October 11, 2011

Monster of Perugia Trailer

I've posted a video trailer for my book, The Monster of Perugia - The Framing of Amanda Knox. The trailer poses some of the many questions that remain about the travesty of injustice and crimes committed by Perugian justice authorities.

Just what is the special relationship between Prosecutor Mignini and the murderer, Rudy Guede? Why was Rudy repeatedly released after being captured for burglary? What was Mignini's real motive to frame Amanda and Raffaele?

An investigation should be demanded. Please help me spread that word by reposting the link to this simple, but important video.


September 25, 2011

Landshark Park

The prosecution's closing arguments in the appeals of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito in Perugia, Italy comprised a  rehash of long-since discredited claims. They stated, for example, that they had proved beyond a reasonable doubt in the first trial that "mixed blood" of Amanda and Meredith was found. That claim was based on a preposterous misinterpretation of the mundane fact that Amanda's DNA was in her own bathroom, a fact without meaning since every one of us has left our own DNA in our own bathrooms. Oh, and, also preposterous because Amanda had no wounds from which to bleed.

There is a term for statements like this that are not true. They are called "lies".  The prosecution lying to the jury and the press in this trial is nothing new, lies have been the core of their case. It is also not surprising that they have been allowed to lie without correction. In other courts such deliberate misstatements could lead to disbarment, but Italian jurisprudence is flexible and sophisticated about such matters, we are told.

What has been amazing is how many times they have gotten away with it. The first court bought dozens of Mignini's claims hook, line, and sinker, except when it could actually improve upon them. Most of the press, too, went along for years, on the joy rides of a "satanic sex cult" then a "sex game gone wrong" along with many other Mignini fantasies, even though there has never been  a shred of evidence presented to support them. 

Amazing as Mignini’s ability to get away with serial prevarication has been, it is not without precedent.

In Saturday Night Live’s famous “Landshark” skit, the imaginary creature of the Jaws cinema era told ridiculous lie after ridiculous lie, trying to gain entrance to its prey’s home.  No matter how cautious, savvy, or well-informed the victim, that clever and persistent Landshark would eventually devour them.

“Flowers,” announced the tentative, nasal voice at the door as the ominous Jaws theme music began.
“Flowers for whom?” the suspicious woman replied.
“Plumber, maam,” the voice inexplicably changed its claim.
“I don’t need a plumber,” the woman skeptically replied. “You’re that clever shark, aren’t you?”
“Candygram,” came the voice, testing out another approach.
“Candygram my foot! You get out of here before I call the police. You’re that shark and you know it!"
“Wait… uh… I’m only a dolphin, maam.”
“A dolphin? Well, okay….” she said, as she opened her door to Landshark doom.

The comedic setup here, the conceit, is the idea that anyone would be so stupid, after hearing three consecutive lies, as to believe the fourth lie from the same source. One would think, after all, that the source's credibility might be shot after being caught two or three times. Not with that clever Landshark, and its infinitely gullible foil.

And not with Mignini. After his original "satanic sex cult" lie didn't catch on, he switched to the sex game story. When that didn't gain traction it was a "vendetta" held by Amanda against Meredith. And when no one seemed to remember any malice to support that, Mignini claimed that Amanda committed murder for no reason at all, which was especially despicable. Now it's back to the sex game theory, because, well, you know how kids are nowadays.

It has only been after nearly four years of false imprisonment that doubts are finally being expressed by much of the press, and more importantly, by the appeals court.

After repeating, yet again, a slew of such Landshark-like claims in his closing, Mignini demanded that Amanda and Raffaele's sentences be increased to life in prison from the current 26 and 25 years, respectively. He also asked, as he has before, that these sentences include six months of daytime solitary confinement for Amanda and two months for Raffaele.

Such confinement can cause irreparable psychological damage and is meant to destroy the will of the prisoner.  Mignini's sadistic attempt to inflict this cruel, unusual, and senseless torture is a clear indication that these are the actions of a deranged prosecutor, and anything but the pursuit of justice.

