Wednesday, June 29, 2011

Evidence Gift Wrapped For the Prosecution Proven Unreliable in Amanda Knox Case

Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito won a crucial legal victory today as an independent forensic report discredited key DNA evidence used to convict the two. Independent forensic experts appointed by the court, Stefano Conti and Carla Vecchiotti, from Rome's Sapienza University,  have concluded that two key pieces of DNA evidence used to convict Amanda Knox and Raffaeel Sollecito are unreliable and have cited multiple errors made by investigators. This information is being described as “shocking” as it blazes through news outlets worldwide, and though it may be shocking to casual followers, for many it comes 3 ½ years too late.

Knox and Sollecito stand convicted of murdering Meredith Kercher in late 2007 and are serving 26 and 25 years respectively. Both have strongly denied any involvement in Kercher’s Murder and now DNA evidence which Judge Giancarlo Massei refused to allow additional testing on during the first trial, may very well help to secure their freedom on appeal.

The two pieces of evidence that have been discredited on review are a knife (that was said to be the murder weapon) containing the DNA of both Knox and Kercher, and a severed bra clasp said to contain DNA of Sollecito. 

The knife was the prosecution's "smoking gun” said to have Knox’s DNA on the handle and Kercher’s DNA on the blade. An investigator claimed he retrieved the knife from Sollecito’s kitchen drawer because it looked clean. Investigators neglected to test any other knives from either Sollecito’s kitchen or the kitchen at the location of the murder, quickly concluding they had found the murder weapon. The knife was suspect from the start not only because of how it was found but also because it was too large to cause Kercher's fatal wounds and did not match a bloody imprint of a knife found on Kercher’s bed sheet.

Scrambling for answers, the prosecution claimed that a second knife must have been used. Failing to back up those claims with a single shred of evidence left their theory lacking credibility ,but denial of additional testing left the court to accept the initial DNA results, confirming the knife as the murder weapon.   

Thankfully Judge Claudio Pratillo Hellmann felt it was necessary to grant the defense request for additional testing on appeal. If Judge Massei would have allowed this testing during the first trial, there may have never been an appeal to begin with as independent experts have now completely discredited the murder weapon concluding there was no blood on the knife, no DNA from the victim, no evidence to show the knife was involved in any way. They did confirm Knox’s DNA on the handle which would be expected because she used the knife for cooking at Raffaele’s apartment. The independent expert conclusion on the knife: unreliable evidence.

The second piece of evidence discredited on review is a bra clasp retrieved from the murder room. The clasp was horribly mishandled by investigators and should have never been admissible as evidence in the first place. The prosecution claimed the clasp, which was torn from Kercher’s bra during the attack, contained Sollecito’s DNA. No other evidence linked either Sollecito or Knox to the murder room making the clasp vital to the prosecution’s case. Several factors discredit this piece of evidence. Investigators neglected to collect the clasp for 47 days leaving it to be shuffled around on the floor as seen in crime scene video throughout that time frame.

When the clasp was finally collected, multiple investigators handled it with contaminated gloves, all captured on video.

On appeal, the independent experts have concluded that contamination could not be ruled out but more importantly that DNA testing done on the clasp was not performed correctly. They state that interpretation of the DNA profile was erroneous due to misrepresentation of the Y (sex) chromosome, determining the DNA attributed to Raffaele actually belonged to a female. Experts also concluded that methods used did not follow international procedures of inspection and international protocols for collecting and sampling of evidence. The independent expert conclusion on the clasp: unreliable evidence.

Many find it amazing that police negligence didn’t play a much larger role in the first trial. Much of the evidence collection was captured on video and many cases of faulty procedure and quite frankly odd behavior can be viewed throughout the entire collection process.

In an odd sight to see, the video below shows Italian forensic expert Patrizia Stefanoni wrapping a mop handle in gift wrap (that she retrieved from the closet containing the mop) only to hand it off to another investigator so she can parade it around the cottage.  Why did they gift wrap a mop and walk it around the cottage? 

So what’s the big deal about the mop? First, gift wrap is not a proper collection tool, second, the mop head is left exposed as the investigator (for reasons I cannot imagine) walks the mop into the murder room where the most crucial evidence was collected. For me the gift wrap is more symbolic of how this case has played out. Investigators had the job of collecting gifts for Prosecutor Giuliano Mignini who in turn used those gifts to create a well packaged series of lies to be offered to the court. Sadly the plan worked causing irreparable damage to two innocent people.

The videos above are good examples of inevitable contamination and there are many other examples of negligence presented throughout the crime scene video. The truth is investigators completely mishandled the crime scene causing much of the evidence to be susceptible to contamination. More importantly, the court accepted the evidence, leading to the wrongful conviction of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.

The news coming out of Perugia, Italy, is being greeted with relief but is also likely  to be met with anger and frustration that it has taken so long for the evidence to be properly analyzed. Dr. Mark Waterbury, author of "Monster of Perugia", has been a strong voice demanding that this injustice be corrected. His analysis early on left little doubt that the DNA was faulty.  Injustice in Perugia has been reporting on the faulty evidence since early 2010 and many others have voiced outrage worldwide, but no one has fought  to expose the truth more than Journalist Candace Dempsey, award winning Author of “Murder in Italy” and true crime blogger currently focusing on the Amanda Knox case. Candace was the first journalist to suggest that Amanda Knox was innocent when the mainstream media was determined to prove her guilty. Candace wrote as early as January 2008, about the faulty DNA evidence and has described the DNA in the same fashion for 3 ½ years now. In recent months, as the truth has become crystal clear, the media has shifted strongly in favor of Knox and Sollecito; better late than never.

With the latest findings, Judge Hellmann should move for a swift conclusion to the appeal. There is simply no credible evidence to uphold the convictions of Knox and Sollecito and their release should come swiftly. Many questions remain as to why this nightmare occurred and those responsible must be held accountable but there will be plenty of time to sort out the mess after Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are fully exonerated and back home with their families.

You can view the full report in Italian here:

Here is an English translation of the conclusions reached by the independent court appointed experts Stefano Conti and Carla Vecchiotti.


Based on the considerations explained above, we are able to respond as follows to the inquiries posed at the assignment hearing:

"Having examined the record and conducted such technical investigations as shall be necessary, the Expert Panel shall ascertain:

1. whether it is possible, by means of a new technical analysis, to identify the DNA present on items 165b (bra clasp) and 36 (knife), and to determine the reliability of any such identification"

- The tests that we conducted to determine the presence of blood on item 36 (knife) and item 165B (bra clasps) yielded a negative result.

- The cytomorphological tests on the items did not reveal the presence of cellular material. Some samples of item 36 (knife), in particular sample "H", present granules with a circular/hexagonal characteristic morphology with a cental radial structure. A more detailed microscopic study, together with the consultation of data in the literature, allowed us to ascertain that the structures in question are attributable to granules of starch, thus matter of a vegetable nature.

- The quantification of the extracts obtained from the samples obtained from item 36 (knife) and item 165B (bra clasps), conducted via Real Time PCR, did not reveal the presence of DNA.

- In view of the absence of DNA in the extracts that we obtained, with the agreement of the consultants for the parties, we did not proceed to the subsequent amplification step.

2. "if it is not possible to carry out a new technical analysis, shall evaluate, on the basis of the record, the degree of reliability of the genetic analysis performed by the Scientific Police on the aforementioned items, including with respect to possible contamination."

Having examined the record and the relevant documents, we are able to report the following conclusions regarding the laboratory analyses performed on Item 36 (knife) and Item 165B (bra clasps):


Relative to the genetic analysis performed on trace A (handle of the knife), we agree with the conclusion reached by the Technical Consultant regarding the attribution of the genetic profile obtained from these samples to Amanda Marie Knox.

Relative to trace B (blade of the knife) we find that the technical analyses performed are not reliable for the following reasons:

1. There does not exist evidence which scientifically confirms that trace B (blade of knife) is the product of blood.

2. The electrophoretic profiles exhibited reveal that the sample indicated by the letter B (blade of knife) was a Low Copy Number (LCN) sample, and, as such, all of the precautions indicated by the international scientific community should have been applied.

3. Taking into account that none of the recommendations of the international scientific community relative to the treatment of Low Copy Number (LCN) samples were followed, we do not accept the conclusions regarding the certain attribution of the profile found on trace B (blade of knife) to the victim Meredith Susanna Cara Kercher, since the genetic profile, as obtained, appears unreliable insofar as it is not supported by scientifically validated analysis;

4. International protocols of inspection, collection, and sampling were not followed;

5. It cannot be ruled out that the result obtained from sample B (blade of knife) derives from contamination in some phase of the collection and/or handling and/or analyses performed.


Relative to Item 165B (bra clasps), we find that the technical analysis is not reliable for the following reasons:

1. There does not exist evidence which scientifically confirms the presence of supposed flaking cells on the item;

2. There was an erroneous interpretation of the electrophoretic profile of the autosomic STRs;

3. There was an erroneous interpretation of the electrophoretic profile relative to the Y chromosome;

4. The international protocols for inspection, collection, and sampling of the item were not followed;

5. It cannot be ruled out that the results obtained derive from environmental contamination and/or contamination in some phase of the collection and/or handling of the item.


Prof. Carla Vecchiotti

Prof. Stefano Conti

Tuesday, June 28, 2011

GQ Italy: Amanda Knox & Raffaele Sollecito Are Innocent


Click here to view the original article in Italian.

