Murder in Perugia

A Lesson in Spin
Hey! You never
But Paul,
said we would be talking
you knew
about Amanda possibly
the PPT is
washing the victim’s
about spin
clothes!

But how can I

talk about something for Okay, we’ll let you
which I haven’t yet off this time. Let’s just
received my talking hope that Daisyhill soon
points? figures out something
to say about the
washer.

Italian police photo of girls’ washing machine after the crime

Murder in Perugia

A Lesson in Spin

Textbook Analysis of How

not to Win Friends and
Influence People
The first part of this presentation examines an extract of 4 minutes or so from the CBS “48 Hours” program aired on 12
April 2008 where Private Investigator (PI) Paul Ciolino carries out an acoustic test to verify the testimony of an elderly
neighbour of the cottage where the murder was perpetrated. The program concludes that the test “raises serious questions
about what Nara [the neighbour] really heard that night, and even she isn't as certain as police have suggested."
At the end of the day, I don’t think that anyone who is following this murder case really cares about Paul’s test one way or
the other. It’s history, it got him 5 minutes of fame and gave a few chuckles to the discussion boards. However, on one
hand, his segment of only a few minutes in the 48 Hours show is a lesson in “spin” for the masses, and on the other hand,
it gives rise to new discussion about a key prosecution witness who has been notably out of recent pre-trial judicial
sessions which have concentrated more on DNA traces and physical evidence.
I have used some images and text from this segment of the program for quoting purposes.
The last part of the presentation briefly looks at more recent efforts to influence opinion on the case in the USA and in Italy.
The situations presented here are related to ideas or event relationships which have arisen from the in-depth multi-point-of-
view, multi-timezone, and multi-cultural discussions and information found on the following excellent discussion boards:
http://perugiamurderfile.freeforums.org/portal.php
http://allofus.invisionplus.net/?mforum=allofus&act=idx
http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php
http://damiano33.wordpress.com/
Any irony or sarcasm which may be encountered in the presentation or our discussions is not meant by any means to
trivialise the pain and suffering, and butal senseless murder that the victim experienced, nor to reduce her memory. (Since
the victim has no means to reply to any comments herein or scenarios described in other presentations, and the repeated
use of her name in this context would only further hurt anyone close to her, I refer to her simply as “the victim”.)
As we go through the scenarios of what may have happened in the crime, the only moment which is truly important is the
day when the evidence is presented in court, like in any other serious crime case.
I can only hope that there will be one single ending, that justice is served to those responsible for each of the crimes which
have been determined by the Italian judiciary. I am buoyed by the fact that the victim’s family has continued to express
confidence in the Italian justice system.
Special thanks to Nicki for producing a much better translation of Signora Nara’s testimony.

- Kermit (14 October 2008) email: krmt123@gmail.com

Nathan Abraham - American living in Perugia

"She got killed because she said 'No'. She said

'No' to something she didn't want to do. I think
that people want to have justice served for
Meredith"

I like what Nathan has to say.

It’s short, direct and contains
no “if’s”, “and’s” or “but’s”.
There are no caveats or
conditions in his call for
justice.
Nathan Abraham - American living in Perugia
"She got killed because she said 'No'. She said
'No' to something she didn't want to do. I think
that people want to have justice served for
Meredith"
Etc.
I like what Nathan has to say.
It’s short, direct and contains
no “if’s”, “and’s” or “but’s”.
There are no caveats or
conditions in his call for
justice.
Paul the PI, famous American investigator
Narrator: "Private Investigator Paul Ciolino wants
justice for Meredith as well ... BUT not at the
expense of Amanda Knox.”
Etc. Etc.
Well … that is one big “BUT”. It seems some people want “justice”
done, but on the condition that Amanda is excluded. No one is in a
position to say that a priori, Amanda is guilty of anything. However,
it is suspiciously imprudent to separate a priori Amanda’s legal
fate from justice for the victim, in particular given the evidence
that’s out there.
Nathan Abraham - American living in Perugia
"She got killed because she said 'No'. She said
'No' to something she didn't want to do. I think
that people want to have justice served for
Meredith"
Paul the PI, famous American investigator
Narrator: "Private Investigator Paul Ciolino wants
justice for Meredith as well ... BUT not at the
expense of Amanda Knox.”
Paul the PI: ""She's a 20-year-old kid who has been
ripped out of everything that she knows and placed
in jail. Amanda Knox is sitting in a maximum security
prison in Italy wondering when she's gonna get out.”
Narrator: "Amanda and her boyfriend, Raffaele
Sollecito, have been in jail since early November.
Now, more than five months. Yet Paul Ciolino
believes the police have no convincing evidence
they had anything to do with the murder of Meredith
Kercher.”
Paul the PI: "This is a railroad job from Hell and
she's sitting at the end of it right now.”

He says the police have no

I like what Nathan has to say.
It’s short, direct and contains
no “if’s”, “and’s” or “but’s”.
There are no caveats or
conditions in his call for
justice.
convincing evidence. Don’t
you get the suspicion that the
persons who are going to get
railroaded are the CBS
television viewers who aren’t
totally familiar with the case?
Perfect targets for spin.
Well … that is one big “BUT”. It seems some people want “justice”
done, but on the condition that Amanda is excluded. No one is in a
position to say that a priori, Amanda is guilty of anything. However,
it is suspiciously imprudent to separate a priori Amanda’s legal
fate from justice for the victim, in particular given the evidence
that’s out there.
 Nathan Abraham - American living in Perugia
"She got killed because she said 'No'. She said
'No' to something she didn't want to do. I think
that people want to have justice served for
Meredith"
Peter Van Sant, “48 Hour” show host
Paul the PI, famous American investigator
Narrator: "Private Investigator Paul Ciolino wants
justice for Meredith as well ... BUT not at the
expense of Amanda Knox.”
Paul the PI: ""She's a 20-year-old kid who has been
ripped out of everything that she knows and placed
in jail. Amanda Knox is sitting in a maximum security
prison in Italy wondering when she's gonna get out.”
Narrator: "Amanda and her boyfriend, Raffaele
Sollecito, have been in jail since early November.
Now, more than five months. Yet Paul Ciolino
believes the police have no convincing evidence
they had anything to do with the murder of Meredith
Kercher.”
Paul the PI: "This is a railroad job from Hell and
she's sitting at the end of it right now.”

Peter: "The police chief of Perugia looked me

in the eye and said, 'We have evidence.'”
Paul the PI: "He knows, there's not a shred of
evidence putting this girl at that murder scene."