There was a controversy a while back about the naming of two parks in the sister cities, Perugia and Seattle. Each city was supposed to name a park for the other. Perugia then named one of their parks in honor of Seattle, calling it "Orca Park".  Seattle was planning to name one "Perugia Park" until outrage was voiced by some who have observed the apalling abuse of Amanda by Perugian authorities.

"Orca" is not "Seattle" but I guess it's the thought that counts, and I've had one of those.

I propose that we, here in Seattle, name a park "Landshark Park" in honor of Perugia.

We owe them no less. 

May 11, 2011

Mignini Strikes Back!

Giuliano Mignini, the prosecutor of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, has managed to shut down Frank Sfarzo's Perugia Shock blog. Frank's blog has been a primary source of unsoiled information about the kangaroo court and framing process orchestrated by Mignini. Various people are now working to post mirror sites and they will be up shortly. This site will post selected excerpts from that blog and also other materials that show how Mignini has suppressed the facts, committed an outrage of injustice, and attempted to intimidate any journalist that dares to write the truth. He is truly the Little Dictator described in The Monster of Perugia – The Framing of Amanda Knox.

More later today!

February 22, 2011

Monster of Perugia Now Available in Print Form

The Monster of Perugia – The Framing of Amanda Knox is now available in printed form through Createspace, the print on demand part of Amazon.com. Click this link, Purchase MoP in Print to bring up the eStore.

January 20, 2011

The Monster of Perugia – The Framing of Amanda Knox

As the appeals trial of Amanda and Raffaele gets under way, after more than 3 years of wrongful imprisonment, it is finally time for my book on the framing of Amanda and Raffaele to be published. This book describes the tragedy in Perugia as accurately, clearly, and compellingly as I was capable of doing. It is my hope that it will help people to realize, with crystal clarity, that these convictions, imprisonments, and outright persecutions are terribly wrong, and must be brought to a halt.

I've set up a blog specifically for news about The Monster of Perugia (MoP) at www.monsterofperugia.com. News and information about the book will be available primarily through that site. 

The Monster of Perugia – The Framing of Amanda Knox is now available as a Kindle edition book through Amazon.com. It will soon be available in print form and print on demand format. 

(NOTE: There is a problem with the table of contents in the version of MoP that is currently at Amazon. The corrected version will appear very soon and can be downloaded to replace the version without the TOC.)

Images of the front cover of MoP appears below. Click on the images below for larger sizes. 

October 21, 2010

Through the Motivation Report – Part I

This post is Part I of a three part sample chapter from my upcoming book, 
The Monster of Perugia – The Framing of Amanda Knox
Parts II and III are now posted directly below

The Motivation Report from the Court of Assizes in Perugia, Italy attempts to explain the wrongful convictions of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito for the murder of Meredith Kercher. It does so in spite of the lack of evidence, lack of motive, and lack of common sense. Producing such a lengthy and impressive document that justifies doing something terribly wrong is not an easy task – it requires inspiration.

After careful study, it appears to me that the court’s inspiration was Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking Glass and What Alice Found There. In that classic work, the characters inverted reality and tortured logic with tenacity undaunted by reality. The Court of Assizes found a similar challenge before it. Without valid evidence, without anything resembling a believable motive, without any prior history of crime or violent acts whatsoever, it is unbelievable that Amanda Knox committed such a crime. So the Court turned to pure fiction to justify its actions.

In Through the Looking Glass, Alice speculated about what it would be like on the other side of a mirror. To her surprise, she was able to pass through to that other side, but when she did, she found herself trapped in a world where everything was backward, where logic itself was inverted.

The Motivation arrived at the outlandish conclusion that a rock that was clearly thrown through a window from the outside to break into the cottage, was instead thrown from the inside of the cottage to simulate a break in. Once that rock passed through that window backwards, logic in the Perugian court was turned into its mirror image, and outrageous conclusion after outrageous conclusion was reached. With those conclusions, Amanda Knox passed through the looking glass and was found guilty in spite of overwhelming evidence of her innocence.