English Translation

"This could be one of the most important judicial errors of recent years. And the reason is simple: there is not enough evidence against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito for a conviction. In other words: as far as a court is concerned, they cannot have killed Meredith Kercher." So says criminologist Giorgia Quadri, commenting on one of the most notable crime and legal stories of the last few years: the Perugia murder. Rudy Guede, an Ivorian, has already been definitively sentenced (to 16 years in prison) for the killing of English student Meredith Kercher, which happened on the night between November 1 and 2, 2007. The appeal trial of Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox, sentenced at the first level to 25 and 26 years [respectively], is still in progress. And just yesterday, Guede blamed the two youths [for the crime]. "But they have a number of things going for them", says Quadri. Here are seven of them:

1. "The 'proof' that convicted Sollecito consists of two items: a shoeprint -- which however the judges acknowledged to be Guede's -- and a tiny trace of DNA on Meredith's bra clasp. Which, however, was collected 46 days after the first inspection and -- it should be stressed -- with quite a few errors on the part of the law enforcement personnel on the scene. In sum: that miniscule trace could have ended up there due to a technical error".

2.  "Of Knox, however, there is no trace at all at the crime scene. The 'smoking gun" against her is the slander against Patrick Lumumba. But let's not forget that Knox named Lumumba after 53 hours and 45 minutes of interrogation. The kiss given to Sollecito outside the Perugia cottage, with Meredith's dead body still inside, also carries weight. But let's not forget that at the time, Amanda was hardly more than a kid -- she was 20 years old -- she was in a country other than her own, and found herself at the scene of a horrible crime".

3. "They say that they found the knife that was used to kill Meredith at Sollecito's house. A 31-centimeter knife that Amanda, according to the prosecution, was carrying around in her purse to defend herself with. But who goes around with that kind of weapon in their purse? There are DNA traces of Amanda on the handle of this knife, very tiny traces of Meredith on the tip. They washed it with bleach, according to the prosecution: is it possible that the washing was selective, and didn't remove Amanda's DNA from the handle?"

4.  "Sollecito is also accused because of his calls to the Carabinieri, which were allegedly made subsequent to the arrival of the Postal Police at the house on Via Della Pergola. But this timeline was later refuted; [and] who would call the Carabinieri with the Police on site, and why?

5.  "There's actually no proof that Guede knew Knox and Sollecito. Rudy himself has always said he saw "a figure that resembled Sollecito", but nothing more. And there's another anomaly: usually, in these cases, the people who are accused start accusing each other in turn, absolving themselves. In the case of the Perugia murder, this has not happened".

6.  "The reconstruction of events by the prosecution is somewhat fanciful: Guede supposedly became aroused on seeing Knox and Sollectio's displays of affection; he entered Meredith's room, started to assault her, the screams would have brought in Raffaele and Amanda who, thinking it was a game, would have bound, assaulted, and killed Kercher. There's no reason why two people in the process of exchanging affections, who enter a room where a stranger is assaulting Amanda's roommate, would take it upon themselves to torture Meredith. And in fact, the only thing the judges wrote was that Amanda and Meredith hated each other. Hardly enough for this kind of murder, don't you think?"

7.  "Even if we accept the version of the facts that came out of the first-level trial, how is it possible that Guede leaves traces everywhere -- including feces in the bathroom of the house, where he didn't flush;something that could also be a sign of guilt, given that feeling ill after a criminal act is not unusual -- and Amanda and Raffaele leave none? With all this excitement going on, is it [really] possible that the only trace would be a miniscule DNA finding on the clasp of Kercher's bra?"

Amanda Knox Appeal: a Day of Irrelevance

Amanda Knox

No new information was heard from the main witness at yesterday's appeal hearing for Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito as Rudy Guede, the man responsible for Meredith Kercher's murder, took the stand for the prosecution. Guede was called to refute the testimony of five inmates that told the court last week that Guede informed them during prison yard discussions that Amanda Knox was innocent. 

Guede's testimony reiterated the feelings he expressed in a letter written in 2010. In a strange courtroom display, his letter was read aloud by Prosecutor Giuliano Mignini because Guede claimed to be unable to read his own handwriting. Judge Hellmann found this odd prompting him to ask Guede if he understood the big words written in the letter; in a very telling admission,  Guede's answer was no.

As Mignini read the words allegedly penned by Guede, the court heard Guede's accusation that Knox and Sollecito murdered Meredith Kercher. Guede has lied repeatedly throughout this case, modifying his stories, based on news reports as it best suited his defense, so hearing Guede's most recent claims, once again, was old news. 

Old news or not, hearing these words while Guede was in the same courtroom was shocking to Knox and Solleito none the less. Knox requested to make a statement while Guede was present but the request was denied, leaving her to give an emotional declaration to the court once Guede had been shuffled out.
"Please the Court, I simply want to declare that the only time that Rudy Guede, Raffaele and I were together in the same space is in a courtroom. We never had any kind of contact. I am shocked and anguished by his declarations, truly, because he knows it, that we weren't there. He knows that we weren't involved and I don't know what happened that night. I just wish I could tell him "Look, mistakes can be fixed by first telling the truth." That's all. Thank you."
Raffaele also passionately addressed the court showing disgust that he was unable to face his accuser.
"Rudy said in his chat to Giacomo Benedetti that Amanda wasn’t there, and as a male he saw just a shadow. Then he accused us just because we were already blamed!"
"For almost 4 years I’m fighting against the shadows, and he comes here, and doesn’t even speak. What should I defend myself from, if he doesn’t speak?"
Although Guede's testimony has been dramatized by the media it actually went exactly as expected. No one imagined that Guede would come clean and tell the truth. He did answer my question as to whether or not he had a conscience; the answer is clearly no. 

As I predicted shortly after the first trial concluded in December, 2009, we have seen a clear shift in the media leaning toward innocence during the appeal for Knox and Sollecito. As the truth becomes crystal clear, journalists around the world are finally coming to terms with reality. As I have said repeatedly, some may have seen the error of their ways, others are just jockeying their position so they don’t end up on the wrong side of the story.

Even though the media has improved drastically over the past year, it had to be expected that details of yesterday's hearing would be simply too irresistible for even the most disciplined reporters to not exaggerate. Unfortunately this led to another round of sensationalized headlines and misrepresentation of the facts, suggesting to the public that Guede provided shocking new information. It's okay, the headlines carry no weight and will quickly fade leaving Guede's testimony to have no lasting effect on the trial. 

When the dust settles from the commotion created during the past two hearings, the media coverage will soon come back to reality, back to the embarrassing heroin addicted super witness, back to the faulty DNA, back to the complete lack of evidence against Knox and Sollecito. The haunting words of Sollecito "fighting against the shadows" couldn't be more relevant as the truth is now being exposed from the darkness. Two who were once condemned will soon find freedom.

Monday, June 27, 2011

Man Responsible for Meredith Kercher's Murder Expected to Testify in Amanda Knox Case

The ongoing appeal trial for Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito is expected to have an interesting twist as Rudy Guede is likely to take the stand today.

On the evening of November 1, 2007, Merdith Kercher's life was stolen from her by Rudy Guede, a small time burglar that ambushed Meredith when she arrived home while he was in the process of burglarizing her residence. Meredith's tragic death was the result of a senseless act of pure evil. Unfortunately this tragedy has been compounded twofold. 

First, the case was and continues to be completely mishandled by authorities leaving two innocent people wrongfully convicted. Three people have been tried and convicted for Meredith Kercher's murder: Rudy Guede, Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox.  However, all credible evidence in this case points to Rudy Guede.  Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito had nothing to do with this crime and the evidence makes this extremely clear.

Second, the man responsible, Rudy Guede, will not be properly punished for his crime as he has been granted a far too lenient sentence on appeal. For Knox and Sollecito, the nightmare continues as they currently fight for their freedom. 

Guede’s expected testimony will be a follow up to last week’s appeal hearing where the court heard testimony from convicted child killer Mario Alessi. Alessi told the court that he was friends with Guede in prison and he spoke of conversations that he and Guede shared in the prison yard where Guede told him that Knox and Sollecito were innocent. Guede told Alessi that he and another man murdered Kercher. The defense brought three additional witnesses in to corroborate Alessi’s claims. 

The prosecution is likely calling Guede to the stand for nothing more than to refute the inmate's testimony.  But Guede has lied repeatedly throughout this case, modifying his stories, based on news reports as it best suited his defense, meaning anything he says on the stand will lack credibility. 

Guede was recorded during a Skype conversation before his arrest telling a friend that the reports on the news were incorrect. He said Amanda Knox  was not present the night the crime took place. After his arrest Guede realized he had no way out and repeatedly modified his story to help his own defense. His latest story suggests he was being intimate with Meredith in her room when he suddenly needed to use the bathroom. While he was in the bathroom Amanda and Raffaele came in and murdered Meredith. His stories were not accepted by the court but did help to suggest that Knox and Sollecito were present at the time of the murder. 

Guede's attorneys have done an excellent job of securing the most lenient punishment possible for his crime by convincing the court that Guede was merely an accomplice. Guede received a reduced sentence of 16 years on appeal, of which he will likely only serve a fraction, leaving many years of freedom in his future. 