Not a shred of evidence. I won’t

post yet again the photos of the
Double-DNA knife, of the knife
stain on the bed, of the washing
machine, of 3 or 4 coincidental
victim-Knox mixes of BLOOD.
 Nathan Abraham - American living in Perugia
"She got killed because she said 'No'. She said
'No' to something she didn't want to do. I think
that people want to have justice served for
Meredith"
Peter Van Sant, “48 Hour” show host
Peter: "The police chief of Perugia looked me
in the eye and said, 'We have evidence.'”
Paul the PI: "He knows, there's not a shred of
evidence putting this girl at that murder scene."
Not a shred of evidence. I won’t
post yet again the photos of the
Double-DNA knife, of the knife
stain on the bed, of the washing
machine, of 3 or 4 coincidental
victim-Knox mixes of BLOOD.
Paul the PI, famous American investigator Paul the PI: ""She's a 20-year-old kid who has been
ripped out of everything that she knows and placed
in jail. Amanda Knox is sitting in a maximum security
prison in Italy wondering when she's gonna get out.”
Narrator: "Amanda and her boyfriend, Raffaele
Sollecito, have been in jail since early November.
Now, more than five months. Yet Paul Ciolino
believes the police have no convincing evidence
they had anything to do with the murder of Meredith
Kercher.”
Narrator: "Private Investigator Paul Ciolino wants
justice for Meredith as well ... BUT not at the Paul the PI: "This is a railroad job from Hell and
expense of Amanda Knox.” she's sitting at the end of it right now.”
Edgardo Giobbi, police lead investigator
Narrator: "Edgardo Giobbi is the lead investigator. He
told 48 Hours that the case against all three suspects
is solid. The DNA found on the victim's bra, he says,
DNA which belongs to Rudy Guede and Raffaele
Sollecito, proves Rudy didn’t act alone. And if
Raffaele was involved, so was Amanda, because they
both claim they were together that night."
Edgardo must be one of those
dozens (or hundreds?) of
investigators and police officers
who form part of the Evil
Mignini’s terrible secret plan to
pervert justice. Or so the
spinners would have us believe
…
 Nathan Abraham - American living in Perugia
"She got killed because she said 'No'. She said
'No' to something she didn't want to do. I think
that people want to have justice served for
Meredith"
Peter Van Sant, “48 Hour” show host
Peter: "The police chief of Perugia looked me
in the eye and said, 'We have evidence.'”
Paul the PI: "He knows, there's not a shred of
evidence putting this girl at that murder scene."
Not a shred of evidence. I won’t
post yet again the photos of the
Double-DNA knife, of the knife
stain on the bed, of the washing
machine, of 3 or 4 coincidental
victim-Knox mixes of BLOOD.
Paul the PI, famous American investigator
Narrator: "Private Investigator Paul Ciolino wants
justice for Meredith as well ... BUT not at the
expense of Amanda Knox.”
Edgardo Giobbi, police lead investigator
Narrator: "Edgardo Giobbi is the lead investigator. He
told 48 Hours that the case against all three suspects
is solid. The DNA found on the victim's bra, he says,
DNA which belongs to Rudy Guede and Raffaele
Sollecito, proves Rudy didn’t act alone. And if
Raffaele was involved, so was Amanda, because they this for a fact, because we've seen it happen in this
both claim they were together that night."
Edgardo must be one of those
dozens (or hundreds?) of
investigators and police officers
who form part of the Evil
Mignini’s terrible secret plan to
pervert justice. Or so the
spinners would have us believe
…
Paul the PI: ""She's a 20-year-old kid who has been
ripped out of everything that she knows and placed
in jail. Amanda Knox is sitting in a maximum security
prison in Italy wondering when she's gonna get out.”
Narrator: "Amanda and her boyfriend, Raffaele
Sollecito, have been in jail since early November.
Now, more than five months. Yet Paul Ciolino
believes the police have no convincing evidence
they had anything to do with the murder of Meredith
Kercher.”
Paul the PI: "This is a railroad job from Hell and
she's sitting at the end of it right now.”
Paul the PI: "I don't believe Raffaele’s DNA is on
Meredith's bra.”
Narrator: "Why? Because Ciolino says evidence
leaked in this case has often turned out to be
wrong.”
Paul the PI: "They're so desperate to make a case
against this kid that they'll do anything. And we know
case already."
What leaks is he referring to?
The “20% match” of the victim’s
DNA? Or the state of Rudy’s
faeces in the toilet? Or Raffaele
telling of the day he pricked the
victim while cooking? Or Rudy’s
“criminal record”? Etc. etc. etc.
 Nathan Abraham - American living in Perugia
"She got killed because she said 'No'. She said
'No' to something she didn't want to do. I think
that people want to have justice served for
Meredith"
Peter Van Sant, “48 Hour” show host
Peter: "The police chief of Perugia looked me
in the eye and said, 'We have evidence.'”
Paul the PI: "He knows, there's not a shred of
evidence putting this girl at that murder scene."
Narrator: "A prime example: the witness police say
heard three people running from the house that
night."
Paul the PI: "Peter, high police officials told you they
had a witness who heard stuff that night, indicating
they had interviewed her and they owned her. Now,
we go interview the witness, and what happened?"
Paul the PI, famous American investigator
Narrator: "Private Investigator Paul Ciolino wants
justice for Meredith as well ... BUT not at the
expense of Amanda Knox.”
Edgardo Giobbi, police lead investigator
Narrator: "Edgardo Giobbi is the lead investigator. He
told 48 Hours that the case against all three suspects
is solid. The DNA found on the victim's bra, he says,
DNA which belongs to Rudy Guede and Raffaele
Sollecito, proves Rudy didn’t act alone. And if
Raffaele was involved, so was Amanda, because they this for a fact, because we've seen it happen in this
both claim they were together that night."
“heard stuff”??!!
Can’t CBS find a more
articulate PI than Paul?
Paul the PI: ""She's a 20-year-old kid who has been
ripped out of everything that she knows and placed
in jail. Amanda Knox is sitting in a maximum security
prison in Italy wondering when she's gonna get out.”
Narrator: "Amanda and her boyfriend, Raffaele
Sollecito, have been in jail since early November.
Now, more than five months. Yet Paul Ciolino
believes the police have no convincing evidence
they had anything to do with the murder of Meredith
Kercher.”
Paul the PI: "This is a railroad job from Hell and
she's sitting at the end of it right now.”
Paul the PI: "I don't believe Raffaele’s DNA is on
Meredith's bra.”
Narrator: "Why? Because Ciolino says evidence
leaked in this case has often turned out to be
wrong.”
Paul the PI: "They're so desperate to make a case
against this kid that they'll do anything. And we know
case already."
 Nathan Abraham - American living in Perugia
"She got killed because she said 'No'. She said
'No' to something she didn't want to do. I think
that people want to have justice served for
Meredith"
Peter Van Sant, “48 Hour” show host
Peter: "The police chief of Perugia looked me
in the eye and said, 'We have evidence.'”
Paul the PI: "He knows, there's not a shred of
evidence putting this girl at that murder scene."
Narrator: "A prime example: the witness police say
heard three people running from the house that
night."
Paul the PI: "Peter, high police officials told you they
had a witness who heard stuff that night, indicating
they had interviewed her and they owned her. Now,
we go interview the witness, and what happened?"
Paul the PI, famous American investigator
Narrator: "Private Investigator Paul Ciolino wants
justice for Meredith as well ... BUT not at the
expense of Amanda Knox.”
Edgardo Giobbi, police lead investigator
Narrator: "Edgardo Giobbi is the lead investigator. He
told 48 Hours that the case against all three suspects
is solid. The DNA found on the victim's bra, he says,
DNA which belongs to Rudy Guede and Raffaele
Sollecito, proves Rudy didn’t act alone. And if
Raffaele was involved, so was Amanda, because they this for a fact, because we've seen it happen in this
both claim they were together that night."
Narrator: "A scream in the night, then the sound of
running. That's what Nara Capezzali, said she
heard from her apartment across the street from
the crime scene on the night of the murder. She
told her story in this Italian television interview.
Paul the PI: ""She's a 20-year-old kid who has been
ripped out of everything that she knows and placed
in jail. Amanda Knox is sitting in a maximum security
prison in Italy wondering when she's gonna get out.”
Narrator: "Amanda and her boyfriend, Raffaele
Sollecito, have been in jail since early November.
Now, more than five months. Yet Paul Ciolino
believes the police have no convincing evidence
they had anything to do with the murder of Meredith
Kercher.”
Paul the PI: "This is a railroad job from Hell and
she's sitting at the end of it right now.”
Paul the PI: "I don't believe Raffaele’s DNA is on
Meredith's bra.”
Narrator: "Why? Because Ciolino says evidence
leaked in this case has often turned out to be
wrong.”
Paul the PI: "They're so desperate to make a case
against this kid that they'll do anything. And we know
case already."
Okay, this is important: These
slightly grainy images of Signora
Capezzali are not Paul’s (in spite
of the CBS logo). She did this
interview with Italian TV in
December. She has not received
the media since then, perhaps
under a gag order.
Also, “A scream in the night, then
the sound of running” is what Nara
told Paul the PI through the
shutters (you’ll see it further
ahead). She actually told more
details on Italian TV.
I heard a loud scream. Paul!
You may want to take note.
 Narrator: "TV and tabloids had already been
reporting the police theory that three people,
including Amanda, were all involved in the crime."

