preceding the ransacking inside the room of the apartment.

The window glass evidently was broken after entry into the cottage, by someone who was already inside and had already arranged the disorder that was then seen by the witnesses.(The Nencini report).

In 2015 even Judge Marasca of the Supreme Court who illegally mis-stated much evidence drew attention to this fact in his report.

And moreover, the staging of a theft in Romanelli’s room, which she [Knox] is accused of, is also a relevant point within an incriminating picture, considering the elements of strong suspicion (location of glass shards - apparently resulting from the breaking of a glass window pane caused by the throwing of a rock from the outside - on top of the clothes and furniture)...

... a staging which can be linked to someone who as an author of the murder and flatmate with a formal connection to the dwelling - had an interest to steer suspicion away from himself/herself…

... while a third murderer in contrast would be motivated by a very different urge after the killing, that is to leave the dwelling as quickly as possible.” (Judge Marasca’s Supreme Court report).


3. Who Did Stage The Break-in?

Judge Massei determined that Amanda Knox had tracked Meredith’s blood into Filomena’s room, because their DNA was found mixed on the floor.

It was also said of the traces highlighted by Luminol and of how these very traces, because of the certain presence of blood in abundance in the house and because of the lack of indication, beyond the mere hypotheses made, of substances which could actually have been present and present in various areas, indicate that Amanda (with her feet stained with Meredith’s blood from having been present in her room when she was killed) had gone into Romanelli’s room and into her own room…

Leaving traces [which were] highlighted by Luminol, some of which (one in the corridor, the L8, and one, the L2, in Romanelli’s room) were mixed, that is, constituted of a biological trace attributable to [both] Meredith and Amanda, and others with traces attributable only to Amanda (the three found in her own room and indicated as L3, L4 and L5) and only to the victim (one found in Romanelli’s room (the L1). (The Massei report, page 380).

His “from the outside” was of course without proof, and so an illegal finding, but his court went along with the glass shards.

One of the trial prosecutors, Dr Mignini, argued the faked break-in was the key to resolving the mystery. As Barbie Nadeau reported on 20 November 2009:

Dr Mignini’s closing arguments late in 2009 focused not only on Knox’s alleged guilt in the murder, but on her dominance over Sollecito and Guede.

The prosecutor also recounted the other charges against her, including staging a crime scene, which he believes is proof of Knox’s involvement. He described a bedroom in the back of the house the girls shared where a window had been broken with a large rock, as he described, “to create the illusion of a break-in the night of the murder.”

Dr Mignini tried to transport the jurors into the house through visual images and provocative suggestions. “The key to this mystery lies in the bedroom of Filomena Romanelli,” another tenant in the house, he told the jury.

“The window was broken from the inside, not the outside. The glass was on top of the clothes that had been strewn around the room, not under them. The break-in was faked and Knox is the one who did it.” (Barbie Nadeau, The Daily Beast).

In another report Barbie Nadeau stated that the mixed-blood evidence in Filomena’s room seems the most damning piece of evidence against Amanda Knox.

The only forensic evidence against Knox is the presence in her house of five spots where the blood and DNA of the roommates had commingled. Of those five, the most damning is a drop of Kercher’s blood with Knox’s DNA found (with the aid of Luminol, a substance used in crime-scene investigations to find blood that has been cleaned up) in the bedroom of Filomena Romanelli, one of the two Italian women who also lived in the house.

The prosecution alleges that a break-in was faked by Knox and Sollecito in Romanelli’s room: the window was broken with a large rock and the room was ransacked, but nothing was taken—even, though expensive sunglasses and jewelry were in plain sight. Clothes were pulled from Romanelli’s dresser drawers but the glass shards from the broken window were found on top of them, leading police to believe that the window was broken after the ransacking took place, not before.

Barbie Nadeau added that the defence didn’t prove a counter scenario to the faked break-in.