How can I say with complete certainty that Rudy Guede murdered Meredith Kercher? Unlike Knox and Sollecito, Guede was arrested after the evidence collected at the crime scene was analyzed and that evidence points right to him—no one else, just him. There was no rush to judgment when it came to arresting Rudy Guede. Investigators found Guede’s hand print on a pillow cace found under the victim’s body. The fingerprints led them to their suspect. When police came looking for Guede, he had already fled to Germany. Thankfully, old fashioned police work nabbed Guede; he was stopped in Germany trying to board a train without a ticket and was immediately extradited back to Italy. 

The evidence of Guede's guilt is irrefutable and should have been more than sufficient to secure a life sentence for Guede.  Guede even admitted he was in Meredith’s room at the time of the attack. His DNA, along with Meredith’s blood, was found on Meredith's purse. His shoeprints, set in Meredith’s blood, were found in the bedroom and in the hallway leading out the front door. As mentioned above, his handprint, in Meredith’s blood, was found on a pillowcase underneath her body. Most importantly, Guede’s DNA was found inside Meredith’s body.

Guede has nothing to gain or lose (with regard to his prison sentence) by testifying at the Knox/Sollecito appeal on Monday, but he does have an opportunity to do what's right; he has the opportunity to actually tell the truth. Guede will never be able to correct the damage he has caused but he can show that he has an ounce of humanity left in his soul by stopping the destruction of two additional lives by informing the court that his accusations against Knox and Sollecito are nothing more than lies. His lies may have helped to secure his lenient punishment, but now it's time for him to set the record straight. Guede risks no additional prison time by telling the truth but I am not optimistic that he will find it in his heart to do so.

If Guede repeats his latest version of events, then it will be old news, but in the current environment, his testimony could cause the court to become distracted and lose focus on the big picture. The last hearing was a dramatic experience for the jury as they saw 5 inmates being ushered into the courtroom under tense security and on Monday the drama will pick up right where it left off. If Guede tells the prosecution what they want to hear, as I expect him to do, it’s crucial to keep in mind that we are hearing nothing new from Guede. His accusations should carry no more weight now then they did in the past. 

The prison stories we heard at last week’s trial may have been a glimpse of Guede’s conscience at work. As time goes by and the internal guilt gets more difficult to manage, Guede may find himself looking back with deep regret if he doesn’t attempt to correct some of the damage he has caused. We will have to wait and see if his conscience plays any role in his testimony today. More importantly we will see if Guede has a conscience.

Friday, June 24, 2011

Anti-Amanda Knox blogger Peter Quennell Caught in His Own Web of Lies

Peter Quennell
Injustice in Perugia recently reported that Peter Quennell, owner and operator of, harassed a young woman and attempted to extort money from her. If you have not read the article, you can catch up on the details here.

Peter Quennell has repeatedly responded to the allegations against him with outright lies. We posted an update detailing his first response here.  To this day, Quennell continues to fabricate new lies and is now making false legal threats against websites that post articles detailing his behavior. 

Quennell’s most recent lie was that he was represented by a high-powered New York attorney.  He has used this made up fact several times in order to try to deter anyone from writing criticism about him.  Just recently, this lie was exposed when Quennell attempted to namedrop this attorney in one of his many threatening email campaigns.  Unfortunately for Quennell, this time the website he threatened legal action against actually took him seriously and had an attorney of their own.  When this site’s attorney attempted to call the “opposing counsel” he namedropped, lo and behold the namedropped attorney relayed that Quennell had misrepresented their relationship.

Peter Quennell’s made up legal threats linked to the case against Amanda Knox date back quite a while.  For example, over a year ago in an article on the Daily Beast which mentioned Peter Quennell, a person stated in the comment section that Quennell was a bully.  Quennell, who saw the comment, did not take kindly to this name calling and actually threatened to take legal action against the Daily Beast in the comment section! The Daily Beast subsequently removed Peter Quennell’s comment and left the comment calling him a bully.

Quennell's actions make it obvious that he is a compulsive liar. In his latest rant on his website, he makes the claim that he is actually the one trying to protect the young woman he has victimized.  In his feeble attempts to defend his repulsive actions, he claims that the young woman was tricked into revealing the emails between the two and she "rejects" me as much as he does.  This couldn’t be further from the truth and Quennell knows this; yet he chooses to lie anyways, even when it’s obvious.  The most pathetic part of his lies is that even when trying to cover for himself, he can’t help but disgustingly attack this young woman even after his behavior has been exposed. His comments suggest that he is still in contact with his victim which is untrue. Although Quennell has emailed baseless threats, he has been ignored.  

The real story is quite simple:  I arranged a meeting for the young woman with a private investigator who helped her get in touch with the proper authorities. Detectives contacted Quennell and put a stop to his behavior toward the young woman.  Of course, Quennell knows all this as well, but has been lying to even his own readers.

It is understandable why Quennell would lie to his ever shrinking group of followers. Everything I wrote about him is true, and thus his only option is to attempt to lie his way out of it. Quennell needs to stop the lies and consult with an actual attorney. 

Finally, I would like to address the recent threat by Peter Quennell that he has a defamation lawsuit against me in the works.  For those who don’t know, Quennell has long claimed to have a high powered “attorney” that I need to fear because this “attorney” has taken down the mafia. I don’t doubt that perhaps Peter Quennell has met a high powered attorney in his lifetime, but at this point it has become glaringly obvious he has no attorney representing him.

How do we know he has no attorney?  Because if Quennell actually had an attorney who knew anything about defamation law, he would also know he has no case.  Fortunately, Injustice in Perugia has several attorneys that have given me the tools to explain to him why we are not afraid of any of Peter Quennell’s baseless claims of defamation.

The biggest reason we aren’t worried is because truth is an absolute defense against a defamation claim.  Everything I’ve written about Quennell is absolutely true, and Quennell knows this as well.  Furthermore, in cases of libel, the burden is on the plaintiff to show the allegedly defamatory statement is actually false.  Good luck with that one Peter.

Quennell also knows that were he foolish enough to file a lawsuit, he would be exposing himself to pretrial discovery, risking even further humiliation.  Moreover, were Quennell to file a lawsuit, he would likely be deposed and face cross-examination by an experienced attorney.  If entered into evidence, these depositions would all become part of the public record.  If you have read Quennell’s emails, it is obvious he would be his own worst witness.  And, unlike his blog where no one questions a word he says, he would be forced to answer questions under oath, something I imagine he is quite afraid of.  We at Injustice in Perugia would be more than happy to have this opportunity.

But there are many more reasons why Quennell has no case.  By his own admission, he is a public figure and should expect this level of scrutiny.  He has even boasted about appearing in hundreds of television shows and newspapers.  At one point, he boastfully declared himself the most high profile person in the case not named Anne Bremner (these kinds of assertions are ridiculous of course).

Of course, the list goes on and on concerning Peter’s horrible case for defamation----but you get the point.  Injustice in Perugia is pretty well satisfied that Quennell has made up the fact that he has some high powered attorney.   But in the off chance this attorney is real, he is giving Peter Quennell terrible advice.

We here at Injustice in Perugia will not be deterred by Peter Quennell’s baseless threats and will continue to monitor and scrutinize his actions as we see fit.  As long as he continues to harass and threaten average people, whether it be connected to the case or not, we refuse to simply turn the other cheek.

Tuesday, June 14, 2011

The Italian Job

This is an expanded version of an article published in the June 2011 issue of UK political magazine Liberator -

Amanda Knox & Raffaele Sollecito

British student Meredith Kercher was tragically murdered in Italy by a burglar. The burglar was prosecuted and found guilty, so why were students Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito also prosecuted? Why was their trial called, “a railroad job from hell” by CBS  investigator Paul Ciolino?   Nigel Scott explains

The application and interpretation of the law varies considerably across Europe and elsewhere and the extension of extradition treaties has brought this home to people who would not normally give the justice systems of other countries a second thought.  Within the EU, discrepancies have been highlighted by Liberal Democrat MEP Sarah Ludford, who has campaigned for several British citizens who have become ensnared in foreign trials. 

Recent entrants to the EU have reformed their legal systems and this has provided reassurance for travellers to the former communist states of the East.  Few of us would think that the systems of some established members also require comprehensive reform, but Italy is such a state and the journey of Premier Silvio Berlusconi through the courts will highlight this for all to see.   

The problems of Italy’s leader are far removed from those of his countrymen but the impact of the system on two young students, Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito is frightening and could easily happen to any of us or our children. 

What is different about Italian justice and how has this shaped what has been called the ‘trial of the century’. 

First and most telling, at least when compared to the UK, there is no ban on pre-trial publicity once a suspect is charged.  Prosecutors brief favoured journalists and drop tit bits of ‘evidence’ that may not be true and are not necessarily used in court. This practice creates a climate in which the accused is assumed to be guilty before the trial starts.  In the words of Daily Beast blogger, Barbie Latza Nadeau, “In a country like this it’s not really about proving guilt, it’s about proving innocence.”  This turns the presumption of innocence on its head. 

The second major flaw is that juries are not sequestered. In trials that can last a year, it is argued that this is not practical.  Jurors (or lay judges, as they are called) are encouraged to read widely and discuss the case with each other as it proceeds. Inaccurate media reports become de facto part of the trial.  Anyone who remembers the treatment the Daily Mail (among others) meted out to Chris Jefferies last winter when he was arrested and released without charge during the Joanna Yates murder investigation, will know what the tabloids can do.  Jefferies is now suing six newspapers for defamation. Knox and Sollecito were forced to endure two years of similar character assassination by tabloid in Italy and the UK before their first guilty verdict was announced in December 2009.  They are now midway through an appeal.

