Adam Lanza provides motive for Chimp Attack – and his own


On 20 December 2011, Adam Lanza called in to a talk radio program, AnarchyRadio, broadcasted on KWVA 88.1 FM out of the University of Oregon. The show is hosted by John Zerzan, a writer described by The Atlantic as “an intellectual leader of the anarcho-primitivist movement, an ideology that regards technology as a destroyer of human communities.” The reason for Lanza’s interest in Zerzan’s writings is plainly evident in the call itself; Lanza calls to share a story about “Travis the Chimp,” a domesticated chimpanzee that in 2009 “snapped,” and viciously attacked 55-year-old Charla Nash, a friend of the chimp’s owner. The attack was seemingly random, nearly cost the victim her life, and ended when the chimp was shot by police. Lanza outlines how the chimp’s violent episode can be explained by his upbringing “as if he were a [human] child,” and argues that Travis’s “civilized” upbringing was what led to his attack.

LANZA: Because, uh, he brings up questions about this whole process of child-raising.

HOST: Yeah.

LANZA: Civilization isn’t something which just happens to gently exist without us having to do anything, because every newborn child — human child — is born in a chimp-like state, and civilization is only sustained by conditioning them for years on end, so that they’ll accept it for what it is, and since we’ve gone through this conditioning, we can observe a human family raising a human child –and I’m sure that even you have trouble intuitively seeing it as something unnatural– but when we see a chimp in that position, we immediately know that there’s something profoundly wrong with the situation. And it’s easy to say there’s something wrong with it simply because it’s a chimp, but what’s the real difference between us and our closest relatives?

Travis wasn’t an untamed monster at all. Um, he wasn’t just feigning  domestication, he was civilized. Um, he was able to integrate into society, he was a chimp actor when he was younger, and his owner drove him around the city frequently in association with her towing business, where he met many different people, and got along with everyone. If Travis had been some nasty monster all his life, it would have been widely reported. But, to the contrary, it seems like everyone who knew him said how shocked they were that Travis had been so savage, because they knew him as a sweet child, and… there were two isolated incidents early in his life where he acted aggressively, but… summarizing them would take too long, so basically I’ll just say that he didn’t really any differently than a human child would, and the people who would use that as an indictment against having chimps live as humans do wouldn’t apply the same thing to humans, so it’s just kind of irrelevant.

HOST: Uh-huh.

LANZA: But anyway, look what civilization did to him: it had the same exact effect on him as it has on humans. He was profoundly sick, in every sense of the term, and he had to resort to these surrogate activities like watching baseball, and looking at pictures on a computer screen, and taking Xanax. He was a complete mess.

HOST: Mmm-hmm.

LANZA: And his attack wasn’t simply because he was a senselessly violent, impulsive chimp. Uhm, which was how his behavior was universally portrayed. Um, immediately before the attack, he had desperately been wanting his owner to drive him somewhere, and the best reason I can think of for why he would want that, looking at his entire life, would be that… some little thing he experienced was the last straw, and he was overwhelmed at the life that he had, and he wanted to get out of it by changing his environment, and the best way that he knew how to deal with that was getting his owner to drive him somewhere else.

HOST: Yeah.

LANZA: And when his owner’s… owner’s friend, arrived, he knew that she was trying to coax him back into his place of domestication, and he couldn’t handle that, so he attacked her, and anyone else who approached them. And dismissing his attack as simply being the senseless violence and impulsiveness of a chimp, instead of a human, is wishful thinking at best.

HOST: Mmm-hmm.

LANZA: His attack can be seen entirely parallel to the attacks and random acts of violence that you bring up on your show every week, committed by humans, which the mainstream also has no explanation for-and-


LANZA: –and, actual humans… I just- just don’t think it would be such a stretch to say that he very well could have been a teenage mall shooter or something like that.

HOST: Yeah. Yeah.


HOST: Wow. Thank you, Greg.

LANZA: Yeah.

HOST: That’s quite a story. That’s, uh, really apropos, isn’t it? Travis the chimp.

LANZA: It’s just that I’m a little surprised that I haven’t heard you bring it up all because… (laughs) maybe I’m just seeing connections where there aren’t any, but—

HOST: Not at, I uh, think not. No, I just… I didn’t catch that one. I didn’t uh… maybe I was out of the country  or something, I don’t know, but I missed that it. Thanks very much, man.

LANZA: Thank you. Bye.

HOST: Take care.

(Lanza hangs up)

O.J. Simpson’s Motive Revealed

There’s big brouhaha going on at the moment in the mainstream media about O.J.’s tell-all confession. It’s made out to be news, but it’s really news that’s 12 years old.

In Simpson’s If I Did It, published in September 2007, Simpson provides a hypothetical [or not so hypothetical] scenario for how he murdered his ex-wife  Nicole Simpson and her friend Ron Goldman. The only thing new about this confessional is the format. Instead of reading it, one can now see Simpson tell the story, recorded 12 years ago, as he told it on camera.