The defense did not contest any of the lab results, or provide a counter scenario to the faked break-in, or offer testimony to explain why Knox may also have been bleeding (except to say that it is common to find mixed DNA from two people who shared a house).

Judge Massei in 2009 and Judge Nencini in early 2014 both convicted Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito of staging the break-in at the cottage.

In 2015 Judge Marasca of the Supreme Court curiously didn’t confirm Knox’s and Sollecito’s convictions for staging the break-in at the cottage, despite noting that it can be linked to someone who had a connection to the cottage.

“And moreover, the staging of a theft in Romanelli’s room, which she is accused of, is also a relevant point within an incriminating picture, considering the elements of strong suspicion (location of glass shards - apparently resulting from the breaking of a glass window pane caused by the throwing of a rock from the outside - on top of the clothes and furniture) a staging…

... which can be linked to someone who as an author of the murder and flatmate with a formal connection to the dwelling - had an interest to steer suspicion away from himself/herself, while a third murderer in contrast would be motivated by a very different urge after the killing, that is to leave the dwelling as quickly as possible.


4. Conclusion On the Staging

Malcolm Gladwell claims withtout his own proof that there’s no evidence linking Amanda Knox to Meredith’s murder and the investigation was botched.

Well, yes there was, as all courts ruled. Please see above.

This renowned intellectual hasn’t even provided a single argument of his own in his book to substantiate his claims - he just provides a short and misleading quotation from Peter Gill.

Providing proof is essential in academia, science and law. It’s one of the most basic skills taught in schools.

This eccentric and unworldy academic reminds me of an insufferably arrogant student who sits an examination and then writes nothing on his paper because he doesn’t need to.

I’ve seen no evidence of his renowned intelligence. He certainly hasn’t displayed any higher-order thinking skills such as hard facts, analysis, and evaluation here.

5. Some Of The Supporting Posts On TJMK

Click for Post:  Ted “There Is No Evidence” Simon’s Tired Mantra Misinforms Americans And Provokes Italian Hard Line

Click for Post:  Amanda Knox Confirms She Faked A Break-In in Seattle Long A Sore Point To Previous Victims

Click for Post:  Understanding Micheli #2: Why Judge Micheli Rejected The Lone-Wolf Theory

Click for Post:  Understanding Micheli #4: The Faked Scene - Who Returned To Move Meredith?

Click for Post:  Powerpoints #8: Forced Entry Via Filomena’s Window Fails The Giggle Test

Click for Post:  This Was Definitely Not A Close Or Indecisive Case - Reasonable Doubt Was In Fact Totally Eliminated

Click for Post:  A Visual Guide To The Faked Break-In Via Filomena’s Window

Click for Post:  How Much Or How Little To Blame Rudy Guede? The Defenses’ Immense Headache Coming Up

Click for Post:  Why Is Appeal Prosecutor Crini So Very, Very Interested In The Precise Position Of Filomena’s Door?

Click for Post:  The New 80,000 Pound Gorilla In The Room Introduced By The Italian Supreme Court

Click for Post:  The Seattle University Panel: Some Of The Ways In Which Steve Moore Got His Analysis Wrong

Click for Post:  Another Prominent US Legal Commentator On The Evidence Points That Simply Won’t Go Away

6. Our Next Post

Click for Post:  There’s This Powerful Evidence Of Knox’s Crimescene Presence - Locked Right Inside Meredith’s Room

Posted by The Machine on 09/28/19 at 06:21 PM • Permalink for this post • Archived in • Comments here (14)

7. The Hachette Hoax: Explaining How MUCH Evidence There Was #5 Bra Clasp

Posted by The Machine



Dr Stefanoni with Dr Mignini, two world-class professionals

Long post. Click here to go straight to Comments.

1. This Evidence Series Overview

In 35 paragraphs Malcolm Gladwell made 35 false claims in his angry diatribe pro-Knox.