Nevertheless, the Motivation is important evidence. Very poor evidence against Amanda and Raffaele, but very telling evidence against Giuliano Mignini and the judges that made this decision. As we analyze it, we see a pattern of contortions that go well beyond bad judgment calls or mere incompetence. Instead we see sign after sign of willful and deliberate twisting to achieve a desired result.

The Motivation Report is compatible with the framing of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.

Meandering River

The 400+ page long Motivation begins by meandering about through almost random observations as if to take up space, or perhaps to lull its readers to sleep.  At times no real attempt was made to develop a coherent narrative from these observations, they are like postcards from the edge of a murder.

“Meredith was very attached to her family and very affectionate; she had bought some presents and had a case full of chocolate she had bought in Perugia that she wanted to bring for her sister, Stephanie Arline Lara Kercher.”

“She loved pizza very much and at times went dancing.”

These and similar insights must have served to guide the Court’s reasoning. To avoid putting my readers to sleep, this chapter will walk through the perverse logic that was applied to just a few important aspects of the case. Of particular importance are the Court’s findings that the break-in at the cottage was staged rather than actual, and that while Rudy seemed to break in everywhere else, he would never have done such a thing as break in there.

To make these assertions, the Court reached conclusions that fly in the face of common sense, all the while cloaking itself in a guise of reason. Tweedledee and Tweedledum, rotund twin brothers imported from a nursery rhyme to the looking glass world, were masters of this.

“Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”
“I was thinking,” Alice said very politely, “which is the best way out of this wood: it’s getting so dark. Would you tell me, please?”
But the little men only looked at each other and grinned.

The Motivation is also called the Massei Report because it was mostly written by Judge Giancarlo Massei. In it, he disagrees with the contentions of prosecutor Giuliano Mignini on many major points of evidence and witness testimony, even calling some unbelievable.These two little men disagreed on many fundamental points, except for one thing on which they agreed: guilt. There is a precedent for this.

Tweedledum and Tweedledee
Agreed to have a battle;
For Tweedledum said Tweedledee
Had spoiled his nice new rattle.

Just then flew down a monstrous crow,
As black as a tar-barrel;
Which frightened both the heroes so,
They quite forgot their quarrel.

Even though the court did not accept the prosecution’s proposed motive, much of its evidence, or the scenario for how the crime occurred, these little men, Mignini and Massei, like Tweedeldum and Tweedledee before them, quite forgot their quarrel when it came to assigning guilt to Amanda Knox.

For the prosecution and the court to disagree on so many matters and yet to agree on guilt is not a minor point. The prosecution itself repeatedly changed the supposed motives, evidence, and diverse claims that it made against the accused to advance their case. The only thing that remained constant was guilt. In the Motivation, it is clear that to the Court itself the evidence, motive, etc. were mere details, not the important thing at all. The important thing was casting about for a justification for the guilt of Amanda Knox.

It is a critical fact for the understanding of this trial that guilt was preordained; the evidence was an afterthought. Once one sees this cart-before-the-horse mentality for what it is, one can practically sit back and watch as the evidence is twisted to achieve the result, rather than being objectively discovered and analyzed. The distortion of the evidence to wrongfully convict Amanda and Raffaele is especially clear in the Motivation. I urge everyone with an interest in this case to read it. Even in the translation produced by the anonymous and unaccountable team assembled by the guilters, the Motivation is self-damning in its illogical and preposterous assertions.

It is not a coincidence that while those who assert that Amanda and Raffaele are guilty point to this document, they rarely cite its actual contents. Those contents show just how weak the prosecution’s case was. As several observers stated shortly after its release, it appears to have been designed to be overthrown on appeal on the basis of its own content. It is as if those who wrote it knew perfectly well that they were convicting innocent people, and sought some form of repentance by including the seeds of self-destruction.

