Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Reading Tonight | The World's Easiest News Quiz »

Friday, March 28, 2008


posted by on March 28 at 10:42 AM

A deeper look into Guede’s recent claim about Amanda Knox being at home at the time of the murder makes him more guilty of the crime than Knox. For one, it’s the most foolish statement he could have made. It contains no sense, and it sounds as if he is purely making up things. Now, if Amanda had actually been in the room when Meredith was murdered, why does Guede need to make shit up? If he wants to incriminate Amanda, why not say exactly what happened that night? If she was there, this would be an easy thing to do. But instead Guede is saying fantastic things like: “I heard Amanda at the doorway.” Such a claim is made from the stuff of air.

That said, Amanda’s family has hired the worst publicity agent, David Marriott, to improve Amanda’s public image. He writes rough letters to the press, calls everyone who is not on Amanda’s side wrong or stupid or unprofessional. (Does he communicate with European journalists in this way? If so, I feel sorry for Amanda’s parents. They have no idea of the kind of damage he is doing overseas.)

David Marriott, it’s not a matter of bullying reporters to take your side on an issue that is as convoluted Meredith’s murder; it’s a matter of being there when the press needs real information, and keeping Amanda’s family in a friendly light. At present, you sound desperate and like an ugly American.

Checkout this terrible press release:

Information being attributed to Rudy Guede regarding the investigation into the murder of Meredith Kercher is impossible to believe. There is no evidence to support his suggestion that Amanda and Raffaele Sollecito were present when Meredith was murdered. Guede lacks credibility just as his current statement lacks credibility.

We find it quite interesting that this information comes forward just a few days before a Supreme Court hearing in Rome to determine whether or not Amanda should continue to be held in the Le Capanne jail in Perugia.

Guede said before that he did not see Amanda and Rafaelle that night, and is now telling a different story.

We know that Amanda is innocent. There is no evidence against her, and we await her release.

What’s wrong with this letter? For one, Amanda changed her story several times, too. Which changes are we now supposed to believe? Why should we believe Amanda’s changes instead of Guede’s? Because the statement is written as if Amanda did not change her story, it has about it a ring of arrogance: it accuses another person of doing precisely what has been done by the accuser. (This kind of arrogance characterizes American foreign policy.) More sensitivity to the past (and more sensitivity in general) would help rather than harm Amanda’s case.

EDITOR'S NOTE: On October 3, 2011, Amanda Knox was acquitted of the murder of Meredith Kercher and released from prison.

RSS icon Comments


tabloid journalist chaz mudede everyone. He should be writing for Us Weekly or InTouch.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | March 28, 2008 11:00 AM

Guede's statements have always been moronic. In his first, he claimed that he had consensual sex with Kercher, went to the bathroom, and, while he was in there, some random dude stabbed her.

Posted by keshmeshi | March 28, 2008 11:08 AM

does anyone even care about this particular story? was anyone ever all that intrigued by it (other than mudede)?

Posted by jameyb | March 28, 2008 11:20 AM

I just want to read about her death. That's all.

Posted by Mr. Poe | March 28, 2008 11:22 AM

@3-no I dont know of anyone besides charles, and i guarantee you he wouldnt care if she wasnt hot.

Posted by mudbone | March 28, 2008 11:23 AM

The whole Amanda Knox obsession thing is CREEPY.

It actually makes it impossible for me to take any of the guy's other writing seriously.

Posted by k | March 28, 2008 11:31 AM

k, it's hard to take this seriously based on all his other writing. Have you read some of his more outrageous slog posts, especially the ones involving star wars?

Posted by Bellevue Ave | March 28, 2008 11:50 AM

...or Full Metal Jacket?

Charles fiddles as the American (Roman) Empire burns....

Posted by Mr. X | March 28, 2008 11:57 AM

The "stuff of air" is...air, Charles. This is exactly why I use the words "pseudo-intellectual" every time I comment on your posts. You can't just find phrases that sound intellectual, throw them in your crap opinion piece, and suddenly become deep. You're deep or you're not, and you, sir, are not particularly deep.

Posted by switzerblog | March 28, 2008 12:39 PM

switzerblog, poetic effect, not depth. use your head to separate the two.

Posted by charles mudede | March 28, 2008 12:48 PM

Pointing out how this PR guy is playing poorly overseas is insightful and interesting.

Whining about how you don't like Charles Mudede because your Asperger's Syndrome prevents you from understanding more than one level of meaning is dull and useless.

Posted by elenchos | March 28, 2008 1:26 PM

@11 wins.

Posted by Will in Seattle | March 28, 2008 1:41 PM

Elenchos, chaz is the stranger's perez hilton at this point. Just cause you like what chaz has to say doesnt make it have any meaning besides gossip reporting.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | March 28, 2008 2:31 PM

I also find the murder entirely fascinating. And Amanda's totally not my type.

Posted by Erika | March 28, 2008 3:18 PM

Would you stop it with this "win" crap, Will? You are such a fucking douchebag.

Posted by pencil riot | March 28, 2008 4:03 PM

Confusing! Meredith had a boyfriend giacomo silenzi- so why would she have sex with guede?
She wasnt a slapper like amanda knox. Knox is guilty i can bet my bottom dollar on it

Posted by Daniel | March 30, 2008 1:15 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).