We have seen before - mostly long ago and now long gone - numerous incompetents with chips on their shoulders toward police and courts and Italians and even all non-Americans, and a besotted attitude toward a false Knox.

And now Gladwell, all of a sudden, leapfrogs all of them.

In our very first post we quoted Gladwell quoting the hoaxer Peter Gill on the DNA as if he was the word of God. The slightest checking would have revealed that as a hoax.

This is the fifth in my sub-series on Gladwell’s demonstrably false claim that there was no physical evidence linking Amanda Knox or Raffaele Sollecito to Meredith’s attack and death.

2. The Bra Clasp Evidence STILL Stands Up

First, bear in mind that the potshots taken at this DNA evidence were from thousands of miles away. None except Hampikian had even visited any Italian lab.

The hoaxer Hampikian visited only the lab of the 2011 “independent experts” at first appeal, who he was illegally trying to bias - with American science which was behind European science at the time.

Check this out for why that lab was closed down. Among other reasons, human bodies were lying around. Nice team Gladwell has picked for himself… 

As with the footprints, Gladwell completely ignores the bra clasp DNA evidence in his book. Maybe not a surprise. Raffaele Sollecito’s DNA was quite definitely on that clasp.

Raffaele Sollecito’s DNA was found in profusion on Meredith’s bra clasp. His DNA was identified by two separate DNA tests. Of the 17 loci tested in the sample, Sollecito’s profile matched 17 out of 17.

“Both by the quantity of DNA analyzed and by the fact of having performed the analysis at 17 loci with unambiguous results, not to mention the fact that the results of the analysis were confirmed by the attribution of the Y haplotype to the defendant, it is possible to say that it has been judicially ascertained that Raffaele Sollecito’s DNA was present on the exhibit; an exhibit that was therefore handled by the defendant on the night of the murder.” (The Nencini report, page 267).

David Balding, a professor of statistical genetics at University College London, analysed the DNA evidence against Sollecito and concluded that the evidence was “strong”

“…because Sollecito is fully represented in the stain at 15 loci (we still only use 10 in the UK, so 15 is a lot), the evidence against him is strong…”

In Andrea Vogt’s excellent BBC documentary he said the bra clasp evidence against Sollecito was “extremely strong”.

DNA expert and creator and former head of the Caribinieri labs, General Professor Luciano Garofano, said the result of the DNA test on the bra clasp was “perfect”.

Numerous forensic experts have effectively ruled out contamination at the cottage

Professor Balding of London University also said Sollecito’s DNA on Meredith on Meredith’s bra clasp can’t be explained by environmental contamination.

He also said there was a “much greater likelihood“ that the DNA on Meredith’s bra clasp came from Sollecito and that’s the reason why it’s “extremely strong“ evidence against him.

He told Chris Halkides that people walking in and out of the room etc would be unlikely to contaminate the bra clasp.

On the BBC documentary, he said contamination from passers-by isn’t an issue and that he has taken that into account and it’s extremely unlikely.

Professor Novelli pointed out there’s more likelihood of meteorite striking the courtroom in Perugia than there is of the bra clasp being contaminated by dust.

“The hook contaminated by dust? It’s more likely for a meteorite to fall and bring this court down to the ground.”

Alberto Intini, the head of the Italian police forensic science unit, also excluded environmental contamination at the Massei trial because “DNA doesn’t fly.”

Professor Torricelli testified that it was unlikely the clasp was contaminated because there was a significant amount of Sollecito’s DNA on it.

It’s almost impossible for the Scientific Police to have contaminated the bra clasp at the cottage.


Some of Amanda Knox’s supporters once tried to claim a forensic technician transferred Meredith’s DNA onto the bra clasp - which would be tertiary transfer.

However, there’s not one scientific study published in a prestigious, peer-reviewed journal demonstrating tertiary transfer of touch DNA.