Italian TV reporter’s question:

I heard a loud scream. Paul!

You may want to take note.
Here’s further messy research by Paul the PI (or conscious
spin?). “Tabloids” include The Times, The Telegraph, Il
Messaggero, Corriere della Sera, the Seattle Times, the Seattle
Post Intelligencer, and many more papers which don’t have
Page-3-Girls.
But more importantly, independently of mainstream papers’
reporting on the crime, Nara was already known to police
within the first days following the crime.
And while persons close to Amanda were becoming aware of
the investigation focusing in on her (like the cousin who alerted
Edda, who suggested to Amanda that she “come home”), until
November 6 following Amanda’s arrest, neither the newspapers
nor Nara would have known that “three people, including
Amanda, were all involved in the crime”.
 Narrator: "TV and tabloids had already been
reporting the police theory that three people,
including Amanda, were all involved in the crime."

Italian TV reporter’s question: Signora Nara’s reply:

I heard a loud scream. Paul! Do you think Paul wanted to jot down
You may want to take note. what those three different things were?

Here’s further messy research by Paul the PI (or conscious

spin?). “Tabloids” include The Times, The Telegraph, Il
Messaggero, Corriere della Sera, the Seattle Times, the Seattle
Post Intelligencer, and many more papers which don’t have
Page-3-Girls.
But more importantly, independently of mainstream papers’
reporting on the crime, Nara was already known to police
within the first days following the crime.
And while persons close to Amanda were becoming aware of
the investigation focusing in on her (like the cousin who alerted
Edda, who suggested to Amanda that she “come home”), until
November 6 following Amanda’s arrest, neither the newspapers
nor Nara would have known that “three people, including
Amanda, were all involved in the crime”.
 Narrator: "TV and tabloids had already been
reporting the police theory that three people,
including Amanda, were all involved in the crime."

Italian TV reporter’s question: Signora Nara’s reply:

Here “one” and “one” aren’t

specific references to two of
the three sounds she heard,
but to two persons’
movements. Maybe that’s a
fine distinction, but let’s make
a mental note of that.

Here “one” and “one” aren’t
specific references to two of
the three sounds she heard,
but to two persons’
movements. Maybe that’s a
fine distinction, but let’s make
a mental note of that.
Narrator: "TV and tabloids had already been
reporting the police theory that three people,
including Amanda, were all involved in the crime."
Italian TV reporter’s question: Signora Nara’s reply:
Narrator: "Ciolino wanted to talk to this key
witness himself.”
Paul the PI: [at base of metallic staircase, with
interpreter] "We're going up to try to talk to the
witness who allegedly sa.. [he corrects himself]
heard something the night of the murder."
Oops! Paul! You have to be
careful with those Freudian slips.
Didn’t your cameraman allow you
various ‘takes’? Or maybe the
the old Sony Betamax camera
was low on batteries, after all
those wistful images of you
looking over the Umbrian hills.

Here “one” and “one” aren’t
specific references to two of
the three sounds she heard,
but to two persons’
movements. Maybe that’s a
fine distinction, but let’s make
a mental note of that.
Narrator: "TV and tabloids had already been
reporting the police theory that three people,
including Amanda, were all involved in the crime."
Italian TV reporter’s question: Signora Nara’s reply:
Narrator: "He took our translator, Giulia Alagna, to
the woman's door.”
Narrator: "Ciolino wanted to talk to this key
witness himself.”
Giulia [into interphone]: “Signora”
Paul the PI: [at base of metallic staircase, with Nara [through interphone]: “Si?”
interpreter] "We're going up to try to talk to the
Paul the PI: “Tell her that it's a VERY important
witness who allegedly sa.. [he corrects himself]
issue, okay? It concerns somebody's life. It's very
heard something the night of the murder."
serious.”
Oops! Paul! You have to be Isn’t there a law against the
careful with those Freudian slips. harassment of witnesses?
Didn’t your cameraman allow you
various ‘takes’? Or maybe the Doesn’t the Michigan
the old Sony Betamax camera Association of PI’s have a
was low on batteries, after all Code of Conduct?
those wistful images of you
looking over the Umbrian hills.
 Narrator: "TV and tabloids had already been
reporting the police theory that three people,
including Amanda, were all involved in the crime."