The third flaw is that investigations are controlled by the prosecutor, not the police. This approach brings with it the danger that a prosecutor who has prematurely arrived at a view of the crime can direct the police to pursue one line of inquiry and ignore evidence that does not fit.  In Perugia, the investigation was under the control of Giuliano Mignini, a controversial figure who was himself under investigation for abuse of office at the time and was subsequently found guilty.  

In Knox and Sollecito’s case, events in the days after the murder were misinterpreted as the theory that the murderer was close to Meredith was pursued.  On the night of the murder Knox sent a text to employer and bar owner Patrick Lumumba, ‘See you later’, in reply to his message saying she was not needed that night.  This was interpreted as ‘See you later to murder my flat mate’.  When Knox told Kercher’s friends when she met them at the police station that the victim had been stabbed, the police supposed that Knox could not have known unless she had participated in the murder.  In fact, Knox had learned this from her Italian flat mate in the car en route to the police station. 

When Knox, who was by then locked out of her flat because it was a murder scene, bought clean knickers, this was interpreted as casual disregard for her dead friend.  Knox and Sollecito’s phones were tapped in the hope that they would say something incriminating.  When police learned that Knox’s mother was on her way to Italy to support her, they arranged an all night interrogation session to break the pair and brought in specialists from Rome, led by Edgardo Giobbi.  When CBS journalist Paul Ciolino later said to Giobbi, “you don’t have any physical evidence, you don’t have eyewitnesses, you don’t have a murder weapon, what do you got?” officer Giobbi replied that he only needed to know one thing to determine guilt, “He said, ‘I’ll tell you why…….she was eating pizza!”

Edgardo Giobbi
The interrogations resulted in the famous confessions, by which Knox and Sollecito were arrested.  Mysteriously, they were not recorded, although they seem to be the only interviews that were not recorded during the whole case. The convenient absence of recordings allowed the prosecutor to charge Knox and her parents with ‘calunnia’ (slander) when they made allegations that she had been struck. Lumumba was implicated, though he was eventually able to clear himself when his alibi was confirmed.

Numerous prejudicial stories then appeared in the press, referring to ‘evidence’ that was never mentioned again.  In the UK, serious newspapers like The Times as well as the Daily Mail and others, printed stories that would never form part of the prosecution case.  A knife that did not fit the wounds was discovered at Sollecito’s flat and a bra clasp that was recovered from the murder scene 46 days later, were found to harbour quantities of DNA that were ‘revealed’ by overriding machine controls.  This ‘low copy number’ evidence was subsequently challenged in a paper written by forensic experts and published in the New Scientist.

“There is no ban on pre-trial publicity once a suspect is charged.  Prosecutors brief favoured journalists and drop tit bits of ‘evidence’ that may not be true and are not necessarily used in court.” 

Thus was Knox vilified and turned from an ‘A’ student into an out of control drug crazed psychopath. Sollecito was similarly destroyed. Many who raised questions over the prosecution approach were issued with writs.  Twelve law suits were started.  Those indicted so far include Knox and both her parents, her attorneys, and a selection of journalists. Separate action has also been taken against Sollecito’s parents. 

In April this year, the Committee to Protect Journalists, an independent body that defends the rights of journalists worldwide, wrote a letter to the Italian president: “CPJ is particularly troubled by the manifest intolerance to criticism displayed by Perugia Public Prosecutor Giuliano Mignini, who has filed or threatened to file criminal lawsuits against individual reporters, writers, and press outlets, both in Italy and the United States, in connection with the Kercher murder investigation as well as the investigation into the Monster of Florence serial killings.”  Mignini’s action against local journalist and blogger Frank Sfarzo was singled out for particular criticism.  Full details of the complaint are set out at

The real murderer, Rudy Guede, was identified when his DNA was found on Meredith’s body, in her room and in her purse.  He had fled to Germany but was arrested there, brought back and found guilty at a separate fast-track trial.  This development did not lead to the release of Knox and Sollecito.  They remained in the frame as alleged co-conspirators of Guede.  

Rudy Guede Mug Shot

Meanwhile the internet gave birth to a new phenomenon: online vilification.  A group calling itself ‘True Justice for Meredith Kercher’ and a linked chat room, ‘Perugia Murder File’ (PMF), were set up to insult the two students and members of their families. Supporters of these sites harassed and intimidated members of Knox’s family and friends both online and in person in their home town of Seattle.  PMF has been reported to the FBI as a source of hate speech. 

By the time the guilty verdict of the first trial was announced, in December 2009, many observers had begun to question the Perugian justice system. A campaign to exonerate Knox and Sollecito coalesced around a website ‘Injustice in Perugia’.   

The Wikipedia page, ‘The Murder of Meredith Kercher’ became embroiled in controversy and many neutral editors were banned. Thirty pages of arguments in the ‘discussion’ section, delineate the battle. Frustrated supporters of Knox and Sollecito eventually posted an online petition asking Jimbo Wales, the Wikipedia founder to intervene. 

Wales investigated and ordered a review.  He commented, “I just read the entire article from top to bottom, and I have concerns that most serious criticism of the trial from reliable sources has been excluded or presented in a negative fashion.”  A few days later he wrote, “I am concerned that since I raised the issue, even I have been attacked as being something like a ‘conspiracy theorist.”  Some biased editors left the page, but the fight on Wikipedia continues.

The tide seems to be turning and recent victories in the courtroom over re-evaluation of the controversial DNA evidence and witness testimony have given rise to fresh hope.

The Kercher family employed their own prosecutor, as is permitted in Italy, who has joined in cross examinations and also briefed the media. Innocent bar owner Lumumba was also represented. He sought damages for defamation from Knox.

Knox and Sollecito’s defense therefore faced three lawyers and three legal teams as Lumumba’s case ran in parallel with the murder trial.  

As the retrial grinds slowly on, a new judge, Claudio Hellmann, from North Italy is directing proceedings. Knox, Sollecito and their families pray that he will be independent and will have the courage to instruct his ‘jurors’ to acquit.   

Nigel Scott is a Haringey Liberal Democrat Councillor and supporter of the campaign to free Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.

Wednesday, June 8, 2011

Failure to Protect Amanda Knox’ Rights Decried in Letter to President Obama

Seattle, WA, USA – June 8, 2011

The Friends of Amanda Knox have written to President Barack Obama expressing their concern about the failure of consular officials to protect the rights of American citizen, Amanda Knox, convicted in Perugia, Italy, of murdering her British roommate and sentenced to 26 years in prison.

The letter sent to Obama on May 16, 2011 indicates seven areas in which Italian or EU law was violated by prosecutors and police in Perugia, Italy. Yet, the letter cites repeated assertions by State Department spokespersons that it was their obligation to safeguard those same rights. It was sent by Michael Heavey, a superior court judge acting in a personal capacity only, and cosigned by Thomas Wright, founder of Friends of Amanda, Dr. Mark C. Waterbury, author of The Monster of Perugia – The Framing of Amanda Knox, and attorney Anne Bremner, spokesperson of Friends of Amanda. A pdf file of the letter can be downloaded here

The letter calls for an investigation of the failure of the U.S. Consulate offices in Italy to take actions in support of Amanda Knox. That letter was copied to, and followed up with, a second letter dated May 20, 2011 and sent to more than 500 members of congress, and to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

This action comes only a few weeks after a letter written by the Committee to Protect Journalists to the President of Italy protesting actions of the same Perugian prosecutor regarding the treatment of reporters covering the case. The CPJ article and a link to the letter can be found at The CPJ investigation revealed that Perugian prosecutors and police used threats, criminal charges, and physical beatings to intimidate reporters covering the case. The prosecutor in the case recently obtained a court order forcing Google to take down a blog written by a critical local journalist.

Similar concerns were subsequently expressed by eleven prominent Italian lawmakers who signed a petition to the Italian Minster of Justice reaffirming that Knox was treated unfairly under Italian law (see AP article at The group sent a letter to the President of Italy asking for his intervention. They have taken the extremely serious step of asking for the Italian Ministry of Justice to send inspectors to Perugia to investigate.

The letter to President Obama touches on many of the same points that have been raised by legal and forensic experts, former FBI agent Steve Moore, and others who have looked at the way the trial was conducted and been deeply disturbed at what they found. Prominent criminologist Paul Ciolino, who investigated the case for CBS news, called the conviction of Amanda Knox “the railroad job from hell.”

These voices, both in Italy the United States, and elsewhere form a mounting chorus of concern that Amanda Knox's human rights and rights under Italian law have been violated by a justice system in Perugia, Italy that is out of control. Why hasn't the State Department taken action to safeguard the rights of this innocent American citizen?   

Michael Heavey –
Thomas Wright –
Anne Bremner –
Mark Waterbury –

Tuesday, June 7, 2011

Shocking interview with Prosecutor Mignini: Amanda Knox exonerated?

Translated by Maurice R. Azurdia for Injustice in Perugia.

Meredith – Shocking interview with Prosecutor Mignini. Amanda Knox exonerated?