People seem to think the content of the confession has changed. It hasn’t .  It’s still a true crime cock-teaser where Simpson claims to provide an unadulterated version of the events, but then when he gets to them, he goes blank, literally.

Fullscreen capture 20180311 015430Fullscreen capture 20180311 015422Fullscreen capture 20180311 015425

So the television reveal, couched in “everything you thought you knew is wrong, and I’m now going to tell you what really happened,” [only, I’m not] is once again the same crock of true crime cock-teasing nothing. It’s also the mainstream media at its clickbait, fake-news best.

Here’s what we do know, though, about Simpson’s motive.

a) In short, the court said O.J. was not guilty because he was black, and the cops were racist.

b) In his “tell-all” book, O.J. spends a lot of time running down his ex-wife. There’s a chapter devoted to the “two Nicole’s”, where he criticizes her promiscuous lifestyle, and drug taking. While O.J. never says what his motive is in If I Did It, there’s an odd undercurrent that Nicole “got what she deserved” because of behavior.

c) The truth is probably an inversion of If I Did It, in that it was O.J. living a double life that was the problem, and drugs were relevant except it was his drug and alcohol use that caused him to act out his jealousy, often to extremes.

56b38eb82e526575008b4e09-960-720The extended versions of these contentions are provided below:

  1. He was acquitted because the defense claimed the LA cops were racist

What motive was given in court? O.J.’s defense blamed the double murder on drug dealers, saying the murders were a case of mistaken identity, and the slashing of the throats was a “Colombian necktie”, a signature for a kind of gangland hit that was going around L.A. at the time.

If you were sitting in court, listening to absolutely nothing, then the Colombian necklace theory made sense. If you were listening, then the strange size 12 Bruno magli shoeprint left at the scene, the blood trail leading from Nicole Brown’s home in Bundy Drive, into the Bronco, and then onto the driveway of the Rockingham Estate, and inside the Estate, made less sense.

If it was a frame-job or a hit, how did Nicole Brown’s, Goldman’s and Simpson’s blood get into the Bronco, and why was Simpson’s blood, Brown’s blood and Goldman’s blood on the glove left at the scene, and why was Brown’s blood on Simpson’s socks in his bedroom?

O.J.’s defense, led by Johnny “if-it-doesn’t-fit” Cochran, brilliantly argued not so much that O.J. was innocent, but that the cops investigating him were racist, and thus not innocent themselves. They were able to get hold of a voice recording of one of the cops using the word “Nigger” a few times, and that did it for the jury. Many have said the jury got their “payback” on L.A. cops, through this case.

It was the era of the Rodney King incident [two years after to be accurate], but white racism was very much on the minds of disenfranchised black people living in L.A.’s inner city. The trial wasn’t heard in the district where it happened.  The jury was mostly black, a black man was on trial, and ultimately Cochran’s appeal to a racist narrative worked.

636003047848108124-AP-SIMPSON-SHOESThe fact that Simpson lived in the lily-white neighborhood of Brentwood, and had white girlfriends, and endorsed “white” products like Hertz, and played a white-man’s game like golf and belonged to exclusive [white] golf country clubs, didn’t figure into the reasoning of the jury.

If he wasn’t innocent, neither were the cops who investigated him. A little pantomime around a glove that was made to look like it didn’t fit, also helped the jury do what they wanted to do – they acquitted a much-loved American hero. The sheer brutality of the crime simply didn’t match [in their minds], the beatific image of the celebrity football star.

56b388d36e97c660008b4e05-960-7202. O.J.’s version in “If I did it” was also that Nicole Brown was murdered because of drugs

In If I Did It, O.J. describes himself wanting to break things off with his ex-wife. Kato also becomes an issue, with Nicole wanting Kato gone, when it was O.J. who asked Kato to live with him, to move in with him, after he had originally moved in with Nicole [to help pay the rent]. Inversions abound. O.J. gets upset because Nicole hits an old lady. She’s the abusive one, not him.

According to Business Insiders’ review of the book:

Simpson talks about how he hates his ex-wife’s group of friends, whom he describes as “hookers and drug dealers and unsavory characters.” The chapter also includes transcripts of two 911 calls made by Brown about Simpson in 1993.

He explores this idea of a split-personality, claiming that Brown would get violent — even attacking the housekeeper — but then cozy up to Simpson and act normal. He brings up that he thinks she has a drug problem. The couple resolves not to get back together after making an attempt at it.

In the crucial chapter dealing with the night of murder, Simpson discusses the recital, and plays it like he didn’t want to be with Nicole.

I was also doing my best to stay away from Nicole, admittedly. I wasn’t going to go anywhere near that woman. I was sick and tired of her s—. If she wanted to take herself down, that was one thing. But I wasn’t going to let her take me down with her.

Simpson and Kato Kaelin, who was staying in Simpson’s guesthouse, get burgers after Simpson returns from the recital. Simpson begins to pack for a flight to Chicago later that night when Charlie shows up. This is where Simpson clarifies that the following is “hypothetical.”