Italian TV reporter’s question: Signora Nara’s reply:

Narrator: "He took our translator, Giulia Alagna, to

the woman's door.”
Narrator: "Ciolino wanted to talk to this key
witness himself.”

Giulia [into interphone]: “Signora”

Paul the PI: [at base of metallic staircase, with Nara [through interphone]: “Si?”
interpreter] "We're going up to try to talk to the
Paul the PI: “Tell her that it's a VERY important
witness who allegedly sa.. [he corrects himself]
issue, okay? It concerns somebody's life. It's very
heard something the night of the murder."
serious.”

Can’t Paul understand that this woman either doesn’t want

Giulia [translates Nara's words to English
for Paul]: “She heard a scream and
somebody ran away.”
Paul the PI: “Were her windows opened or closed?”
Giulia: [translates Paul's words into Italian for Nara]
to talk to him, or has been told not to, and therefore that
what she tells him may not be complete or accurate?
Doesn’t he ask himself why Signora Nara’s words through
the shutters to him are different from the more extensive
description she gave to the Italian TV cameras?
I suppose that when you’re grand-standing, anything goes.
 Narrator: "TV and tabloids had already been
reporting the police theory that three people,
including Amanda, were all involved in the crime."

Italian TV reporter’s question: Signora Nara’s reply:

Narrator: "He took our translator, Giulia Alagna, to

the woman's door.”
Narrator: "Ciolino wanted to talk to this key
witness himself.”

Giulia [into interphone]: “Signora”

Paul the PI: [at base of metallic staircase, with Nara [through interphone]: “Si?”
interpreter] "We're going up to try to talk to the
Paul the PI: “Tell her that it's a VERY important
witness who allegedly sa.. [he corrects himself]
issue, okay? It concerns somebody's life. It's very
heard something the night of the murder."
serious.”

In editing Signora Nara’s

sparse comments, is this
Nara: [Italian] the juiciest thing that Paul
Giulia [translates Nara's words to English
for Paul]: “She heard a scream and
Giulia: “They were closed” could come up with …?
somebody ran away.” Paul: “So, the windows were closed?”
Paul the PI: “Were her windows opened or closed?” Giulia: “Si, yes”
Giulia: [translates Paul's words into Italian for Nara] Paul / Giulia [to the shutters]: “Grazie.”
Narrator: “Ciolino wanted to see - or hear - for Paul the PI: “We're looking directly on top of the
himself.” house where the homicide happened.”

Paul the PI: “Christine, I'm Paul. I'm from Chicago.”

Christine: “So am I.”
Paul the PI: “Are you really?”
Narrator: “Nara's upstairs neighbour let Paul into
her apartment to find out what he could hear.”

Christine from Chicago

appears to live in the same
building as Nara, two floors
above the witness, on the top
floor.
Narrator: “Ciolino wanted to see - or hear - for Paul the PI: “We're looking directly on top of the
himself.” house where the homicide happened.”

Paul the PI: “Christine, I'm Paul. I'm from Chicago.”

Christine: “So am I.”
Paul the PI: “Are you really?”
Narrator: “Nara's upstairs neighbour let Paul into
her apartment to find out what he could hear.”

Christine from Chicago Those windows look like they

appears to live in the same insulate both polar cold and
building as Nara, two floors rock concert sounds. In any
above the witness, on the top case, we’ll see that Christine’s
floor. windows aren’t the issue.
Narrator: “Ciolino wanted to see - or hear - for
himself.”
Peter Van Sant: [into cell phone] "Okay are you
ready outside?”
Paul the PI: “We're looking directly on top of the
house where the homicide happened.”
Paul the PI: “Christine, I'm Paul. I'm from Chicago.”
Christine: “So am I.”
Paul the PI: “Are you really?”
Narrator: “Nara's upstairs neighbour let Paul into
her apartment to find out what he could hear.”
Peter Van Sant: “We've now closed the window,
which we believe was the situation that night
Paul the PI: “We got a bunch of local kids we got to
because it was a very cold night, and let's see
do some running to see if we could hear them
what they can hear. Are you guys ready to go?”
running”
Don’t even think about
attempting to analyse Paul’s
grammar. (note to non-English
speakers: it’s perfectly normal
if you can’t understand what
Paul is trying to express. I’m
not quite sure myself.)
Narrator: “Ciolino wanted to see - or hear - for
himself.”
Peter Van Sant: [into cell phone] "Okay are you
ready outside?”
48 Hour team member perched on concrete corner
of carpark: "Three, Two, One, Go."
Paul the PI: “We're looking directly on top of the
house where the homicide happened.”
Paul the PI: “Christine, I'm Paul. I'm from Chicago.”
Christine: “So am I.”
Paul the PI: “Are you really?”
Narrator: “Nara's upstairs neighbour let Paul into
her apartment to find out what he could hear.”
Peter Van Sant: “We've now closed the window,
which we believe was the situation that night
Paul the PI: “We got a bunch of local kids we got to
because it was a very cold night, and let's see
do some running to see if we could hear them
what they can hear. Are you guys ready to go?”
running”
Narrator: “Ciolino wanted to see - or hear - for
himself.”
Peter Van Sant: [into cell phone] "Okay are you
ready outside?”
48 Hour team member perched on concrete corner
of carpark: "Three, Two, One, Go."
Paul the PI: “We're looking directly on top of the
house where the homicide happened.”
Paul the PI: “Christine, I'm Paul. I'm from Chicago.”
Christine: “So am I.”
Paul the PI: “Are you really?”
Narrator: “Nara's upstairs neighbour let Paul into
her apartment to find out what he could hear.”
PAUL!!!! TURN AROUND!!!!
LOOK
Peter Van OUT THE
Sant: “We've nowWINDOW!!!!
closed the window,
which we believe was the situation that night
Paul the PI: “We got a bunch of local kids we got to
because it was a very cold night, and let's see
do some running to see if we could hear them
what they can hear. Are you guys ready to go?”
running”

Paul the PI: "Right now I hear something.”
Peter Van Sant: "What did you hear?”
Paul the PI: "I heard something but I couldn't tell if
it was footsteps. Did you hear anything?”
Christine: "No"
Narrator: "At the very least, our unscientific test
raises serious questions about what Nara really
heard that night, and even she isn't as certain as
police have suggested."
[Nara speaks in Italian through the shutters again]
Giulia the translator, to Paul: "She didn’t know what
it … she couldn’t tell if it was one or 2 or 3.”
Paul the PI: "So she didn't know if they were 2 or 3.”
Giulia: "No."
Well, Mr. Narrator should ask his
scriptwriter to write better lines
… “serious questions about what
Nara really heard” ... We’ll see in
a minute that Paul’s test had
absolutely nothing to do with
Signora Nara’s testimony.
As for Paul’s questions through
the shutters, I hope no television
viewer believes that Nara is
offering complete or necessarily
accurate information to the
uninvited chubby bard below her
window.