Shutter Island

Perhaps the most critical conclusion reached in the Motivation is that the break-in of the cottage was staged rather than being an actual burglary. From this reference point the court goes on to claim that Amanda, and only Amanda, had a motive to stage that break-in, and that she must therefore be guilty of murder. Let’s walk through this “reasoning” in some detail.

“It must be held that when Filomena Romanelli left the house in via della Pergola, she had pulled the shutters towards the interior of her room, (although she did not think that she had actually closed them.)” P–48

Filomena “did not think that she had actually closed them” in the Court’s words, and yet, the conclusion was “it must be held” that she closed them. Why? Because, the Motivation says, the wood was old and swollen, and it was difficult to close them. Anyone who has ever pulled closed an old door or shutter knows about this. You pull it kind of shut but it doesn’t really close all the way because it is swollen and doesn’t close right. So it is left partly open. Yet the Court concluded the opposite, in spite of Filomena testifying that she did not think she had actually closed the shutters. This conclusion, trivial on the face of it, is the first of many sequential and improbable conclusions – improbable conclusions culminating in convictions and years in prison.

Let’s call this Improbable Conclusion #1. Filomena did not think she had closed the shutters; therefore, they were closed.

Improbable Conclusion #2 is that because the shutters were closed, they would have had to be opened in some way.

“Consequently, since the shutters had been pulled together and their rubbing put pressure on the windowsill on which they rested, it would have first been necessary to effect an operation with the specific goal of completely opening these shutters.”

The Court then reasoned that because no tool for opening them was found at the scene, Rudy would have had to climb up to the window and open them before throwing the rock. A shutter opening tool…. what will they think of next?

So even though Filomena didn’t think she had closed the shutters, and was at the minimum not certain that she had, an elaborate line of reasoning was born based entirely on the conclusion that the shutters were closed.

It was also claimed that opening the shutters would have been a substantial undertaking. But if they were in fact only partly closed, all it would require is hopping up, using the grating and the wall to gain height, and yanking at the shutter on the right. Remember that the shutters were at about the same height as a basketball net, and Rudy was an accomplished basketball player. It would take only a second or two to accomplish. Yet the court regards this simple possibility as highly improbable.

“This scenario appears totally unlikely, given the effort involved…” P–49

Notice that opening the shutters is only required if the shutters were closed in the first place. This whole line of reasoning is sequential: each step depends on every one of the previous conclusions being correct, so the probability of the whole line of reasoning being correct is the product of the probabilities of each step; it becomes smaller, and smaller as the improbable conclusions multiply.

Witnesses recounted that they didn’t see any signs of climbing up the outside wall. Strangely, however, no close up photos of the wall appear to have been taken. No good photos of the wall or of the ground below seem to exist. Only a limited investigative effort was made on one of the most important sites in the case.

“She said: ‘We observed…. no traces on the wall.’”
P – 50

A picture would have been nice. Why are the Court’s conclusions reached entirely on the basis of their investigator’s reported observations rather than on the basis of actual, recorded images or other documentation?

And, just as damning in the Court’s eyes, a nail sticking out from the wall in that vicinity wasn’t bent, as the Court believes it would have been, but there are all kinds of simple explanations for this. Rudy didn’t happen to step on it, for instance, or he touched it but simply didn’t happen to bend it. The nail is situated at roughly the midpoint between the window and the grating below. There is plenty of space between. The nail doesn’t not occupy some special space where it could not be avoided.

Another point cited as evidence that there was no entry by the window was that the vegetation beneath the window wasn’t “trampled.” 

“…none of the vegetation underneath the window appeared to have been trampled; nothing”

To test this, try an experiment. Go outside and walk on the grass some night. Come back the following afternoon and look to see if that grass appears to have been trampled. Or you could skip the experiment, because everyone knows that “vegetation” is alive, and the vegetation planted around homes recovers rapidly from having been briefly stepped on. This is true at your home as well as in Perugia. There is nothing surprising about the plants beneath the window not appearing to be trampled. In this case, not seeing evidence of activity does not mean that there was no activity. And why would anyone asssume that the vegetation would be “trampled”? It would be stepped on for a second or two by a burglar hurrying to climb up and through the window. There is no reason to expect signs of a stampede outside the window.