Charlie is a fictional acquaintance who reveals information about Brown that sets Simpson off. Charlie says that some friends of his were in Cabo when they saw Brown and her friend Faye at a party.

“There was a lot of drugs and a lot of drinking, and apparently things got pretty kinky,” Charlie recounts.

Simpson decides that “Nicole was the enemy” and tells Charlie to get in the Bronco because they are “going to scare the s— out of that girl.”

He grabs a wool hat, the infamous gloves that would later be used as evidence at the trial, and a knife stashed under the seat, but Charlie takes the knife from him. After entering through a broken back gate, Simpson notices that Brown has candles in the window, which he presumes are for a man she is expecting.

At this point, Ron Goldman, a waiter from the restaurant the Brown family ate at, arrives with glasses left by Nicole’s mom. This sparks Simpson’s rage and he begins screaming. Brown emerges from her house and starts yelling back. She attempts to come after him, but slips and hits her head. Goldman gets in a karate stance and Simpson grabs the knife from Charlie before blacking out.

After regaining consciousness, Simpson is covered in blood, unsure of what’s just happened. Before getting back in the Bronco, he undresses and wraps his bloody clothes in a bundle. He passes the waiting limo on his way back to his house and pulls off into the shadows, leaving the weapon and clothes to Charlie and instructing him to park the car and leave when the limo pulls away.

As he’s running back and sneaking into his house, Simpson bumps into an air-conditioning unit, which startles Kato. He washes up, gets in the limo, and flies off to Chicago where he gets the phone call about his wife’s murder. After arriving back in LA, he agrees to go talk to the cops with no lawyers present.

Like O.J.’s defense in court, this rambling confession is hardly a confession at all.  All it is is an account of his wife’s faults, and his own faultlessness.  He’s at the scene, there’s some fictional character as well, and somehow his ex-wife and Goldman end up dead.

Fullscreen capture 20180121 1420223. Inversions and motive

Many may be inclined to dismiss If I Did It, but if you’re trying to get to the operative psychology, that’s a mistake. That’s throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The authentic emotions are there, even if misdirections abound to obscure them.

O.J. refers again and again to his anger. Often in scenarios like this, when people are looking for blame, it’s easiest to simply transfer one’s own blameworthiness directly onto the other person. Was O.J. jealous – he makes Nicole jealous. Was he taking a lot of drugs – Nicole was taking a lot of drugs. Was O.J. angry, emotional, abusive and possessive – Nicole becomes all of those things. Did O.J. hit Nicole – Nicole hits O.J.

In the JUICE trilogy I deal in a lot more detail with the evidence backing up these conjectures. The crazy part about this case is how much evidence there is, including evidence the prosecutors had but never fielded in court. JUICE deals with that evidence and lot more.

You can read JUICE here.



Nancy Lanza’s email to Adam Lanza [01:05 August, 2008]

I appreciate your effort to be a comfort to me. I apologize if I seemed angry or antagonistic. I was simply over emotional and as it is often the case worrying about the future. I admit that I have been feeling a bit overwhelmed by my circumstances lately, but in no way do I regret having raised two wonderful children. I have high hopes for you both and will consider my life a success if you and Ryan live happy and productive lives.

There are a few things that I do regret . . . one of the biggest is that I dropped out of college, believing it to be more important to help your father get through college. Financially, it was impossible for us to afford a college education for both of us, and it seemed more important that he receive a diploma. In some ways I regret leaving the workforce as it has severely limited my prospects for the future, but again, it was a decision that I made to take more responsibility for the house and the children, and to allow your father to concentrate on his career. I do feel that I was able to be a better mother and have been able to put great effort into raising you and your brother, so that regret is mitigated in that respect. On the occasion that Ryan or you show some appreciation for my efforts, I feel completely justified in that choice and dually rewarded.

I know that it is harder for you to show appreciation, and that it does not come as a natural response. I really do not want you to feel obligated in that way. I do not expect any help, financial or otherwise, from you or your brother, and would not accept it if it were offered. I am certain that I will not be homeless or begging on a street corner, as your father is obligated by law and morality to see that my 30 years of service and sacrifice are compensated for.

He has assured me that I will live a comfortable life and that my health expenses are covered. He is an honorable man. I am grateful that I was married to someone who honors his responsibilities. He has also taking [sic] responsibility to provide a college education for both you and your brother, so that neither of you will have to struggle and sacrifice as we did.

If you choose to, you will emerge from college with a master’s degree of your choice, debt free, to pursue any career in life that you wish. When I think of what I would like to do for the future, I think I would like to get my college degree first. I just thought of that tonight, as a direct result of my conversation with you. I think it would be possible as I dropped out only a year shy of my degree, and it seems as I might be spending quite a bit of time on campus waiting for you to take classes, so why not take advantage of that?! I suppose I could take classes at the same time you are taking classes.