Amanda Knox’s supporters long ago claimed that there was a speck of dust on one of the gloves of a forensic technician, but it’s impossible to obtain a full DNA profile from dust. Sollecito’s DNA on the bra clasp was a full DNA profile.

Numerous forensic experts have effectively ruled out contamination in the laboratory

Dr Stefanoni last handled Sollecito’s DNA 12 days before she analysed the bra clasp. This means that contamination couldn’t have occurred in the laboratory.

Judge Chieffi noted that Conti and Vecchiotti had excluded contamination in the laboratory.

“Laboratory contamination was also excluded by these experts [Conti and Vecchiotti].” (Judge Chieffi’s Supreme Court report, page 92).

Professor Novelli ruled out contamination in the laboratory.

“Prof. Novelli said that the origin or vehicle of any contamination must be demonstrated: he added that at the Scientific Police laboratory he had seen the 255 samples [68] extracted, had analysed all the profiles, and had not found any evidence of contamination; he ruled out in an absolutely convincing manner that a contamination agent could be present intermittently, or that DNA could remain suspended, and later fall down in a specific place.” (Judge Chieffi’s Supreme Court report, page 94).

Judge Chieffi also noted in his Supreme Court report that the negative controls to exclude laboratory contamination had been carried out:

“since all the negative controls to exclude it [contamination] had been done by Dr Stefanoni.”  (Judge Chieffi’s Supreme Court report, page 93).

When the defence experts observed the DNA tests being carried at Dr Stefanoni’s laboratory in Rome, they had no objections.

“the probative facts revealed by the technical consultant [Stefanoni] were based on investigative activities that were adequately documented: sampling activity performed under the very eyes of the consultants of the parties, who raised no objection.” (Judge Chieffi’s Supreme Court report, page 93).

The Scientific Police didn’t find a source for Raffaele Sollecito’s DNA on Meredith’s bra clasp anywhere the cottage

Judge Chieffi pointed out that Sollecito’s DNA was never found alone at the cottage in his Supreme Court report. The only trace of his DNA was mixed with Knox’s DNA on the cigarette butt in the kitchen. This means the mixed DNA sample could not have been the source of the DNA on the clasp because Knox’s DNA would also have been found on it.

‘’Sollecito’s DNA was never found alone [at the crime scene], as the only trace of his that was collected and analysed was the one on the cigarette stub found in the ashtray of the kitchen in Knox’s flat, mixed with Knox’s DNA. Thus, even if perchance we wanted to assume that DNA had migrated from the kitchen to the room of the young Englishwoman, we would also have had to find Knox’s DNA on the bra clasp.’ (Judge Chieffi’s Supreme Court report, page 92).




3. Conclusions On This Evidence

You have to place the bra clasp evidence into the wider context of the other pieces of evidence against Sollecito i.e. his multiple false alibis and numerous lies to the police, the bloody footprint on the bathmat that matched the precise characteristics of his foot, the bare bloody footprint revealed by Luminol that matched his foot and the fact Meredith’s DNA was found on the blade of his kitchen knife.

Raffaele Sollecito’s DNA was found on the exact part of Meredith’s bra clasp that had been bent out of shape during the attack on her. It is far more plausible that his DNA ended up on the deformed clasp because he applied enough pressure to bend it out of shape than to believe his DNA was carried by a gust of air or floated on a speck of dust and landed on it by some incredible coincidence.

Why should a judge or juror favor a lower probability transfer scenario - tertiary transfer via sloppy forensic technicians - over a higher probability transfer scenario - primary transfer in the course of murder, especially when you consider all the other pieces if evidence against Sollecito?

Malcolm Gladwell hasn’t addressed the bra clasp evidence let alone refuted it.

He hasn’t explained why numerous renowned DNA experts - Dr Patrizia Stefanoni, Dr Renato Biondo, Professor Luciano Garofano, Professor Giuseppe Novelli, Professor Francesca Torricelli and Professor David Balding - are wrong about its probative value.