PERUGIA = The sound recording of an interview granted to a British reporter by the Substitute Prosecutor of Perugia, Giuliano Mignini, was delivered yesterday by Luca Maori, one of the defense attorneys of Raffaele Sollecito. This sound recording was delivered to the General Prosecutor Giancarlo Costagliola, who together with Manuela Comodi represent the prosecution in the appeal process of the young man from Puglia, and Amanda Knox, for the murder of Meredith Kercher.

This information appears in the weekly publication “OGGI,” in an article available on the stands tomorrow. A preview of the article has been made available. 

“I delivered the disc without making any comments,” defense attorney Maori explained to OGGI. OGGI reports in a note that the disc contains statements made by Mignini during a long conversation with Bob Graham, a British reporter who collaborates with the tabloid The Sun.

According to OGGI, Mignini admitted that in the room where the crime occurred no biological proof was found connected to the presumed assassin Amanda Knox.  Mignini stated that “theoretically, Amanda could have instigated the crime even from another room.”

“A crucial quote,” stated OGGI, which is in contrast with Mignini’s theory which maintained that Amanda  had assumed a double active role: that of being the mastermind of the orgy, and an active element in the crime, holding Meredith still while Rudy Guede and Raffaele cut her throat.

Furthermore, the note continues, during the interview Mignini admitted with all tranquility that the scientific police failed to find biological traces because they did not examine everything due to “not having enough time to conduct a complete scientific investigation.

The appeal process for Sollecito and Knox, condemned to twenty-five and sixteen years in prison, although they both protest their innocence,  will resume on June 18, with the deposition of Mario Alessi.

Friday, June 3, 2011

Update on Anti Amanda Knox Blogger Peter Quennell: A Predictable Reaction

Peter Quennell
I posted an article yesterday detailing how Anti-Amanda Knox blogger Peter Quennell, owner and operator of, harassed a young woman and attempted to extort money from her. If you have not read the article, you can catch up on the details here: Disturbing Emails Expose Anti Amanda Knox Blogger Peter Quennell.

Peter Quennell responded to the article linked above with an outright lie by posting the following comment today on Peggy Ganong's website,
"There is much missing from those emails on her side and nothing from what continued on Facebook. Several are fabricated and not written by me."
It is laughable to think that any of these emails were ever fabricated.  Every email posted in the article linked above that was attributed to Peter Quennell was written by him and he very well knows this. If he needs to be reminded about exactly what he said, I can send all of the emails to him and his wife so that he can refresh his memory while trying to explain away his wrongdoing. He knows what he did was wrong. He complied with detectives when they told him to take the unauthorized website offline for that very reason. As far as the rest of Quennell’s statement above, the article clearly states that Quennell sent hundreds of emails to Jane. Jane’s privacy is of great concern. The entire conversation is not necessary to show Quennell’s reprehensible behavior. Nothing Jane said to Quennell warranted the emails she received in return. 

Quennell added another post on Perugia Murder File stating that he was "still standing" as if he had scored a great victory from a vicious attack, displaying no remorse for his actions and explained away his repulsive behavior by discussing how great he is.

As expected, a few of Quennell’s loyal followers rushed to voice support. Most comments have been nothing more than baseless attacks on me and have completely ignored Quennell's behavior. Quennell’s behavior is embarrassing and unacceptable, so I understand the need for Quennell’s supporters to be in denial.  However, to any reasonable person, these emails expose Quennell for what he really is.

Peggy Ganong, one of Quennell’s biggest fans, was quick to show her support. She accused me (once again) of defamation in a post on her website. This is no surprise of course, and her response further proves the point I have repeatedly made regarding her group’s battle cry to accuse others of defamation in order to distract people from the truth.

Ganong has accused me of several things in the past, none of which have been true. I have been hilariously referred to as a “paid employee” of the David Marriot PR Firm and she also loves to boldly claim that I use a "fake" name. Both of which are completely false. At one point, Peggy’s website was so obsessed with me, they even posted a picture of the United States showing where all the Bruce Fishers in the country resided. For months, both Peter Quennell and Peggy Ganong perpetuated a myth that I was a cameraman in Seattle, all stemming from a bad guess based on another Bruce Fisher's Linked-In profile.

Peggy Ganong in particular has become obsessed with finding out as many facts about me as possible.  In fact, now she has become so obsessed with me, she is using my name as her avatar on the forum she moderates---something I find simultaneously humorous and creepy at the same time.

Of course, I realize Peggy Ganong would love for me to post my home address online so her group of loyal followers could harass my family and send hate mail to my employer, but I think I will have to decline to fulfill her wishes for the time being. Peggy need not worry about unearthing anything spectacular about myself.  I am just an average guy, and I can promise that I have never stalked and harassed a woman as Peggy Ganong’s friend Peter Quennell has done.

I am rarely shocked by anything I read on Peggy Ganong's website but today I was actually a little surprised at the indecency.  Instead of distancing herself from Peter Quennell’s harassment of an innocent young woman, Ganong instead chose to blame and attack Quennell’s victim, insinuating that she is hiding behind a pseudonym and acting immorally in order to run an online smear campaign against Quennell.  (As an aside, Peggy should understand that it is in fact people like her who prevent people who have been victimized from speaking out in the first place. How can she then complain about anonymity?)

Here is the exact quote she used:
“"Jane" and "Bruce" have violated one of the basic underlying rules of netiquette. Having done so, one apparently now wants to hide behind a "Jane Doe" moniker, while the other has always hidden, maintaining his status as a virtual non-entity who has been hired to run an online smear campaign as part of his job description. Whatever else happens, "Jane" has shown herself to be someone who has no qualms about taking someone's money and then not living up to her end of the moral agreement”
The fact that this young woman wants to protect her privacy needs no explanation. Peggy Ganong's comments regarding this young woman are shameful, but not surprising. At this point, Peggy Ganong’s shameful behavior is what we’ve come to expect.

One last note: I recently posted an article discussing a teacher and his students that created a video in support of Amanda Knox. Due to a relentless attack on their school, orchestrated by members of the group led by Peggy Ganong and Peter Quennell, I made the decision to remove the article from the internet. The article was not removed because of issues with content; it was removed because I felt that it was unfair for the school to have to deal with the harassment. Even if an employer supports an employee 100%, it does not mean the employer should be expected to take on a cause that the employee believes in.

Thankfully thousands were able to read the inspiring story during the time it was online. If those who are currently attacking supporters of Amanda Knox (in a blatant attempt to harm their lives) ever decide to refrain from this repulsive behavior, the article discussing the class project completed by the teacher and his students can then be put back online. It is a shame that innocent people are being attacked for simply believing in the innocence of Amanda Knox.

Thursday, June 2, 2011

Disturbing emails expose Anti-Amanda Knox blogger Peter Quennell

Peter Quennell

I wrote an article earlier this month detailing the sexual obsession that has overshadowed the Amanda Knox case. The article included disturbing information about Peter Quennell regarding his treatment of a young woman. This article has been updated to include email experts showing Quennell's reprehensible behavior. Quennell owns and operates the website, a website that claims to exist for the sole purpose of preserving the memory of Meredith Kercher. Meredith was murdered in Perugia, Italy, in late 2007. Three people currently stand convicted for her murder, Rudy Guede, Raffaele Sollecito, and Amanda Knox. This case has been highly controversial, leading many to believe that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent. As the appeal moves forward in Perugia, Italy, for Amanda and Raffaele, the truth is clear for anyone who is willing to see it, Amanda and Raffaele had absolutely nothing to do with Meredith's death. Rudy Guede murdered Meredith Kercher and he acted alone.

The support for Amanda Knox has angered a small group who believe in her guilt. This group has gathered online to challenge those who are working to correct the injustice committed against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. The two primary leaders of this group are New Jersey resident, Peter Quennell, and Seattle resident, Peggy Ganong. Quennell and Ganong each have a website and both work hand in hand. The group's claim that they gather to preserve the memory of Meredith Kercher is not supported by their actions. Their actions suggest they exist for one purpose, and that is to spew hatred at Amanda Knox, her family, and her supporters. The group is often referred to as "pro-guilt" or "guilters."

Accusing people of defamation is a common battle cry of the pro-guilt group. They use this tactic in order to distract people from the truth. I have been repeatedly accused of libel by Peter Quennell. I was mentioned just this week in one of his posts on his website. Quennell needs to realize that the truth is the number one defense against accusations of libel. Everything I put in print is well documented and backed by facts.

Quennell seems to believe that I am somehow bound by Italian law and he predicts that I will end up in an Italian prison. He recently posted this bizarre comment on his website:

"Our lawyers are seeing “Bruce Fisher” facing judgments of millions or even tens of millions for his unceasing series of defamations. With luck he ends up in an Italian jail""  "

Another tactic of the pro-guilt group is to attack supporters of Amanda Knox in an attempt to not only silence them but to disrupt their lives. They have repeatedly sought out personal information for Amanda's supporters and have even gone as far as to contact their employers on numerous occasions.

Just this week Quennell's group targeted a teacher and his students for creating a video in support of Amanda Knox. Quennell's website posted contact information for the school and even posted a photo of the school's principal. Peggy Ganong's website joined in on the battle cry encouraging members to write emails and to send letters. Of course the teacher they chose to attack is an excellent teacher and has done nothing wrong but that won't stop Quennel from encouraging his followers to harass him at his workplace for simply believing in the innocence of Amanda Knox.