I agree with you when you say that I should try to think positively of the future and what I want to do today. There is nothing that I can do about my diagnosis, and I do try to be as healthy as I can, despite the prognosis. I am sure that you noticed that I exercise regularly and do my best to stay in good shape. It’s not like I have the attitude that since I will be crippled anyway I may as well give up and get fat and sedentary now. I am working hard to stay as healthy as I can, for as long as I can.

At some point, I might like to start a business. I sometimes toy with the idea of an internet business like my friend, [L], owns. (Did I punctuate that last sentence correctly?) Her website is [xxx]. You should have a look at it sometime and let me know what you think of it.

Anyway, I would like you to know that no matter what, I am very proud of the person you are. I have no preconceived notion of how you should react or respond. I know that you tend to be more reserved and less emotional and I do not perceive that as condescending malignant, or callous. You are pragmatic and stoical. These are fine attributes. I am glad to know that you are glad to be born and appreciate being taken care of. I love you very much and am more than happy to take care of you in any way I can. I suppose I have felt that you didn’t even notice how hard I try to make things as tolerable as possible for you and that has made me feel sad in a way. I am much happier now, knowing that you do not despise me for bringing you into this world. Above all, I want you to be happy, no matter what you choose to do.

You may not think I notice, but my computer is working faster and I have been able to download bank statements faster and search the websites quicker. I was able to get baseball scores for all the games in a split second, and watch a video clip that a friend sent without any freezing. I didn’t know that you had worked on it, so I thank you for your efforts. You should let me know when you do thoughtful things so that you can get credit! As an aside, I am having a problem that has been ongoing for months. The cursor abruptly moves to a different place in text now and again when I am in the middle of typing a sentence. It is very strange and annoying. Maybe you can have a look at it sometime? Thank you for taking the time to send me this e-mail. I now understand your motive and meaning, and I truly appreciate it!


Meredith Kercher: Another Murderer to go Free?

The mainstream media like to beat Amanda Knox’s drum, but in a sense they have to. Any proper analyses of this case would probably result in public posturing, retractions, expensive lawsuits and PR disasters. And yet the media pretends to be a cogent source of news.

What do we mean by proper analyses? What’s missing from the media narrative? In terms of the Amanda Knox case, actually a huge chunk of vital information.

Today, February 21st, 2018, at 10:00, Rudy Guede, the Ivorian man first convicted of Kercher’s murder during a first-track trial will find out whether his already reduced sixteen year sentence may be commuted to ten years. In other words, by the end of today, Guede will know whether he’ll be out of jail by the end of this year.

No matter what one says about the guilt or innocence of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, Guede’s original co-accused, no matter how one looks at it, whoever murdered Meredith Kercher has gotten off extremely likely.  If Guede’s appeal is granted, the sentence for brutal murder of this splendid student from Southwark, London, will be even less than the minimum sentence of fifteen years handed down to Oscar Pistorius.

rudy-hermann-guede-galleryYet as problematic as this situation is, from Guede’s perspective it appears to make complete sense. Though you won’t read about it just yet in the English press, the Agenzia Nazionale Stampa Associata [ANSA, the leading wire service in Italy] are covering Guede’s appeal.

Blasting News, the social news platform, provides useful description on the legal issues at hand. What it boils down to is that there needs to be a kind of internal cohesion in the justice system.  If one judge makes a finding, another judge should not deviate from those findings, but remain consistent unless a superior court alters the trial narrative. In this case there were three accused, and two trials – one for Guede, and another for Knox and Sollecito.

In layman’s terms, the findings in Guede’s trial – for consistency sake [for legal efficacy in other words] – needed to be applied as far as possible in the Knox/Sollecito trial. They were and Knox/Sollecito were accordingly convicted and sentenced to a far harsher sentence than Guede’s current sentence, 26 and 25 years respectively.

88575003Ultimately though, Knox/Sollecito using their combined resources, overturned the guilty verdicts. What Guede is arguing now is this: if the court’s didn’t apply his evidence to their trials [it was inconsistent], then he should be exonerated or given a kind of legal credit too.

Blasting News provides the legal-technical explanation as follows:

What the appeal is about

The appeal is on the grounds of “non-compliance” of the rules of procedure and failure to acquire “fundamental elements” of the Court decision Guede is appealing against, on the grounds of ‘internal contradictions’. The alleged contradictions are that in annulling the convictions of the other two defendants in the murder case, Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, the Fifth Chamber’s written reasons come into conflict with those in Guede’s.

 In Italy, Judge’s decisions must be legally consistent with each other.
In Seattle, Knox ought to be on tenterhooks, watching and waiting on the outcome of this hearing. The outcome does have a bearing on Knox, and her controversial version of events. Sollecito, ironically working as a TV expert on crimes for Italy’s Tgcom24, may find himself reporting on his own trial. That ought to make for interesting TV.37e0ea2a-cfc2-4301-9865-12adddee13f4
The pertinent facts found by Judge Paolo Micheli are what is known in some court systems as “common cause.” Or are they? Can these “facts” as they were found by Micheli in 2009 be applied as “common cause” to Knox/Sollecito, or not?  If not, why should they apply to the Ivorian.