And, in fact, in one photograph that exists of the outside wall there is an apparent scrape mark above the lower window. The window is not very high up, and there is a starting point to the right of it that would make access fairly easy.

And so we have Improbable Conclusion #3: the lack of trampled grass and marks on the wall disproves a break-in.

Through the Looking Glass

Perhaps the most improbable conclusion of all is the remarkable assertion that the rock went through the window in the wrong direction. This is Improbable Conclusion #4: that the rock was thrown from the inside. In arriving at this conclusion, tremendous weight was attached to the lack of pieces of glass outside the window on the ground below. We will never really know if there were no pieces there, however, because no proper documentation of that area was performed – only the visual observations of the Polizia. Did they miss pieces because the glass sifted down under leaves? Who knows? Can we take their word for it? Who knows?

The glass from the broken window was scattered about inside the room and on the window sill, exactly as one would expect if the rock were thrown from the outside. This was explained by defense expert Sergeant Pasquali, but his testimony was dismissed because he is merely a ballistics expert, not a rock throwing expert (ballistics being the study of bullets flying about, not rocks).

“Pieces of glass from the window pane were distributed in a homogeneous manner on the inside and outside parts of the window sill, without any displacement being noted…”
P – 51

In fact, the pieces of glass on the windowsill are not distributed in a homogeneous (uniform) matter at all. There are several large shards of glass that appear to have been removed from the window edges and placed on the sill. This appears to have been done to allow the burglar to reach in and open the latch to enter.

The Court claims to have an ability to read evidence that is little short of mind reading.  For instance, their stating that the chaos in Filomena’s room is proof of faked burglary rather than the real thing: “The drawers of the little dresser next to the bed were not even opened…” In this it is claimed that particular drawers should havebeen opened and others not, if indeed it was a real burglary. And how did the Court know that these drawers weren’t simply opened and then closed again?

“No valuable item was taken, or even set aside to be taken.” Rudy’s final act of the burglary before being interrupted by Meredith was apparently to use the toilet.

The night of the murder was the night before rents were due in Perugia. Students generally pay these rents in cash, so it is well known that they are gathered from the various occupants of apartments on that night. The “banker” for Via della Pergola was Filomena Romanelli, the woman whose room was ransacked by Rudy. It is highly probable that Rudy was searching for 1200 Euros in cash (4 occupants X 300 Euros each) that he believed Filomena would have had somewhere in her room. That cash would be far more valuable to him than difficult-to-fence items. It is also highly probable that he started to look for that, interrupted his search to use the bathroom, and then Meredith Kercher came home unexpectedly.

“Romanelli’s own statements are significant and decisive. In her questioning of Feb. 7, 2009 she recalled having left her computer in its case, ‘standing up, not lying down.’”
P – 53

Snap Quiz: Where, and at what angle, did you leave your laptop computer some night 15 months ago? Someone’s life depends upon the accuracy of your memory. Who remembers something like that? The court places “decisive” value on such testimony while ignoring photographic evidence that contradicts it and common sense. This misplaced faith in human memory is so ludicrous as to be inexplicable unless the court had an agenda to fulfill.

After rejecting the simple, straightforward explanation of the broken window, the Court invented an amazing interpretation of its own:

“This situation, like   all   the   other   glaring   inconsistencies,   is   adequately   and   satisfactorily   explained   if   one   supposes   that   the   rock   was   thrown   from   the   inside   of   the   room,   with   the   two   shutters   pulled   inwards   so   that   they   blocked   the   pieces   of   glass   from   falling   to   the   ground  below.”
P – 51

Speaking of inconsistencies, if you think about the Court’s conclusion on this matter, it comes down to this: Amanda and Raffaele went outside, got a rock, brought it back into the house, and inexplicably threw it out through the window to simulate its having been thrown in through the window. Then they went back outside, found the rock they had thrown, and brought it back into the room. Why would anyone do something so stupid? Why would they throw a rock through the window backwards, going through several extra steps to do so, when all they would have had to do was throw it in from the outside?