You can read more about Quennell's group here.
Injustice in Perugia does not shy away from criticizing those responsible for the wrongful convictions of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. We are also quick call out people online who post misinformation and outright lies about the case and also those who go out of their way to attack the family of Amanda Knox and her supporters. We have worked tirelessly to make sure that the truth about this case is heard and we have done so without maliciously prying into the private lives of those who disagree with our position. No matter how vile our detractor's actions have been, we have never resorted to their reprehensible tactics.

The actions of the pro-guilt group crossed the line of common decency long ago but most recently the group has further ramped up their attacks. The behavior of Peter Quennell has been most disturbing. Injustice in Perugia believes that information we have recently acquired about Quennell must not remain private. We believe his behavior is dangerous and we feel that we have an obligation to report the details to the public. For this reason we have made an exception to the rule when it comes to releasing personal information.  Those who continue to support Quennell should be made aware of his conduct so they can take the proper precautions to protect themselves.

Peter Quennell, has shown a disturbing obsession with Meredith Kercher. Not only does Quennell post many photos of Meredith on his website, he also writes creepy articles about Meredith, a complete stranger, imagining what she would be doing if she was still alive. Quennell also takes interest in several other young murdered women. Photos of Natalee Holloway, Elizabeth Mandala, Laci Peterson, and Sonia Marra are posted. Quennell limits his coverage to young women. No male victims are discussed.

Quennell's obsession with young women may seem harmless on his website but he took his obsession a step farther when he stalked a young woman looking to gain her trust and friendship. When she refused his advances, he attempted to extort money from her.

Quennell attempted to work his way into a young woman's life by luring her into a business deal in which he would create a promotional website to help build her career. She was new to the United States and Quennell's offer sounded pretty good in the beginning. Quennell proceeded to create a website telling the young woman that he was creating the site free of charge to show her the benefits of his promotional expertise. The site included many personal details of the young woman's life and she did not approve. The young woman was shocked at the website Quennell had created and also became concerned (and was warned by at least one friend) that his interest in her was not solely business-related. Quennell's emails were at times sexual in nature, repeatedly asking for her to take trips with him. He refused to cease communications with her when asked, and he appeared to her to be obsessed.

The young woman asked Quennell to take the website offline but he refused, demanding money to remove it. Quennell sent the young woman hundreds of emails encouraging (pressuring) her to work with him. This disturbing daily barrage of emails led the young woman to become afraid of Quennell. With the help of a private investigator she decided to go to the police. It was only after being contacted by detectives that Quennell finally removed the website ending this young woman's nightmare. 

Quennell has been instructed by the police to have absolutely no contact with this young woman. In fact, if, as a result of this article or any other catalyst, Quennell decides to disobey the instructions of the police and contact or harass this young woman, or repost the offensive website he created, he knows that he will be in violation of stalking laws, and will be subject to arrest. 

I know of other women that have been mistreated by Quennell that have chosen to stay silent for personal reasons. I encourage anyone that has been wronged by Peter Quennell to come forward. Exposing the truth will help to prevent Quennell from mistreating others in the future. Peter Quennell is one of the leaders of the ongoing hate campaign against Amanda Knox. If this information doesn't cause readers to pause and reevaluate what kind person Peter Quennell is and how credible his website is, nothing will.

Quennell sent hundreds of emails to his victim, sometimes fifteen or more in a single day. The young woman that Quennell stalked and tried to extort money from is in her early 20's (Quennell is approximately three times her age). She has only been in the United States for a short period of time and is still in the process of learning the English language. She is here in the United States pursuing her career. Her personal information will not be revealed by Injustice in Perugia, as these details are not necessary to detail the reprehensible behavior exhibited by Quennell. The young woman will be referred to as "Jane" and her career will be described as that of a "Dancer."

Here is a small sample of disturbing excerpts from Quennell's emails that caused Jane to quickly become uncomfortable with the "business" relationship between the two:

"But if I never meet your family and friends that is also just fine with me.  8-)  if you think it best  it remains a big secret, that could be a very good idea!"

"I should be back soon to looking way better than you have been seeing me! Your looking after yourself puts me to shame."

"I should tell you much more about myself. Women have always flocked to me for comfort and protection."

"Hope thought you should be eager by now to show that you trust me, not give me a hard time over small matters. She does kinda have a point. Please email me the address? I wont ever use it, never fear. She doesnt know about the phone number. Better we keep it that way."

"I dont much like hugging, but kissing on the cheek is something everybody does and all my women friends more or less insist on it. Hope gets a kiss on the cheek 10-20 times daily. You are the first woman ever to refuse and to even seem a bit horrified. And yet at the same time you shared a bed with Joan when you did not have to. If you are lesbian, I have no problem with lesbians - my best woman friend in UN is a lesbian and I know many - and I will keep it a secret forever if you want."

"You are a good chick. A very good chick. Tigress, you could go a long way. Just love you in those boots by the way."

"Also please ask me anything you like about my sex life and my relations with women, that is only fair and you too should be able to expect no surprises."

"For most of my life I was really very good looking (like you)(and Hope) or so I was told like 5000 times! So I was always being grabbed, and I hardly ever really appreciated it."

"I should not have told you we have separate bedrooms at home! At least without going on a while longer. You'd be surprised how many men and women especially if they are rich and have large homes prefer to have their own space. It is not necessarily a sign that they are short of sex or never spend the night in one another's arms."

"By the way, you and I were alone together in a room, and I was amused that you didnt even seem to notice. You were very relaxed, in fact, and I really liked and appreciated that. Remember where?"
"PS I'm looking way better too. Brown and really quite fit.More of that to come."

The emails referenced above can be read in their entirety below. As you read through the emails you will see that Quennell starts out very friendly. He frequently brags about his prowess with women, and his looks. He compliments Jane for not being suspicious of him. When Jane doesn't respond just the way Quennell wants, he gets angry.
You will see that Quennell frequently mentions his wife to support his position. I highly doubt that Quennell's wife knows any of the details regarding the "relationship" Quennell thought he was building with Jane. In fact on several occasions Quennell mentions that it's best that his wife does not know certain details.
Quennell offered Jane money on several occasions to help her through the tough times as she built her career. Jane told him repeatedly that her parents would help her financially. After repeated offers from Quennell, Jane accepted a cash gift from him to pay her rent. Quennell told her it was a gift that she did not have to pay back. From the tone of Quennell's future emails it was clear that he felt that the cash gift gave him a certain power over Jane.
Quennell convinced Jane and her friend to meet him in San Francisco to take photographs and video for the website he was creating to promote Jane's career. This trip seemed to give Quennell a false sense that he was making progress with his quest to become closer to Jane. The emails that followed contained topics of a sexual nature.
Jane became increasingly alarmed when Quennell kept moving forward as if their business relationship was a secret. She had no idea why anything should be a secret. She was also very uncomfortable with topics of a sexual nature that Quennell was sending in his emails. As you read through the emails it is very clear that Quennell was looking for more than a business relationship. Quennell repeatedly mentions his own looks, suggests to Jane that it is perfectly normal if she wants to ask him questions about his sex life, and even goes as far as to let Jane know that he and his wife sleep in different beds.
Quennells inappropriate emails were enough for Jane to realize that Quennell had other intentions and she politely suggested that they end their business relationship. This led Quennell to email Jane repeatedly with no response, refusing to give up on contact with her. Keep in mind the emails being presented here are a small sample of the hundreds of emails Quennell sent to Jane. You will see multiple occasions where Quennell tries different methods to entice Jane to email him back.
The constant emails along with the fact that Quennell frequently attended events where Jane was performing led Jane to fear for her safety. Jane was also very unhappy with the website that Quennell had designed for her. The site contained photographs of her family, childhood photos, and personal information that Jane had specifically asked to be omitted from the site.
Jane built up the courage to respond to Quennell and even though he had harassed her with dozens of emails, she remained polite as she suggested to him that they end their business relationship. She asked him to take the website offline and suggested that they go their separate ways.
Quennell became angry and threatened Jane's career, her citizenship, and her future, looking for anything that would help him gain control. He refused to take the website offline and even demanded the money back that he gave her as a gift. He was relentless with the emails sending ten to fifteen a day. The stress was too much for Jane and she decided to try and ignore his emails and accept the fact that the website that she did not approve of remained online.
While browsing through Quennell's websites, I became suspicious about the website designed for Jane. I couldn't imagine that Jane would have approved of the unprofessional website that Quennell had created. After seeing Quennell's behavior on his True Justice website, I decided to contact Jane to see if she approved of the website Quennell created. After Jane's initial shock that someone was contacting her to help her escape from her ongoing nightmare, she agreed to accept help to have the website created by Quennell taken offline. I put her in contact with a private investigator that helped her file a report with the authorities in her State. The detectives assigned to her case immediately saw that Quennell was attempting to extort money from Jane by threatening to keep the website online indefinitely. Quennell was contacted by the authorities to take the website offline immediately and was told to have no contact with Jane or he would face arrest.
Here is a small sample of dialogue between Peter Quennell and Jane. We are releasing a very small sample so that we can protect the privacy of Quennell's victim. All private information has been removed. The friend's name has also been changed to protect her privacy.

Peter Quennell Wrote:

Hi Jane

Lunch was fun!! Seriously interesting for me and I think very exciting potential for you.

Do you have any time for us before you go to LA? What about lunchtime this or next sunday? If you like I can pick up you and the girl you live with, and we can drive outside Manhattan, maybe to Greenwich.