Paul the PI: "Right now I hear something.”
Peter Van Sant: "What did you hear?”
Paul the PI: "I heard something but I couldn't tell if
it was footsteps. Did you hear anything?”
Christine: "No"
Narrator: "At the very least, our unscientific test
raises serious questions about what Nara really
heard that night, and even she isn't as certain as
police have suggested."
[Nara speaks in Italian through the shutters again]
Giulia the translator, to Paul: "She didn’t know what
it … she couldn’t tell if it was one or 2 or 3.”
Paul the PI: "So she didn't know if they were 2 or 3.”
Giulia: "No."
Well, Mr. Narrator should ask his
scriptwriter to write better lines
… “serious questions about what
Nara really heard” ... We’ll see in
a minute that Paul’s test had
absolutely nothing to do with
Signora Nara’s testimony.
As for Paul’s questions through
the shutters, I hope no television
viewer believes that Nara is
offering complete or necessarily
accurate information to the
uninvited chubby bard below her
window.
Narrator: "Nara also didn’t know what time it was
when she heard the sounds. But she is very clear
about one thing: ...”
Giulia the translator to Paul: "... she says she was
never interviewed by the police.”
Narrator: "As hard as it is to believe, police only saw
the witness on television."
Peter Van Sant: "Now wait a second. We're being
told that this is one of the pillars of this case against
Amanda Knox. Pretty weak pillar.”
Paul the PI: "This is fascinating to me because not
one cop in this town has ever knocked on this
woman's door, not one time."
Do I bite my tongue? Do I
remind them that just in the last
frame they refer to the police
and Signora Nara together? Do I
point out basic Google research
from well before Paul’s trip
which refers to
the December decision to keep th
?
Paul reminds me of Tattoo in the
TV series “Fantasy Island”, or of
Lennie in “Of Mice and Men”:
will there be rabbits? … he
seems to think that if you dream
hard enough that Nara didn’t
provide testimony to the police,
then maybe it will be true.

Paul the PI: "Right now I hear something.”
Peter Van Sant: "What did you hear?”
Paul the PI: "I heard something but I couldn't tell if
it was footsteps. Did you hear anything?”
Christine: "No"
Okay, let’s take a break from the 48 Hours show, as
we’ve seen what was most of interest to me, the
interaction with Signora Nara, and Paul’s “test”.
I don’t doubt the sound levels he detected in his test,
although we should keep in mind that Nara has
simple frame windows, while Christine’s windows
have multiple panes and glazings.
Narrator: "At the very least, our unscientific test
raises serious questions about what Nara really
heard that night, and even she isn't as certain as
police have suggested."
[Nara speaks in Italian through the shutters again]
Giulia the translator, to Paul: "She didn’t know what
it … she couldn’t tell if it was one or 2 or 3.”
Paul the PI: "So she didn't know if they were 2 or 3.”
Giulia: "No."
Narrator: "Nara also didn’t know what time it was
when she heard the sounds. But she is very clear
about one thing: ...”
Giulia the translator to Paul: "... she says she was
never interviewed by the police.”
Narrator: "As hard as it is to believe, police only saw
the witness on television."
Peter Van Sant: "Now wait a second. We're being
told that this is one of the pillars of this case against
Amanda Knox. Pretty weak pillar.”
Paul the PI: "This is fascinating to me because not
one cop in this town has ever knocked on this
woman's door, not one time."
VS.

Paul the PI: "Right now I hear something.”
Peter Van Sant: "What did you hear?”
Paul the PI: "I heard something but I couldn't tell if
it was footsteps. Did you hear anything?”
Christine: "No"
Okay, let’s take a break from the 48 Hours show, as
we’ve seen what was most of interest to me, the
interaction with Signora Nara, and Paul’s “test”.
I don’t doubt the sound levels he detected in his test,
although we should keep in mind that Nara has
simple frame windows, while Christine’s windows
have multiple panes and glazings.
Narrator: "At the very least, our unscientific test
raises serious questions about what Nara really
heard that night, and even she isn't as certain as
police have suggested."
[Nara speaks in Italian through the shutters again]
Giulia the translator, to Paul: "She didn’t know what
it … she couldn’t tell if it was one or 2 or 3.”
Paul the PI: "So she didn't know if they were 2 or 3.”
Giulia: "No."
Narrator: "Nara also didn’t know what time it was
when she heard the sounds. But she is very clear
about one thing: ...”
Giulia the translator to Paul: "... she says she was
never interviewed by the police.”
Narrator: "As hard as it is to believe, police only saw
the witness on television."
Peter Van Sant: "Now wait a second. We're being
told that this is one of the pillars of this case against
Amanda Knox. Pretty weak pillar.”
Paul the PI: "This is fascinating to me because not
one cop in this town has ever knocked on this
woman's door, not one time."
VS.

Paul the PI: "Right now I hear something.”
Peter Van Sant: "What did you hear?”
Paul the PI: "I heard something but I couldn't tell if
it was footsteps. Did you hear anything?”
Christine: "No"
Narrator: "At the very least, our unscientific test
raises serious questions about what Nara really
heard that night, and even she isn't as certain as
police have suggested."
[Nara speaks in Italian through the shutters again]
Giulia the translator, to Paul: "She didn’t know what
it … she couldn’t tell if it was one or 2 or 3.”
Paul the PI: "So she didn't know if they were 2 or 3.”
Giulia: "No."
Narrator: "Nara also didn’t know what time it was
when she heard the sounds. But she is very clear
about one thing: ...”
Giulia the translator to Paul: "... she says she was
never interviewed by the police.”
Narrator: "As hard as it is to believe, police only saw
the witness on television."
Peter Van Sant: "Now wait a second. We're being
told that this is one of the pillars of this case against
Amanda Knox. Pretty weak pillar.”
Paul the PI: "This is fascinating to me because not
one cop in this town has ever knocked on this
woman's door, not one time."

Okay, let’s take a break from the 48 Hours show, as

we’ve seen what was most of interest to me, the
interaction with Signora Nara, and Paul’s “test”.
I don’t doubt the sound levels he detected in his test,
although we should keep in mind that Nara has VS.
simple frame windows, while Christine’s windows
have multiple panes and glazings.
Oh! And there’s another problem
… mmmmhhhhh, well, actually
it’s an area of agreement with
Paul: I believe that - even taking
into account the different
windows - that the CBS runner
or runners would not have been
heard from Nara’s place,
because they were running on
asphalt.
Careful editing cut off Paul’s cameraman filming of the full
concrete parapet at the left end of the carpark. Nevertheless,
we see just a speck of the CBS team person, or the corner of
the parapet.

or

Now, where did the runner go?