The facts found by Judge Paolo Micheli, at Guede’s trial include:

  1. Guede did not wield the murder weapon,
  2. He had had no meaningful prior contact with Meredith, as Guede had claimed in his testimony.
  3. Therefore, he was not invited to the cottage or let in by Meredith, nor had any consensual contact with her.
  4. The burglary mise en scène was a second stage of the crime after the murder.8660316
  5. It, therefore, followed that Knox let in Guede to the murder cottage.
  6. The crime was sexually motivated, and not one motivated by theft.
  7. Guede did not steal the rent money or the phones.
  8. There were multiple assailants.
  9. Guede was guilty of aggravated murder because of his complicity in the attack and failure to stop ‘as soon as the knives came out’.
  10. There was complicity with others: “Above all if the certain facts include the consequent outline of that supposed ‘unknown’ (the presence of the three at the scene of the crime) they are abundant, and all abundantly proven”. (– Micheli)

In my view, having researched this case extensively through the course of two trilogies:

  1.  Correct. Guede did not wield the murder weapon, which means Guede, although present at the scene, and although he participated in the torture, he didn’t murder Meredith Kercher, someone else did.
  2. Correct. Guede had no meaningful prior contact with Meredith. Knox on the other hand did, and so did Sollecito. Sollecito’s contact with Meredith as Meredith’s flatmate’s boyfriend, was more than Guede’s. In the sense that both Knox and Sollecito were more personally close to Kercher than Guede, and given the highly personal nature of the crime [seven cuts and sixteen bruises , including injuries to  her nose, nostrils, mouth, and underneath her jaw compatible with a female-sized hand being clamped over her mouth and nose], didn’t it make sense that the attack was committed by someone close to Meredith? Who was closer to her than an American roommate living next door, that didn’t like to be told what to do or how to do it?
  3. Correct. Meredith would not have invited Guede in, however it’s possible Knox did.
  4. Half-true. There was no burglary in terms of the way the crime scene was presented [Filomena’s broken window etc.] imagesHowever a few of Meredith’s belongings were stolen, including her phones and her rent money. If the motive was burglary, why were both Meredith’s phones immediately tossed into someone’s garden? Why wasn’t her laptop stolen?  And who would know about Meredith’s rent money besides someone who lived there, who was also paying rent?
  5. Correct. Knox let Guede in, possibly without Sollecito’s knowledge.
  6. Half-true. The crime was only sexually motivated in the sense that there was a sexual rivalry between Knox and Meredith. The “sexual nature” of the crime, however was “staged” to impute a male attacker, or put otherwise, to negate the possibility of a female housemate with no alibi being involved in her housemate’s murder. This was why Meredith’s body was staged to appear sexual, her body moved from the original killing scene and placed on a sheet, both legs spread wide open, her hips propped on a pillow and her bra removed after the murder.sperma-181816117.main_image Thus, the sexual crime, just like the burglary crime, were both staged to distract from the actual crime – the murder of Meredith Kercher.
  7. Correct. Guede did not steal the phones, but whoever did, had the presence of mind to attempt a transaction on Meredith’s phone at her British bank account moments after the murder. Who would think to siphon money from Meredith’s account but a student of computer engineering, or someone who was actively using international banking services herself?
  8. Correct. There were multiple assailants, hence Meredith had virtually no defensive wounds, and did not scream out during a botched stabbing of her throat. 10380 Meredith’s death was extremely unpleasant. She drowned in her own blood, an event that would have taken minutes to kill her, and would have involved violent expirations of blood, as well as arterial spurts from her throat. She would not have screamed if she was unable to scream, if she was being muzzled.
  9. Correct. Guede was guilty of complicity in Meredith Kercher’s murder. He held her down, perhaps assuming it was a game between friends, perhaps simply because he was asked to help, and perhaps he “helped” because he wanted to impress Knox [and/or sleep with Knox].
  10. Correct but arguably unproven in court. There was complicity with others.

In the Supreme Court ruling in which Knox and Sollecito had their convictions annulled, in March 2015 it was found that Knox ‘had covered up for Guede’ when falsely implicated her former boss; Knox told police Patrick Lumumba was the culprit.

It was only after Lumumba was arrested and jailed for about two weeks, when the police began processing the scene, that they discovered evidence that pointed to someone else, someone that wasn’t Lumumba. 20080115-bedroom-b_2012801i (1)Although Knox, Sollecito and Lumumba appeared in court together, Lumumba was released due toi lack of evidence, and despite Knox’s allegation against him.

Bloody fingerprints found at the scene were run through forensic systems, and matched one Rudy Hermann Guede. Because of Guede’s immigrant status, his prints were on file, which is how and why he was caught. On November 20th, about three weeks after the murder, Guede was arrested in Mainz, Germany.