I’m a materials scientist with a strong emphasis on theoretical mechanics. I have reviewed the evidence of the glass distribution, the pitted inner shutter, the condition of the glass left in and on the window sill, etc. It is my professional opinion that this evidence is clear: the rock was thrown through the window from the outside, not the inside. In addition to the defense expert Sergeant Pasquali, an unpaid independent forensic engineer, Ron Hendry, has also reviewed the evidence and come to the same conclusion. But you don’t have to believe us, because this is a very simple thing. Ask any kid who has just hit a baseball through a window which way the broken glass flew. All that broken glass spread all over Filomena’s room got there because the rock was thrown from the outside. It’s that simple.

But the Court found the opposite – that the rock flew through the window in reverse. That finding set up a chain of similar insights that grew ever more absurd, just as the events in Through The Looking Glass were unencumbered by common sense. The next flight of the imagination taken in the Motivation was to claim that the “staged” break-in would only have been staged by Amanda Knox. The logic in this case is simply silly.

“Amanda  was  living  with  Meredith  and  had  the  key  to  the  front  door   of  the  house  where  she  lived…” P–60

The Court’s reasoning on this may be summarized as follows: “Ahah! Since a break-in was staged, it must have been done so to deflect suspicion. And only someone who had the key to the front door would have such a motive. And only Amanda Knox had the key to the front door and was in town when the murder happened. Therefore, Amanda Knox murdered Meredith Kercher.”

If you don’t believe me – I know it is difficult to believe that the Court would follow such a weak line of reasoning – read the Motivation, page 60.  This thinking would be laughable if it weren’t utterly tragic. First, we know that the break in wasn’t staged, but let’s assume that it was for a moment. Amanda was IT because she had the key to her own home? Ever rented an apartment? Everyone who has ever lived there probably has the key, or could have the key, because landlords generally don’t change the locks until someone breaks them.

Yet from this, the Court leaps to the conclusion that Rudy Guede was let in by Amanda Knox, simply because she had the key to her own front door! Forget the lack of motive, lack of any prior violence, lack of evidence of her presence in the room. The Motivation arrives at its conclusion that Amanda Knox murdered Meredith Kercher by outlandishly asserting that the break-in was faked, and then fixating on her as the culprit because she had the key to her own house.

Special thanks to Heather Coy for copy editing these pieces. 
Illustrations from John Tenniel, from the 1870 version of Through the Looking Glass

Through the Motivation Report – Part II

This post is the second part of a three part sample chapter from my upcoming book
The Monster of Perugia – The Framing of Amanda Knox

The Elephant in the Room

In justifying a guilty verdict for Amanda and Raffaele, the Court was faced with an elephant in the room; Rudy Guede is clearly guilty of the murder. He had a history of repeated break ins; he knew that the students would have rent money, in cash, on that day of the month; he was in desperate need of money since he likely faced imminent eviction; he was known to carry large knives (and small ones); his presence at the scene of the crime was indisputable; and he fled the country shortly after. The case against Rudy Guede was overwhelming. How then, to diminish Rudy’s role and substitute Amanda, a kid who had no criminal or violent history and no motive, as the architect of this horrific crime?

The Motivation begins this delicate process by attempting to dismiss the import of three of Guede’s previous break ins that were testified to in the trial (there were others). These break ins took place in just the month before he committed the murder. They were at a nursery in Milan, a law office in Perugia, and at the Tramontano home in Perugia. Incredibly, it downplayed the obvious similarities between these prior crimes and the Kercher murder while highlighting a trivial difference.