If Paul had looked out the window, he would
have seen clearly both the CBS team member
on the parapet as well as the kid running. My
point isn’t that Nara would have seen this -
she can only see the roof of the cottage. My
point is that this place is extremely well
illuminated and, within the angles of vision
that her flat permits, she would have been
able to see all movements.
In any case, we’ll soon see that probably no
one ran there, on Via Sant’Antonio, on Nov. 1,
2007. All that effort for naught, Paul.

Let’s forget about the asphalt business for a moment.

I’ve decided that I actually LIKE Paul’s test. Remember when I told him to
LOOK OUT THE WINDOW? Well he didn’t. I guess he didn’t because he
wanted his test to be strictly an acoustic test.
But if he had looked out the window, what would he have seen?
 The Location of the Eye Witness’s Flat

Where does Signora Nara live?

Situating her perch above the carpark is an important question, as it permits us to
evaluate - together with her testimony to police (and not a few forced words to a pushy
American PI through the shutters, hoping he’ll just go away …) - exactly why her
testimony is considered so important both to the prosecution and the defence teams
Those who have been following the discussion boards have probably seen the image
collages on the next couple of screens which identify her balcony and window, so you
may want to click through them.
 These same
curtains and
plants are seen
from the inside
4 on the next
1 5 screen.
2 9
6 13
3 10
7 14
11 17
8
12 15
18
16 20
19 23
21
24
22 25
26
27

It seems that Sra. Nara lives in flat #11. The CBS 48 Hours
show used Italian TV footage, showing her unique “window
within a framework”. The Italian interview with her shows her
built-in balcony- hers is no light iron structure. We see that
ground floor from Via del Melo (on the other side of her flat) is
not level with the top terrace of the carpark.
 This is the reflection of the
bathroom ceiling lamp.

4
1 5
2 9
6 13
3 10
7 14 This is the reflection of
11 17
8 the cameraman’s
12 15 floodlamp.
18
16 20
19 23
21
24
22 25 This is a carpark
26 streetlamp with a
27 round globe.
It’s almost directly in front
of Nara’s window (off to the
side by a couple of metres).

This carpark
streetlamp with a
round globe is just
below and right next to
Nara’s place.
 The Eye Witness’s Testimony
From the television show we have partial tidbits of
Signora Nara’s testimony:
Nara’s testimony from
Paul’s point of view: “A
scream in the night, then
the sound of running”
CBS 48 Hour web page: "I heard a
big scream, a chilling scream".
(this is only on the web page, not
in the televised 48 Hour show)
Nara’s testimony from
Italian TV interview segment:
"I heard a loud scream”
More detail
“You heard three movements”
“Yes, three different things”
“One went up, one went over 
il
ta
de
there”
l
na
tio
di
Ad
“… chilling scream …”, doesn’t that ring a bell?
Do you also remember Paul’s faux-pas when he
started to say that he was going to talk to “the
witness who allegedly sa.. [he corrects himself]
heard something the night of the murder.”
Maybe poster Funnycat is right and Paul the PI is
a source for information on the Perugia crime.
The problem is that if he did have access to
additional information he didn’t provide it to us the
public, nor did he base his report or his test on it.
This La Nazione article
excerpts some of Signora
The Eye Witness’s Testimony
Nara’s testimony. TITLE: "An Agonising Scream"
SUBTITLE: The Victim's Cry and the Escape of the Assassins
“agonising scream” makes "I heard a scream ...and what a scream.... an agonising scream that made my skin creep ... right so .... it
me think of “chilling was the voice of a woman ... a woman ". Amongst the evidence that the prosecution intends to present to
scream” from the CBS establish the time of the murder and the simultaneous escape of more than person- thereby supporting
site. prosecution theories- there is also the transcript of the declaration of a 68 year old Perugian woman who
resides in Via del Melo (from the window of her house she can see the roof of Mez's house - ndr.) (the
woman says she heard screaming around 23.30 - ndr.),,. Here are some excerpts:
When she said ”and PM Mignini: "Are you able to tell where the scream came from?”
then I saw … ”, does Witness: "From the cottage"
anyone really think that PM Mignini: "From the house of Via della Pergola 7"
Mignini interrupted her? Witness: "Yes. Because it is true that people are always always joking and playing around, and there are
(it would be like a bad cars on the piazzale [top level of the carpark] and very often even below they spin their tires [now back to
detective novel - She: the night of the crime] so I looked out from my bathroom window, I looked up and down, but ... because I
“and the killers are …” see the end of the carpark and the beginning of the carpark, but I didn't see anyone on the upper level ...
He: “hmm, excuse me at the moment that I was withdrawing from the window I heard the trampling of gravel, of leaves ... that
but is Capezzali spelled came from the "vialetto” [access ramp to the cottage] … we don’t have leaves there below us... then I
with one “z” or two?”). I heard running ... running to escape."
think in fact that’s where PM Mignini: "How long after the scream?"
one excerpt ends and Witness: "Eh oh God it could have been two seconds, a minute and then I saw ... “
another starts. PM Mignini: "But did you actually lean out of the window to look?
Witness: "No because I have plants, but I could see through the window pane which doesn't have ...
shutters or anything but is only glass, double paned, but only glass. Then I could hear running on the iron
Via Bulagaio is a long way stairway ... "
off to hear things from. PM Mignini: ".... this iron stairway where does it lead to?"
Witness: "Well it goes from the carpark and ends up at the Via del Melo, where there is an iron gate. And
The pro-Amanda lobby shorty afterwards to Via Pinturicchio"
desperately refer to PM Mignini: "Someone was climbing these stairs, this iron stairway.”
Signora Nara as an “ear” Witness: "Running"
witness, however, it is PM Mignini: "Running, a single person or more than one?"
clear from her testimony Witness: "At that point I heard a single person"
that she saw things as PM Mignini: "And someone else .... but was there someone else?
well. Witness: "Well, someone else ran away from the driveway toward Via del Bulagaio."
(from La Nazione, 12 September 2008)
 Would someone literally screaming for their life
The Eye Witness’s Testimony in the centre of this natural amphitheatre be
heard by at least some of the neighbours? I think
so.
From an acoustic point of view, there were three
elements to what Signora Nara witnessed:
1. A blood curdling scream
2. More than one person running hard on gravel
3. A person running hard up the iron stairs
Paul the PI didn’t recreate or even attempt to
recreate any of those.
All he did was to try to hear a couple of kids running
down Via Sant’Antonio on asphalt - a kilometric
route which nobody running away from the cottage
would ever follow.
The iron stair is bolted to the old wall, of which
Nara’s and her neighbours’ homes form a part.
Any running on the stairs at night would be
noisy. Why didn’t Paul try that as a test?