South Africa’s News24 reported at the time:

Frankfurt – A fourth suspect in the gruesome murder of a British exchange student nearly three weeks ago in Italy was arrested in Germany on Tuesday, German police said. The suspect, 21-year-old Rudy Hermann Guede from the Ivory Coast was seized in the western German city of Mainz while travelling on a bus or a train, a police spokesperson said.

“He was travelling without a valid ticket,” the spokesperson said, without giving further details.

Fingerprints at the scene

Guede, already known to Italian police, faces charges for the murder and sexual assault on November 1 of British exchange student Meredith Kercher, who was found with her throat slit the following day, sparking lurid headlines.

Detectives reportedly discovered Guede’s digital and genetic fingerprints at the scene of Kercher’s murder in the central Italian city of Perugia. Three other suspects were arrested on November 6 – Kercher’s American housemate, Amanda Knox, Knox’s Italian boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito and a Congolese musician and bar owner, Patrick Lumumba Diya.

Italian forensic experts said on Friday that they had found DNA traces of Kercher and Knox on a knife at Sollecito’s home, which Kercher is not believed to have ever visited. Investigators have reportedly found no evidence linking Diya to the scene of the crime.

Known for petty thieving

Italy’s ANSA news agency reported that Guede was picked up as he was travelling on a train between Mainz and the nearby city of Wiesbaden. Under Schengen procedures, he will be extradited to Italy, but it may take two or three days.

Guede has lived in Perugia since he was five and was adopted by an Italian family at age 17. Italian and British press reports have described him as a drug dealer, while Ansa has said he is known to police for petty thieving. The case has been beset by leaks from Italian police and intense media speculation that have been criticised by lawyers representing the accused.

Police said Kercher’s assailants “apparently had a sexual motive” though initial autopsy results showed the Briton from south London had not been raped.

Blow dealt by a man

Investigators have said that the depth of the fatal knife wound in Kercher’s neck indicated that the blow was dealt by a man. It was possible that Knox cut herself with the knife while holding it or washing it.

The probe had initially focused on a flick knife belonging to 24-year-old Sollecito as the possible murder weapon. Kercher was in Italy on a student exchange programme.

From Blasting News:

The legal issues facing the Supreme Court today

The crux of Guede’s appeal for a review of his case is that it is a legal absurdity to find as a fact he did not commit the actual killing, but that the police are not looking for anybody else as ‘the multiple attackers’, despite Knox and Sollecito walking free notwithstanding the evidence of the presence of either or both of them at the scene (the ‘unknown others‘) ‘they are abundant, and all abundantly proven’.

Marasca & Bruno proclaimed that the two main reasons for the annulled convictions of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were because of  ‘a flawed investigation’ and ‘undue press influence’. The pair were released because of ‘insufficient evidence’. It raises the question, if it was ‘flawed’ for Knox and Sollecito, then would not the same state of affairs apply to Guede?

If the Italian courts find in Guede’s favor, the absurdity of the Amanda Knox case will be full exposed.

Coming soon:

1-Fullscreen capture 20170826 125620 AM-001

Henri’s New Look: Day 64


When 23-year-old triple murder accused Henri van Breda stepped into Court 1 on Day 64, for a brief moment he resembled his equally bald defense counsel. Are three bald heads better than two? Was this really a good option for Henri?

Henri, I’m advised “cleans up quite nicely” when he wants to. Some female readers of the first two books have said as much, as have a few members of the public I’ve encountered in the public gallery of the Western Cape High Court.

To be honest, I hadn’t noticed. If anything, I found Henri something of an oddball, who often seemed calm if ill-at-ease in court.

It’s interesting how impressions differ. For me, the physical attractiveness of an accused is pushed far to the background as one examines what they have done.  Of course, we’re all human beings, and some of us are more human than others. Having heard Henri’s appearance in glowing terms, I started seeing him in a different way. He can look like a nice guy, and at turns, has a male model-ness about him.


If the image adjustment was meant to distract the court – and the judge – from Susan Galloway’s arguments, it sort of worked, and didn’t. Henri’s new look occupied many on social media, and the media, but not necessarily in a good way, as this video capture shows. Have a read at the comments below Aartsi Narsee’s tweet.

The last time I saw an image change crash and burn was in the Larry Nassar case. Nasser, if you didn’t know, was recently convicted in the biggest sexual abuse scandal in sports history.

Pictures of the doctor before trial show what appears to be a professional, well-respected doctor. In court, the five-o’clock-shadow suddenly made Nassar look exactly the way he was – a creep and a predator using his credentials as a doctor to prey relentlessly on women.

Nassar’s behavior – and appearance – pissed off a Michigan court so much, one aggrieved father [265 victims came forward] tried to pounce on the little slime-ball. No charges were brought against the understandably unhappy father.

Surprisingly, over the course of this case, Henri’s appearance has varied almost as much as his ties. This appears to be both a sign of immaturity, and of a youngster “finding himself.” What’s strange and certainly compelling about this case, is we are seeing Henri growing up [become a man, arguably] inside and outside the court, and on camera. In a way, it’s a Western Cape High Court version of The Truman Show, except the stakes are much higher in The Van Breda Show.