Peter Quennell Wrote:

Hi Jane
Helsinki already? Great! Don't return empty handed... just kidding! It sounds like you have already started on the project. I really smiled at that. I wont let you down with my contribution.

I hope my suggestions for shots around Helsinki were okay. And forgive me if I emphasize this again? Some video of you would do best of all. 

First, video can become YouTubes if you like the sequence.

Second, video is really good for the best still images for weksites. I can easily grab and process dozens of good images to post from a few minutes of video.

And you know far better than I do that your great talent is motion and those times I saw you in (dance) (nine times) and at the stage door (4-5 times) you were always in motion. You do take nice still shots and posed shots and model shots but I think motion shots show you off best of all. 

Photographers who photograph models often tell them to keep moving. This image of you in motion at bottom remains my favorite and it is like you are really soaring 

Below again: was that Swan Lake, by the way? And I wonder which version you prefer? I have been studying 4-5 videos of Swan Lakes and have a very strong favorite but I'd like to hear your choice first.

Peter Quennell Wrote:

Subject: Re: Hi from Europe

One more PS for now Jane?

There will be many of your friends and family in the Helsinki videos and photos,  right?!

Jane Wrote:

No, my parents don't want to be involved in that. And also I don't think it's a good idea to bring everyone from my life to this project. The website is mainly for [my career], right? So I don't think we should bring everything on that site.I don't want people to know every single thing about me. I want it to stay pretty much in [my career]. A little bit more maybe, but no family and no boyfriends. It's not necessary at all..


The next email is Quennell's response to Jane's concern that Quennell is following her around to her different events.

Peter Quennell Wrote:

Subject: You wonder why I was at the stage door?!

Does it seem a bit peculiar?! That thought made me laugh. They are peculiar, those people, though all of them very nice and I like the shy young girls that wait.

Well, the reason is we go to a lot of shows, and we have found most actors just love to chat later. My list of big stars who I chatted with must be hundreds of names long.

The Geneva girls wanted to go to the stage door and so we were there four times last year - we never talked with any dancers but we liked to see them close up and to hear them.

This year I continued to go to the stage door without them (they couldnt come over - not enough money - though I offered to pay!)

I saw you come out each time, but didnt ever think to talk. Then I wanted that signature (they have it) and I upset you (or so I thought) and I wrote and you wrote and we began.

The reason I am so driven to do a good site for you is not only your presence and your talent - but also how incredibly unfair was this layoff. That should never have happened to you.

I laughed when you said in an interview you might have to marry an American to stay. I am sure you will! But the website is there just to be quite sure that you do!!

In a way, I guess I am offering to be your sponsor - but the website will be far better than cash. It could give you a lifetime of happy careers. My small gift back.

In the email below Peter comments on his improved appearance.

Peter Quennell Wrote:

I should be back soon to looking way better than you have been seeing me! Your looking after yourself puts me to shame.

Thanks for that. I really needed it.

In the email below Quennell mentions that it's nice that Jane is not suspicious of him. He also suggests that they keep their relationship a secret from her family.

Peter Quennell Wrote:

Long before I ever met you I knew you had a fascinating talent, and (from looking at the internet) maybe not too much help in doing the "non-dancer" things (did you see how many people [edit] had around her?!)

Its quite natural that I offer to boost you - its what I have always done ("grow value") which is to boost people and groups, in the UN and also in the US and so on - and I am really very good at it, thousands of successes and no failures.

And its really nothing different from what I already offer to the Geneva 4. I give them some beds in NYC and drive them around, and send them news and advice to Geneva, and buy them tickets to [shows].

One of the really nice things about you is how you seem to accept this without suspicion. Your success means a lot to me and that is absolutely enough for me, all I really want out of this, no new friends or glory.

I have often offered to meet your family and friends because it worked out so well when I did that with the Geneva 4 and it is one option if you want to explain why you and me are working together.

But if I never meet your family and friends that is also just fine with me.  8-)  All the time I will try to do what is most helpful to your success and if you think it best  it remains a big secret, that could be a very good idea!

See ya. More tonight - if they have internet in these remote places... No moose seen yet but I hope!

The next few emails discuss the trip Quennell organized for Jane and her friend.
Peter Quennell Wrote:

Ha ha!Thesemsgs are starting to cross one another! Maybe I should only write every 3 days.

When I wrote to you about the trip (please check back?) I said Hope had to fly back early (I said that on Rockefeller Center too) and I asked you 2-3 times to bring someone so you would be relaxed. I even suggested maybe Joan.

If you and Joan have only a week available I think we should do it another time. Yes we can drive LA to NYC in 5-6 days via Vegas and the scenery, but that leaves you no time for LA and LA could be really important for future gigs.

What might be best now is I drive back alone, I get the Esmeralda YouTube up on AA and any new photos and interviews, I maybe come to a Nutcracker to get some new video, and I get you a ticket to LA in the fall.

I hate that you worry about money. When you need some please give me any mailing address? 

That Esmeralda is so wonderful. You are such a natural. I am really pleased to be helping a little. (I am also pretty amazed! )

Jane Wrote: 

I don't want you to worry about my money situation. I'm trying to save as much as I can.

In the email below Quennell seems to confuse business with pleasure. It's still subtle at this point.
Peter Quennell Wrote:

So I talked you and Joan out of the trip? All day I hoped you would argue! Maybe for the best. Career must come first, we both agree. But if you do find time free tell me by middle of next week and I'll send air tkts for two. Best city would be San Francisco 18 or 19 September and we'd be home 25 or 26 September. Route could be from SF via Yosemite and Death Valley to Vegas, then the Utah canyons, Grand Canyon, more canyons, Colorado Rockies, and plains. Many shots and much talk and laughing..

In the email below Quennell discusses giving Jane money. Once again, he suggests this should be done in secret. The fact that Quennell wants to sneak around bothers Jane and she responds explaining that there is no need for secrecy.

Peter Quennell Wrote:

Wow! Okay consider the trip back on! S-F is wonderful and starting from there means I drive less and we see more. More later on the details, but I really dont think you'll regret it, the scenery will absolutely stun you (even most Americans havent seen it) and I'm very experienced at being on the road and good fun to travel with - and we have a great car. Poor Joan will have to listen to us talk 24/7! Just kidding.

Reason I seemed to blow hot and cold was this: I did not want to drag you all across America if what you really wanted was to be in LA and Santa Barbara. You are very smart and have good instincts, and I try all the time to read your mind, which seems my best way to help you. So I was only gently testing what you really wanted to do..  maybe I could have been more gentle!

Peter Quennell Wrote:
Thanks Jane. This is great. It is going to be really productive, and you are just gonna love this new place, SF is one of the most fun cities in the world, and you may want to come back again and again..Great [dance] there too.

The Newark to SF tickets will come through, I promise. I leave it rather late to buy them because prices then drop sharply. (You can always call me [edit] from any phone if you think I am leaving it too late!)

Also I will book rooms at the airport (hotels there are nice and the airport is really handy to all of the city and the parking very easy) and tell you which hotel, so if I am delayed (unlikely) you can head over there in a taxi.

I know you will need more cash soon so we could take care of that at the start. Maybe when Joan goes off to the restroom! I dont know if she knows but it seems smart and nice for you if its always just between us two.

Seems to me you should never say no. [edit] has quite an entourage and gets all the help, management, promotion and funding she needs so she can concentrate more on the dance. I'm convinced you are equally as interesting.

You'll need a photo ID at the airport but you know that, I think.
Jane wrote:

Ok, sounds very good. Could you let me know as soon as you find a hotel, 'cause we would like to know asap where we are going to stay, thanks.
I don't think we have to keep cash-thing in secret. Joan knows every single thing about me, and also that I don't have money, we are both in the same situation, so she would find out it anyways when I suddenly have more cash, heh. But it's up to you, if you don't want her to know, I understand.
We are very excited about this trip. Let me know as soon as possible all the details, so we won't have to worry.


In the next email Quennell works to gain Jane's trust by booking in a different hotel. He lets her know that many women find comfort in his presence.

Peter Quennell Wrote:

PS Okay now I am booked in a separate hotel. I always do try to read your mind and make you feel relaxed and confident in me, even if I dont always suceed.  :-(

I should tell you much more about myself. Women have always flocked to me for comfort and protection. My hostess's husband is away, so she's really thrilled I'm here..

Peter Quennell Wrote:

Thinking back on S-F it was real fun and good for us as a team - I was amused at all the things we both like: Europe, NYC, sushi,  radio channels and many other things.  I was also amused at your message yesterday responding to mine, which showed we now think pretty alike. I also suspect our intelligences and personalities are quite similar. All really encouraging.

Okay. To the idea. I was thinking all day. This might blow your mind. I hope it will. We can discuss next week. In my message last night I said this to you:

 Rent is no problem and you may as well face it, you need the investment from outside now so you can make the bigger income you are worth later. It is part of what we are trying to prove with the site - even dancers need a good business model, and this really is one.

As  I am now making quite an investment, I want to set it up so both of us never gets hurt by what anyone thinks or says. Remember I dont have your phone number or address and I guess I can live with that. But I have a real fear that I will sponsor you in a big way - and then suddenly you will stop emailing me and are gone and I never hear from you again. You know that could happen, if family or friends or colleagues get the wrong idea and they put pressure on you to quit.

And I also want to set it up so we both gain something really big out of it. You in particular should have a really successful career in several areas (modeling...) and end up with a pile of money to keep you going. Also US citizenship.