Maybe there’s an honest explanation, like there I estimate about 40 metres of gravel from the
wasn’t any time, or the Betamax batteries finally front door of the cottage to the gate in the street.
went dead. Or … maybe he actually did do the That would be perhaps 6 seconds of running for
test, but didn’t get the results he desired. each of the perpetrators.
 What Could the Eye Witness See
From Her Flat?
We don’t know what text fills the blanks in between the excerpts of Signora Nara’s
testimony. Maybe the key points to her testimony only make reference to identifying the
number of suspects and the direction they ran in by the noise they made.
However, from my reading of the excerpts, there are a number of references to visual
aspects of her observations:

• Just after the scream but before hearing the running on gravel
” … I looked out from my bathroom window, I looked up and down, but ... because I
see the end of the carpark and the beginning of the carpark, but I didn't see anyone
on the upper level …”

• She didn’t lean out the window because of the plants, but looked through the glass
“ ... I could see through the window pane which doesn't have … shutters or
anything but is only glass, double paned, but only glass …”

• She detected directional movement - from right to left, beyond the west end of the
carpark - at a distance which would be impossible to detect only audibly, and she
could state a specific street which one of the two perpetrators ran towards
“ ... someone else ran away from the driveway toward Via del Bulagaio."
In spite of the network logo, these images aren’t directly from CBS. It’s the Italian
television interview with Signora Capezzali. The different conversions and
compressions that the video suffered don’t allow the viewer to make out much, with
resolution and contrasts rapidly degrading into washed out pixels.
However, the CBS images demonstrate that the area is well
illuminated at night. And that dwellers in the houses above the
carpark can clearly see those areas whose views are not
obstructed.
 Let’s highlight what Nara could really see at
night from her window.
We’ve seen that the area is well illuminated.
Those big square windows on top look like
they belong to the San Agostino church.
The lights on the slope illuminate the lower
part of Via del Bulagaio.
Of course, she could see the roof of the cottage.

I’m interested in details in

this area of the already
over-pixelated and poor-
contrast image. Let’s look
more closely here …
 Let’s wander over to the edge of the parapet in daylight, to
see what that cluster of objects could be …
Nara’s View (photo taken from here - angle slightly different from Nara’s)

Down-slope from corner of Vias

Pergola, Sant’Antonio, and
a Scortici
Ramp up to top
open-air level of
carpark

First of all, let’s mark the concrete parapet, as well Up-slope to

as the carpark globe-lamp beyond the parapet. Ramp down to Level access to
carpark top lower (inside) middle (inside)
That looks like a vehicle, perhaps a truck, turning level level of carpark level of carpark
onto Via Sant’Antonio.
The garbage containers This is the exit that
That cluster of objects looks like an upside-down are almost at the same the CCTV images
triangle, a circle and something tall and round. height as the top level are from, just in front
of the carpark. of the girls’ gate.
What’s the point? Simply that
Signora Nara has an unobstructed
view of the corner of Vias Pergola,
Sant’Antonio and Scortici (the road
that winds down from Piazza
Grimana)

Signora Nara’s balcony

and bathroom window.
What’s the point? Simply that
Signora Nara has an unobstructed
view of the corner of Vias Pergola,
Sant’Antonio and Scortici (the road
that winds down from Piazza
Grimana)

Signora Nara’s balcony

and bathroom window.

And, of course, the whole area is

well illuminated at night, at least
enough to see persons moving
about.
 Let’s highlight what Nara could really see at
Let’s add that missing night from her window.
bit of detail …
We’ve seen that the area is well illuminated.
Those big square windows on top look like
they belong to the San Agostino church.
The lights on the slope illuminate the lower
part of Via del Bulagaio.
Via degli Scortici Of course, she could see the roof of the cottage.
(Piazza Grimana)

Via della Via del B

Pergola ulagaio

Via
le San
t’An
ton
io

Here’s an overhead
image of the streets
around Signora Nara’s
home.
Nara’s field of vision includes
these rooftops and the south-
east wall and windows of the
San Agostino church

These yellow surface

One perpetrator runs
areas are in Signora
across the gravel of the
Nara’s field of vision
girls parking area and
crosses Viale
Sant’Antonio.
He or she either runs
up to and across the
top level of the carpark
in full view of the
neighbours, or he or
she runs through the
enclosed middle level,
coming up to fresh air
RIGHT UNDER Nara’s
window, or through
another internal
carpark stairwell by the
base of the iron stairs.
He or she makes alot
of noise climbing the
metal stairs, then Piazza Grimana is
possibly runs through nearby, but obviously out
Via Melo or Via of her field of vision
Pinturicchio to Piazza
Grimana.

Here’s an overhead
image of the streets
around Signora Nara’s
home.
Nara’s field of vision includes
these rooftops and the south-
east wall and windows of the
San Agostino church

These yellow surface

The other perpetrator
areas are in Signora
also runs across the
Nara’s field of vision
gravel of the girls
parking area and
crosses Viale
Sant’Antonio, in full
view of Signora Nara.
He or she either runs
along Via della Pergola
towards Via del
Bulgaio, from which
point it is possible to
run up to Piazza
Grimana, or he or she
runs directly up to
Piazza Grimana (Nara
referring to the high
end of Via della
Pergola as Via del
Bulagaio).
Piazza Grimana is
nearby, but obviously out
of her field of vision
Well, this presentation set off to see what was useful
in Paul the PI’s test (conclusion: nothing). Then I
wanted to review Signora Nara’s testimony to verify
if there were visual aspects to it, and not just audible
(conclusion: yes). Finally, I wanted to “illuminate” the
view from her balcony, to see if she could have seen
persons running across the intersection of Via della
Pergola and Via degli Scortici, or towards Via del
Bulagaio (conclusion: definitely)

When we were talking so much about

illumination, I thought of an additional point
of light, visible to all who lived in the area.
This light may not have been a witness to
the crime, but certainly would have been a
flashing beacon during the night of Nov. 1-2,
signaling that all was not well in the cottage.
Would-be detectives aren’t the only voices of spin. Would-be legal pundits are too. No, I’m not talking about
Joe the Sleuth (who deserves a whole presentation to himself and his “20% DNA match”) but rather to this lady
called Anne Bremner.
http://www.kirotv.com/news/17611206/detail.html