When the show is over, Henri may well spend the rest of his life behind bars. Whatever we may say about his guilt or innocence, given his youth and obvious potential, this is a sad ending, but far less tragic than the way the lives of Martin, Teresa and Rudi ended on that January morning three years ago.

No matter what Henri loses, Martin, Teresa and Rudi have – and always will have – lost everything.

The incident took place barely three months after Henri’s 20th birthday. Although three years have passed since then, and Henri’s tested out various looks and identities for himself, he’s clearly still a very young and brash 23-year-old.

By Day 64, Henri’s appearance has fluctuated the full circle; from shaggy Neanderthal to evil Nazi. Until now,  for the most part he’s come across neat and presentable, even if, as Galloway noted in her closing arguments, Henri’s decision to take the stand “ultimately left a poor impression [in terms of his alleged innocence]”.

By shaving away his hair, the face is far more exposed, and without hair there’s less reason to pretend to brush at one’s face in order to hide nervous ticks etc.

Nartsee’s video has exposed Henri’s seemingly screwy countenance, but the fact is, when one examines the LiveFeed throughout the trial very closely [I highlighted dozens of nervous lipsnarls Henri made during testimony in Diablo], that hooded, screw-slightly-loose look has been there all along.

620x349 (5)

For the Judge, it will be important not to factor appearances into his assessment of Henri, but Judges are human too, and if anything, Henri’s new look has shot himself in the foot.  Because he looks so different, it’s difficult not to look at Henri even more closely than we are, and wonder: who are you?

We have no way of knowing the outcome on this side of time, but it’s possible a poor grooming decision for a triple murder accused may add years to a potential sentence, just as good grooming decisions [for example in the Jodi Arias case] can sometimes mean the difference between a death sentence, and life imprisonment.

Coming soon: Diablo2  available in middle February 2018


Oscar Pistorius Anniversary: Revisiting Reeva’s Perspective


Who was Reeva when she lost her life? One of the more obvious ways of answering this question is by looking at the profile pictures she used on Facebook and twitter to present herself.

You might laugh and say a selfie really doesn’t say that much, but that depends on the depth or shallowness of the self in question. Reeva wasn’t shallow, and what’s more, as a brand ambassador, her social media was – and had to be – a tangible extension of Reeva herself. It was both Reeva, how she saw herself, and how she wanted to be seen.

How did she wanted to be seen? Well, like this:


This was the image Reeva used as her twitter profile, as well as her background picture on Facebook. As Reeva put it, “a classic model.” That’s how she wanted to be seen, and at 29 years of age, it made sense to have a more mature vibe about her.

On Facebook, Reeva was in the process of spinning off a public, less personal profile. Before she did, she used this image [in fact it was a composite] to communicate another, a more assertive, sexier femme fatale.


The message of this Reeva was black and white: I know who I am, it’s my time now, I mean business so don’t mess with me [wink].

The recent film told from Reeva’s perspective touches a little on Reeva’s softness and her assertiveness. But what did they base their premise on?

Have you noticed, Lifetime, the channel that made Blade Runner Killer have recently removed the words “told from Reeva and her mother’s perspective” from their description of their film?  The only record we have that they even used these words is from the media themselves, who cited this premise from their press release and website.

Odd isn’t it, to have the movie premised on Reeva’s perspective, and then to edit out your premise?

Irrespective of whether your film’s premise is edited in or out, it still remains the same, doesn’t it? Blade Runner Killer is the first film about this case told from Reeva’s perspective.

In any event, in July 2014, shortly after publishing Revelations, the first narrative to explicate in detail a referenced timeline making the case for premeditated murder [not even the state did that], a description of the murder from Reeva’s perspective provided at the very end of the book, I gave the following interview.

The timing was ominous – Oscar’s PR was going into high gear, hoping to sabotage the court narrative with the “poison apple” of the re-enactment video.  If the prosecution had referred in any matter whatsoever to the broadcast on channel 7 [which Oscar’s defense claimed wasn’t authorized by them], Oscar’s advocate could have asked the judge to declare a mistrial. If a mistrial had been declared, Oscar would have been set free, and could then set about pursuing his accusers…like me.

It was in this “knife-edge” scenario that I gave the following interview…

Van Breda: Monday’s Closing Arguments – what to expect?

More than three years have passed since the grotesque triple murders that rocked the affluent De Zalze Estate in Stellenbosch on January 27th, 2015. Monday, February 12, 2018 will mark the 64th day of this extraordinary trial, a trial about a third longer than the Oscar Pistorius trial which stretched to 43 days.

During the three years following the murders of his parents and brother, triple-murder accused Henri, who was barely 20-years-old at the time [he’d emerged from his teenage years just three months before the murder], has matured. He’s become handsome, more confident and, if he had a stutter, at 23 he’s a well-spoken young man.