He hasn’t even explained where Sollecito’s DNA came from and how it ended up on Meredith’s bra clasp.

4. Our Next Post

Click for Post:  There’s This Powerful Evidence Of Sollecito’s Crimescene Presence: Unmistakably HIS Footprint

Posted by The Machine on 10/01/19 at 07:45 PM • Permalink for this post • Archived in • Comments here (12)

8. The Hachette Hoax: Gladwell’s “Lone-Wolf-Killer” Abandoned By DEFENSE 10 Years Ago

Posted by Peter Quennell



Above: Malcolm Gladwell and Rudy Guede

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 • Permalink for this post • Archived in • Comments here (21)

9. The Hachette Hoax: Gladwell’s Guede Sole Attacker Not Backed Up Even By Knox Or Sollecito

Posted by Peter Quennell



Raffaele Sollecito, Malcolm Gladwell, and Amanda Knox

1. The General Rule

Does anyone think Knox and Sollecito have been the leaders of their own parades?

If so, they should perhaps think again.

While Knox and Sollecito were in prison, from late 2007 to late 2011, they could get their gossipy stories out pretty freely (Knox’s book title Waiting To Be Heard really was a fraud, Waiting To Shut Up would be more truthful) and Sollecito even ran a blog.

They could not talk directly, but they exchanged a few messages via the press

Meanwhile the ferociously strong-arming PR (never mentioned by its new puppet Gladwell) was really calling the shots (see this post).

This was especially so after Knox showed herself way too chummy with Dr Mignini, and (as the Supreme Court noted) began telling her parents that she wanted to confess and have Patrick let out.

The PR had success in insisting that nobody should ever mention Meredith’s name, and in putting defamatory hoaxes into the public realm (see this post).

The Knox and Sollecito PR was less effective in stopping each from pushing the other closer to the flames (see this post and this post).

All the PR vigilantes and for a while the defenses have tended to take a chest-thumping anti-Guede, pro-Lone-Wolf stand.

In contrast, concerning Guede, Knox and Sollecito themselves have almost always pussyfooted around.

2. PR Vigilantes’ Guede Take

Knox’s shadow writer Linda Kulman (see this post) and Sollecito’s shadow writer Andrew Gumbel (see this post) can firmly be placed in the PR vigilantes camp (see this post, part 6).

Both seem to have been stridently anti-Italy. We know Gumbel was (see this post) and he included dozens of false claims in the book (see this post).

Both seem to have had a deep ignorance of what actually happened pre and post arrest and in the trial court in 2009. Both made up numerous things. Both channeled the annulled Hellmann appeal with its discredited “independent consultants” as if it had never been annulled.

Now in his Honor Bound hate-fest, Gumbel includes Guede’s name 110 times in his attempt to nail Guede as Lone Wolf. This, Gumbel’s barbaric crescendo (edited here), would make any Nazi propagandist proud.

The crime, I could have told Maresca and Mignini, was brutal but not complicated. Guede broke in through Filomena’s window, started looking for the rent money, then went to the kitchen to help himself from the refrigerator. (He left forensic traces of all this, and his history indicated that he liked to make himself at home in the places he broke into.) He detoured to the bathroom when he developed an urge to go and sat there while Meredith came in through the front door and slipped into her room. He appears to have been startled by her entry, and did not flush to avoid tipping her off to his presence…

Guede crept into her room and grabbed her from behind under the chin and yanked his hand up over her mouth to prevent her from crying out. He held his knife to the right side of her neck as he issued his demands, presumably for sex. In the ensuing struggle, he jabbed her twice.. Our best guess was that he didn’t set out to kill her, but at some point decided he’d caused so much damage he had no option but to finish her off. He tried to plunge the knife in farther but could not find the right angle. So he switched sides…