What’s interesting to me is that almost a half of the document she signed (which appears to have been written by
a certain Puget Sound hermit with the moniker of a certain sea-farer - Alpha BRAVO CHARLIE!! - given the
verbatim use of that discussion board poster’s comments) is dedicated to either denying the presence of more
than one perpetrator, or to demonstrating that Rudy was the lone-wolf killer.
These people get nervous shakes about anything which points to more than one person being involved in
the crimes of 1-2 November 2007 in Perugia.
 Under the heading “Incompetence at the Crime Scene”, Bremner writes: “This whole investigation would
be laughable if it weren't for the underlying facts -- a woman has been brutally murdered, and two innocent
people and their families have had their lives devastated by a botched investigation.”
This is known as the TIHBB defense
(The Investigation Has Been
Here’s someone who accepted Botched). It often accompanies the
poster Chris Mellas’ invitation on IWSSICRAETIWT alibi (I Was So
Internet for a private viewing at his Stoned I Can’t Remember Anything
Anne, is this investigation home of publicly available videos. Except That I Wasn’t There).
report photo of a shoe … or are you talking about the
Bremner continues: “I have reviewed the crime scene video, which shows how the police went about
printcollecting
on the pillow theThe problems
evidence. … or are
areyou
are talking aboutweren't
obvious.They the footprint footprint
careful with marked
the way by ILEevidence
they handled marker
“unique
insidespecimen”?
the room … marked by police marker “C”? “A” as the “unique specimen”?
… But it gets worse than that. They actively destroyed evidence inside the victim's room.The media have all
seen pictures of one bloody footprint, found near the body. The authorities presented this footprint as a
unique specimen, but it was actually one of several.
I quickly dug up those 3 different footprints documented by police in the victim’s room. I
think there are more. Anne, before publicly embarrassing yourself by signing your
name to text, maybe you should check it out to see if it’s full of falsehoods.
For some inexplicable reason, one of the officers at the crime scene systematically scrubbed away
these footprints until no trace was left. By doing so, they made it nearly impossible for the authorities to
establish their source.”
Further spin which isn't spin, but a big falsehood. This is an example of "if you repeat a lie enough
times, someone might start believing it". Bremner is stating in text what Telenorba visually
insinuated: the Telenorba video was dedicated to showing that the "botched investigation" was
based on incompetent evidence gathering in the victim's room. It refers to the Nike print and then
splices in video images of an ILE investigator making circular movements over a floor tile where
nothing is visible. The combination of video images and narrators comments make the viewer
assume that the investigator is erasing a Nike print in the victim's room. In fact, the Telenorba
image is of an investigator examining a non-visible item of evidence (Marker “3” is perhaps the
location of one of the luminol barefoot footprints) in the hallway, not the Nike prints in the
Under the heading “The Weak Case Against Amanda”, Bremner writes: “This should not matter, because
the evidence against Amanda is so weak. In fact, this evidence has been contrived by putting a negative
spin on information that has a completely innocent explanation …. here's what happened:
- Amanda came home after spending the night at Raffaele's place.
- She took a shower.
- She left these footprints after she got out of the shower.And that fits 100 percent with what she told the
police.”
Okay, Anne, I guess there’s a
“completely innocent explanation”
to Amanda’s footprint
perpendicular to the victim’s door.
“The police have also found Amanda's DNA at various places in the
bathroom. They have tried to make that sound incriminating, but she lived
there and her DNA would have been all over the bathroom. That kind of so-
called evidence means nothing.”
Anne, in your “completely innocent explanation” of Amanda’s DNA mixed with
the victim’s DNA, you make it sound like there was a hair mixed with a
flake of dandruff … I hear the SPIN alarm ringing!!! Why don’t you offer
fuller information to readers of your opinion-making piece? The DNA is mixed
because in different parts of the bathroom Amanda’s BLOOD is mixed with
the victim’s BLOOD. These are not normal places for menstrual blood to be
found (the tap and drain are from the sink), as Amanda’s mother has
suggested. Another suggestion her mother made in an interview to The
Times is that Amanda’s blood came from recently pierced ears. Keep trying.

Regarding the Double-DNA Knife, Bremner states: “Everyone agrees that

Amanda's DNA is on the handle.”
Now we’re getting places. So, Anne, do we agree that Amanda held the knife
which made this bloody print on the victim’s bed?
 Under the heading “The truth about what happened to Meredith Kercher”, Bremner writes: “What really
happened in Perugia last November first? Once you put aside the wild theories the authorities have spun
for the media, this case isn't mysterious at all. The evidence shows it was a sexual homicide like many
others. The police have enough evidence against Rudy Guede to convict him in any courtroom in the
world.” Anne! Why do you and yours spend so much effort reinforcing the evidence against Rudy? It it
clear that there is much evidence that puts him at the scene of the crime, and the trial judge will
have to interpret it. But if you’re into enumerating evidence, don’t stop where it seems so
convenient for you to do so …. There is much more evidence than that which can be explained
by the Lone-Wolf theory: It is beyond reason to
believe that a
Spiderman-like thief
broke the window,
freeclimbed to the broken
glass, hauled himself up,
and - sticking his hand
through the hole, opened
the latch on the other
pane which is higher up.
(Raffaele’s lawyer-
climber only touched the
Here’s the visible bloody footprint. Where’s the pool ledge of the window, he
of blood that allowed that footprint to be made? Why didn’t attempt to haul
was the heel-mark cleaned? Whose foot is it from? himself up to it)
(It’s much too small to be Rudy’s, and everyone,
including Amanda, says it’s not Amanda’s)

Who started the washing machine which was still

running when the Postal Police arrived? (Not Rudy)
There is only one conclusion: that Rudy was not the only wolf in the cottage on the night of
Nov. 1-2. And we the public should be wary of attempts to spin the truth into falsehoods.
“Capanne... shit; I'm still only in Capanne... Every time I think I'm gonna wake up back in the
jungle …. I'm here a year now... getting softer; every minute I stay in this room, I get weaker, and
every minute Charlie squats in the bush, he gets stronger. Each time I look around, the walls
move in a little tighter.” (only slightly adapted from Captain Willard, Apocalypse Now)

Paul the PI: “I would hop in my car and I’d go to that
prison and I’d get them two kids out of there, and I’d
take them home to their parents. That’s what I would
do. And that’s what should be done. And until that’s
done, this case is gonna be a disaster."
Although it looks like Capanne was
built to State Department
evacuation standards, Team AK’s
fantasies are just that: let’s allow
the judical procedures to follow
their just course like in any other
Italian trial, free of spin and
Edda’s interview with John Follain: “… a
cousin called and asked: “The police are
talking to Amanda an awful lot. Are you sure
they don’t think she’s a suspect?” Edda
called Knox and said: “Don’t you want to
come home?” Knox replied: “No, I’m helping
and I want to finish school. I want to be here
so I can answer questions.” Edda says:
“That’s when I decided to go over there, but I
wish I’d told her to come home."