During the three month hiatus since Judge Desai reluctantly postponed proceedings [at the behest of Henri’s advocate Pieter Botha], Henri and his girlfriend have relocated yet again, while Marli continues to live with a teacher in an undisclosed location. Marli would also have received her matric results some time in early January.

On February 12th, when the court reconvenes, what can we expect?

  1. Expect fireworks. The public are often of the view that the first day of a trial, and the last day, and perhaps the accused’s evidence, are the sum total of a trial. The closing arguments are a distillation from opposing counsels of matters of fact. A certain amount of conjuring is done here, to persuade a judge either that there is absolute certainty on a particular issue, or that there is absolute uncertainty. Both counsels must juggle which facts they wish to bolster, which facts of the defense [common cause] they wish to use against the opposing case, and how best to discredit or otherwise make a mess of opposing argument, while making their own seem logical and consistent.  Although a guilty person may have certain truths playing against them, the fact is, a defense counsel has access to the accused, and thus is in possession of a much greater context of information, which can be used to poke holes in a prosecutor’s contentions and speculations.166c0444b5b64675be5959d39831c92c
  2. First strike. Advocate Susan Galloway will go first, presenting the state’s final closing arguments. These are likely to fill at least the morning session.  Going first has a few advantages. The state starts with a clean slate, and if their arguments are clear and vivid, they can powerfully shape and control the mindset no matter what comes afterward.
  3. How long will the arguments last? In the Pistorius case, Gerrie Nel’s closing arguments on August 8th, 2014 [about 18 months after the incident] lasted all day, until 15:00. Once the state was done, Barry Roux asked for an adjournment so he could marinade in the state’s contentions, and kick off with his own, perhaps slightly fine-tuned arguments the next morning. Even Oscar packed away his notebooks as a subtle nudge to indicate his preferences.  Judge Masipa consulted with court officials and then elected to sit for “another half hour.”  Roux’s closing arguments were thus broken into two segments, but effectively, he also got the last word.620x349rth
  4. Getting the last word, especially if one provides powerful insights, twists and turns right at the end, can and sometimes does change the outcome of case. Think of Johnny Chochrane’s famous closing: “if it doesn’t fit, you must acquit.” So yes, a closing can discolor the original mindset portrayed by a prosecutor, and foist the all-important doubt onto a court that a defense must rely on to get their client off the hook. Expect Botha’s epilepsy narrative to feature strongly as their “game-changer”. weapons-750x458
  5. Closing arguments will not only summarize the respective cases, they also serve to highlight and emphasize the strongest points from each side. What do you think is the strongest aspect of Galloway’s case? Leave a comment and let’s see which aspects she chooses to emphasize. What’s the strongest element of Botha’s case? Does he even have a case? Leave a comment, and let’s see how evenly matched both counsels are.
  6. After closing arguments, court adjourns so the judge [there are no juries in South Africa] can apply his or her mind to the case. In the Pistorius case, the adjournment was for about a month. Arguments were heard on August 8th and 9th, and Masipa adjourned until September 11th. The verdict phase in the Pistorius case lasted two days, and shoddy as the original verdict from the court a quo was at the time, it was unanimous. Masipa and her two assessors inexplicably found Oscar not guilty of murder, premeditated or otherwise.
  7. After the verdict is it over?  Three months after Oscar was found guilty of culpable homicide and sentenced to a ridiculous 10 months imprisonment [effectively], the state applied for leave to appeal, and Masipa granted it. Judge’s usually grant appeals, although Masipa refused leave to appeal when the state applied after the second sentence – 6 years for murder – was seen to be too light as well. The state then applied directly to the Supreme Court of Appeal, who granted the appeal and directly elected to sentence Oscar themselves [to an effective 15 years, less time already served].

In the Van Breda case, I expect there to be an appeal after the verdict, which suggests that although the Van Breda case appears to be over at the beginning of 2018, in fact, it’s likely to be a long period of legal struggle, in my view, for Henri.

Bear in mind that five years after Reeva Steenkamp’s murder, that case still hasn’t been concluded either. Oscar has appealed the Supreme Court’s sentence, to the Constitutional Court, and presently remains in legal limbo.  The state have filed opposing papers, and now the Constitutional Court must decide whether it’s willing to consider Oscar’s application. The Constitutional Court usually doesn’t involve itself in ordinary criminal cases.HenriBreda3

Only the mega rich have the resources to take their cases through the legal washer, and so it’s a matter of access to his enormous inheritance, whether Henri will follow the path pioneered by South Africa’s highest-profile convicted murderer yet.

Sidenote: Interestingly, on the five year anniversary of Reeva Steenkamp’s murder, no South Africans have made any documentaries, and no local reporters have written on the case at all since the Supreme Court of Appeal verdict in December 2017. In the Van Breda case, although three books were written, there’s been a vacuum of reporting on this case since the adjournment in November 2017. When it comes to trial reporting in South Africa, the media seem to have a season for reporting, and an off-season. South Africa is a unique case of a crime infested country that still needs to play catch-up to the true crime trends in other countries.