It is instructive to review these break ins, as reported in the Motivation itself, not only as a window to understanding Rudy Guede’s criminal history but for insights into just far the Court went in its interpretation of events to get the result they sought.

“…on the morning of October 27, 2007, a Saturday, as she entered the nursery school at via Plinio 16, Milan, of which she was the principal, she noticed coming out of her office a person whom she didn’t know, later identified as Rudy Guede…. Rudy Guede had a backpack inside which was a computer. Called at once, the police made him open the backpack, in which they found a 40cm kitchen knife. She recalled that there were other objects in the backpack: a bunch of keys, a small gold woman's watch, and a tiny hammer of the type found in buses to smash windows. The police told her that the computer had been stolen from a law office in Perugia.”

Rudy had a great excuse for breaking into the nursery school. He claimed that someone at the train station in Milan had told him he could stay there, for which service Rudy said he paid the man 50 Euros. So, the police naturally let him go. I could sell bridges to clients like these.

Just 6 days before the murder of Meredith Kercher, Rudy Guede made this unlawful entry into a nursery school where he was found with a very large kitchen knife and breaking and entering tools, and was subsequently questioned by the Polizia. And they let him go on an utterly unbelievable excuse. Why?

And what about the computer that was stolen from the law office?

On the night of October 13, 2007, just over two weeks before the murder, a law office in Perugia had been broken into.

“The thief or thieves had entered through a window whose panes had been smashed with a rather large stone; the glass was scattered around, and they had found some of their clothing on top of the glass…”

Rudy Guede later went to the attorneys to apologize for having been captured with their stolen laptop, claiming to have purchased it legally. Why he did that is a mystery, one of many strange things Rudy did that seem to make no sense whatever. None of this makes sense unless there was something else going on that we don’t know about. Rudy’s relationship with the Polizia is an important anomaly, an unanswered question that we will revisit in a later chapter.

Rudy broke into the office by throwing a rock through a window, the same entry method use in the cottage break in. There was even a grill beneath the window to climb up, just as with the cottage:

“…declared that the broken window was “a French window opening onto a small balcony overlooking the inner courtyard of the building; beneath it, corresponding precisely to our window, there is a door equipped with a metal grille...”

Finally, Rudy broke into the home of Cristian Tramontano and threatened him with a jackknife when Cristian tried to make Rudy leave his home. This break in also took place in the month before the murder. During it, Rudy “…tried to exit the house and, finding the door locked, pulled out a jackknife with which he threatened Tramontano….” P-46

Any objective person reviewing this evidence would conclude that Rudy Guede was an active burglar, that his modus operandi was varied, and included throwing rocks through windows and climbing up lattices to gain entry, that he broke into places that were occupied and had threatened the occupants with knives. Any objective person would therefore be not the least bit surprised to hear that Rudy broke into the cottage at Via della Pergola by similar means, with a more tragic outcome.

But what did the Court conclude? The exact opposite. Having passed through the looking glass of logic with the flight of the rock, the Court stuck fast to a path that would have pleased the brothers Tweedle.
 "But how curiously it twists! It's more like a corkscrew than a path!" Through the Looking Glass

Friendship and Fun with Rudy Guede

Clinging to the slenderest of threads, the Court observed that while Rudy was not acquainted with the occupants of the nursery school, the law office, or the home, he was acquainted with the boys who lived downstairs at Via dela Pergola. This trivial distinction is given uncanny weight and cited as near proof that Rudy would not have broken into the cottage.

“Even if one accepts that Rudy was the burglar who broke into the law office of the lawyers Brocchi and Palazzoli and into Tramontano’s house, it must be observed that Rudy was not known by these, nor by the director of the nursery school in via Plinio, Milan; this situation is entirely different from the one at via della Pergola…”

Entirely different? Because he played basketball with the guys downstairs? Rudy had shown no compunction against breaking into a nursery school. A nursery school. He had thrown a rock through a window and climbed into a law office. He had threatened a home’s resident with a knife. The Court even cited a number of differences between these prior break ins, showing that Rudy didn’t always do the same thing. All this (and more, actually) in just the month before the murder of Meredith Kercher. And yet, with the twisted logic of Tweedledee and Tweedledum, the Court concluded that he would never have broken into the cottage, because he had played basketball with the boys who lived downstairs.