As Meredith struggled for her life… her agony, according to the medical experts, continued for more than ten minutes… He picked up his right shoe and walked to the bathroom to wash off his foot and sock before putting the shoe back on. That would explain the bloodstains on the basin tap and the bidet, as well as the consistent pattern of left shoes and right feet. When he realized Meredith still was not dead, he threw a duvet over her body, stole her keys, phones, and money and locked her door to make sure she had absolutely no means of escape and no way of raising the alarm…

This was the crime. This was the sequence of events I was haunted by. I needed no reminder, no visual aid, and certainly no lectures from lawyers pushing their own agenda. On the contrary; it was little short of incredible that the prosecution had not put this together for itself, because all the evidence pointed to this scenario.

What a barbaric hoax. What a jerk Gumbel is. He thoroughly deserved his conviction. We carry dozens of scenarios each more factual than this.

3. Sollecito Backs Away

Sollecito has appeared to find no joy in being hung out to dry.

Barely a word of this murderous fantasy stands up when the 200 or so disproofs in the previous post - well-known to Sollecito’s team and the courts and many in the Italian media - are taken into account. 

How could Sollecito, in his numerous pending media interviews, sound convincing to the world?

And so, predictably to Italians, if not to the PR vigilantes on the US’s west coast, almost immediately the doo-doo hit the fan.

In front of a huge Italian audience, the book was scathingly put down - with the grudging help of Sollecito’s own father, Francesco, when he could see no other way out (see this post).

Dr Mignini did a scathing interview (see this post)

Sollecito and Gumbel were investigated and then charged for diffamazione in the Florence court (see this post, first of eight).

Then in due course THEY LOST.

Sollecito and Gumbel caved, and settled financially, and confessed in writing that their book Honor Bound was not so honorable after all.

So from 2011 Sollecito has shown little confidence when discussing anything in his book.

And ever since, those Guede-As-Lone-Wolf claims excerpted in part above have among those he most wants to forget.

In the 2011-12 book promotion tour Sollecito proved nervous and ill-informed about what was in his own book.

Our main poster Hopeful watched one typical TV interview, and described how he was unwilling or unable to back up “his” book’s claims concerning Guede quoted in part above (see this post).

I think the biggest clue to Raffaele’s dishonesty was his refusal to denounce Meredith’s “real” killer, Rudy Guede. Had he not been part of the violence or obstruction of justice against Meredith, he would have the moral high ground to express natural horror rage and resentment against this “real” killer, a killer whose act has also destroyed Sollecito’s life.

If he were totally innocent, Raffaele would want only to name and shame Guede and howl for the harshest punishment. If Guede had gotten me involved in such a nightmare I would blame him without regret and with no game-playing or fear of his lies. The fact that Raf does not dare to anger Guede and refuses to judge the known killer who has dropped Raf into a living hell is a sign of some perverse obligation to Guede, fear of Guede, or guilty knowledge or some unnatural response.

He refuses to denounce Guede, while he revels in his coverup for Amanda. This suggests he is part of the crime.  He denounces prison loudly enough! He seemed to want to say that prison serves absolutely no purpose at all, incarceration accomplishes nothing. This is simply a reflection of how much he hated prison, not how little he deserved it.

So Sollecito pussyfoots on Guede as throughout his numerous book interviews. And that “coverup for Amanda” he revels in? Never happened.

That serious allegation cost him in the Florence court. In fact for eleven years Sollecito has denied Knox confirmation of her final alibi (see this post and this post),

4. A Rickety House Of Cards

It’s truly bizarre that Gladwell’s researchers and editors, if not he himself, picked up on none of this.

These days Knox is sounding even more mental than what passes for normal for her (see this post).

Imagine that Sollecito and Knox terminally divide - he remains incessantly ticked off, while she rakes in the dough - and one or other spills the beans.

Whither Gladwell at that point?

Posted by Peter Quennell on 02/04/20 at 01:51 PM • Permalink for this post • Archived in • Comments here (6)