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.