“It has already been stated that Rudy Guede was acquainted with the inhabitants of Via dela Pergola and that he had a good relationship of friendship and fun with them (with all of the boys downstairs; with Amanda, in whom he had actually shown some interest; and with Meredith). It thus seems unlikely that Rudy decided to enter this house in the illicit and violent matter shown by the smashing of the window.”

It will be news to harassed and uninterested women everywhere that any man that tells another man that he finds a woman attractive has “a good relationship of friendship and fun with them.” Amanda barely knew Rudy. There was no “relationship” between them, save in the lurid imagination of the court.  Yet the Motivation  says “…Amanda, in whom he had actually shown some interest…” as if showing interest equates to a mutual connection. Rudy was a well known harasser of women. He was “the kind of guy who would repeatedly hit on a woman, being completely clueless that she had no interest in him,” as one knowledgeable journalist put it to me. There is no evidence that he had done any more than look at Amanda at a gathering with many present and make a comment about her to the boys downstairs. But to Judge Massei this was enough to refer to “a good relationship of friendship and fun with them.” This is a term he applies not only to the boys downstairs, with whom Rudy played basketball, but to Amanda whom he barely knew, and to Meredith, whom he murdered.

Amanda was lucky that she was not the one who happened to be at home that night. Rudy’s actions showed in crystal clear fashion that he was not deterred at all by the presence of occupants, he was not deterred at all by happening to know those occupants, he was not deterred at all because he had been repeatedly allowed to go free after committing crime after crime. Allowed to go free by the Perugian justice authorities.

This Court’s attempt to dismiss the possibility that Rudy committed burglary at Via dela Pergola would be incredible if the Court were actually seeking justice, but it is not the least bit surprising if the Court’s actual motive was to condemn Amanda and Raffaele by whatever justification necessary, while sparing Rudy Guede. Their objective in that case would be to cast about for some difference, some distinction, to somehow dispute the obvious similarities between hit previous burglaries and this break in.

The Court goes on. “It is even more unlikely given that at least some of the residents of the house might have been home or might have turned up and surprised Rudy Guede… in the very act of burglary….” Remember  that Rudy was interrupted in his burglary of the nursery school, in which he was caught with a knife and stolen property, but he was set free by the Polizia for some mysterious reason. Rudy was interrupted in his break in of a private home, at which point he threatened the resident with a knife, but, again, he was set free by the Polizia. Why would he be concerned about possibly being interrupted in this burglary, when he was in possession of a seemingly limitless “Get out of jail” card? The Court knew this, and yet claimed the opposite.

Once again, one must conclude that the Court’s actions are compatible with the framing of Amanda Knox.

Then, in what appears to be an attempt at misdirection, the Court devotes several pages to asserting that Rudy, having committed breaking and entering just days earlier, would have no motive to simulate a breaking and entering. “…why ever would Rudy, back just a few days after the kindergarten break in in via Plinio in Milan, where he had been surprised by the headmistress and… have had to create the appearance of a burglary… when he had done just that recently?”

This is an attempt to claim that the burglary was faked, but Rudy did not fake it so it had to be Amanda. It is a classic misdirection, a strawman argument. Who has claimed that Rudy faked a break-in? The error is that the burglary was by no means faked, it was real, and Rudy committed it. This is a clumsy attempt to build support for the preposterous notion that the burglary was staged, on which the Court builds it’s case for conviction, and to get people to wonder, “gosh, who dunnit?” No one staged a break in. There is no evidence whatsoever for it. 

Special thanks to Heather Coy for copy editing these pieces.
Illustrations by John Tenniel, from the 1870 version of Through the Looking Glass.