I think the best way to structure things safely and for a big income is for us both to share equally in a partnership or company for promoting the dancer and actress success model once we have success. These things are simple and quick to set up and they make things much clearer and more reliable and your poppa could watch over your interests.

You would do all we have talked about, as the first example of a big success, and so would I on the internet etc etc. Then when others with real talent want the same kind of promotional help (they are already asking) we do the same for them for some sort of fee; not much but not nothing and they would make much more than we ask.

There are several big advantages. I would be happier putting money in - and we could easily borrow more to grow. Neither of us could just disappear leaving the other hurt. You would become a manager of your own company, which always looks good and feels nice. You could actually tell everyone openly what we are doing instead of disguising or hiding it!!   8-)   Both of us could get an income from this, and after several years we could sell our company to a big group. Success story companies often sell for $10 million or more.

And most important for you:  it could get you US citizenship without you having to marry someone just for that purpose. I know couples where they married for citizenship and they are ALL unhappy. The one who gets the citizenship never ever stops feeling insecure and in debt to the other and just too scared to get a divorce if they want one.

Talk about this next week? And do feel free to consult with poppa. It may blow his mind too!!

Peter Quennell Wrote:

About the rent and costs for October. I am going to transfer all the funds you need (how much approx?) from my cash account with my strockbroker and I can do that mondaynigt or early tuesday. I dont know exactly when your rent is due (I think you told me) but I can do a fast electronic transfer to your bank or give you cash say on Tuesday afternoon.

Those new photos just stunned me. Again and again, I think I have seen it all with you - and then you go to new heights. You know I am not exactly new at watching dance and I mostly know what I am talking about. So....

Take care. Hi to our buddy Joan! Having her around is a definite plus for us both.

Peter Quennell Wrote:

Why so few emails?

I have put a number of questions to you trying to ensure we both get into something that works happily.  I am puzzled you are not responding at all. I thought this week you would have plenty of time to think and write.

You know I am not controlling and that you can stand up to me and that I am not moving in on you. We are potentially very very good as a team.  But  I still have one concern and it is a big one, a make or break one. I know from bitter past experience it could kill everything for us, in about 10 seconds flat.

I am reluctant to explain this concern to you in an email, but my emails about your future dates and a possible business agreement at least as a good cover were to try to sound you out and take care of it.  But you did not write back.

Do please see if you can write a bit? You need to be saying your share here.

Peter Quennell Wrote:

I was going to Europe soon but maybe now because of this just a short trip. I would like to move fast for your sake, we have really good material thanks to you, finally enough to start telling the world.

We have both waited for this and it will be real fun. And you deserve this. You may not want to go there, but the full business model I mentioned could make you among the highest paid dancers, perhaps a Mercedes sportscar and penthouse in your 20s!!That made me laugh when I figured it out. All to be explained for you to choose.

To meet Tuesday afternoon is perfect for me. How much will you need for rent and living in October? The full amount? To have you relaxed and secure is vital to our project.

Peter Quennell Wrote:

On Tuesday we should figure out a plan for your needs through december, and I will meet it on schedule, so you can focus on what really matters.  8-)

Remember I was pretty stunned - and shocked at the fix you could have been in if I hadnt figured it out. I was also really pleased I did, because it gave me a chance to show I am very serious about making things work for you.

Remember it was you, the night before, who insisted I come and get you from the city, because guys drink and drive - and crash. That thought was not in my mind till you put it there - and so of course it was still there at 3:00 am sunday!!!!

In the email below Quennell presses Jane to give him her address. He asks her for her address repeatedly without success so he then tries to bring his wife into the equation.

Peter Quennell Wrote:

Thanks for a nice meeting Jane

When I came home Hope asked (very nicely) what is up with helping Jane. I told her a few of the details and she thought the business model is a great one and you are just great as the star.

Then she became very shocked when I told her I will be making you big payments but do not know what your address is.  Sadly, like many employers in Manhattan, she will not hire any Russians any more, because they have let her down too many times. She says they have a reputation for taking and not giving. disappearing, or making big problems.

Hope thought you should be eager by now to show that you trust me, not give me a hard time over small matters. She does kinda have a point. Please email me the address? I wont ever use it, never fear.

She doesnt know about the phone number. Better we keep it that way. Have a nice time at Staten Island tomorrow. I will send the $2500 when you email back.

In the email below Quennell is irritated that Jane refused a kiss on the cheek.

Peter Quennell Wrote:

Hi Jane

I dont much like hugging, but kissing on the cheek is something everybody does and all my women friends more or less insist on it. Hope gets a kiss on the cheek 10-20 times daily.

You are the first woman ever to refuse and to even seem a bit horrified. And yet at the same time you shared a bed with Joan when you did not have to.

If you are lesbian, I have no problem with lesbians - my best woman friend in UN is a lesbian and I know many - and I will keep it a secret forever if you want.

But I think we agree no surprises down the road and I would rather you tell me now. This could affect how we run the site and the image of you we promote.

In the emails below Quennell lets Jane  know that it is okay to ask him about his sex life and he pressed Jane to explain why she refused the kiss on her cheek.

Peter Quennell Wrote:

Also please ask me anything you like about my sex life and my relations with women, that is only fair and you too should be able to expect no surprises.

Peter Quennell Wrote:

PS I will meet you today to discuss this if it is complicated and if you dont want to email a reply. But it is very much on my mind and I really would like an answer.

Jane's response to Quennell's questions about the kiss.

Jane wrote:  
Let me ask you one question.

This is business, right. So let's not go too personal. Ok?

We are only going to email about the site, dance and the people who are going to appear on in.


Quennell's furious response to Jane's email regarding the kiss.

Peter Quennell Wrote:


Okay let me run this past you again and hopefully we see things the same way if we keep trying. If not, then it's best we nicely say goodbye and I proceed with one of the other girls.

Right now we are at the point of go or no-go where I pay you the money and we begin. Although you call it simply business, you are not paying me anything, almost all the input is mine, almost all the gain is yours, and so it is not a normal kind of business at all. It is hopefully held together not by money but by a sort of mutual liking, friendship and trust..

It is obvious to everyone who sees it that the AA site is very respectful and promotes you as a sort of angel-like figure - never a sex symbol, although I suppose men do like angels for partners as well - and I have never urged you to be sexy, and I have never said that any of the images are sexy, and last night I even said posing nude could kill your possibilities.

Up to last friday night + saturday morning I had come to very deeply believe you were the dream candidate for that kind of site. I really was amazed.

Then although you still seem to wonder why, I was extremely shaken that you suddenly put everything at risk. Not just your risk but my risk. If you had been in a crash that night my life would have become a nightmare.

So for the moment, I dont trust you as much as I did.

Some trust rebuilding began last night. You reassured me that you see as well as I do the implications of your getting married for the wrong reasons.

Now about the kiss.

You acted very out of the ordinary over a peck on the cheek in a way any man would take to be peculiar if not insulting and really wonder about. I tried to stop warning bells going off, but I woke up in the night thinking WHY did she act that way.

It is not an issue of can I peck you on the cheek which matters little either way to me. It is that I mistrust the reason for that sharp rejection at a time when your instincts should be telling you: "I really must make the guy trust me".

Jane Wrote:


I don't know why you are making such a big deal about the kiss, but please try to understand that is nothing to do with you or with anyone else. It's just me, i'm not doing it and i'm not comfortable with it, at least yet. So don't take it personally.

In the email below Quennell tells Jane that the money he is giving her is hers to keep, not a loan.

Peter Quennell Wrote:

This is pretty good and very reassuring and touching and likable. I think that really is back to being the real you and I am really so relieved.

It was never the money. The size of the money to me is very small and my stocks go up and down more than that in a day.    

It may be made to look like a loan, but once transfered it is really yours forever. An investment in your success.

Peter Quennell Wrote:

 I know. And I am really glad you are excited. 8-)

I took the steps to transfer $5000 a few minutes ago. It may be there instantly. Any delay will be at your Chase bank.

If the money fails to make it for some reason, I will get cash from my account early tomorrow and meet you and hand it to you.

Jane wrote:  

Ok, sounds good. Oh, $5000? Why so?


Peter Quennell Wrote:

 Just so you can feel rich for a while! And liked, admired, wanted and trusted.

Peter Quennell Wrote:

PS Want to shoot some shots or video in Central Park sunday afternoon if it's sunny? I love it there then. If yes, bring Joan along!

Peter Quennell Wrote:

Hi Jane

Remember what Hope was concerned with? In effect that I pay you nearly $200 a day from now through december - and then you prove elusive and dont care..

I kept this Sunday free for you and gave you plenty of warning over several days. And at the last moment you let me down and say you are doing something else.

Sunday is always the best day for me to work with you because I have taken far too much time off work already, and given a lot of valuable time already to this project.

PS Jane

For better or worse I am judging you always against top people who made it! I have known plenty of top people and I am one myself and so is Hope.

It is possible you could be one too - I hope you will be a GREAT dancer and think you have the right talent - but please, you need to act smarter right now.

last night I got the wrong photos again. That should not really have happened. Please focus and be really helpful.

Peter Quennell Wrote:

Hey Jane

Always fun talking business with you. We both left really smiling, good sign. And I was amused at you checking out the "competition" in Geneva! They make sure to keep me sweet with texts so they always have beds here at our place in New York. Sure is cheaper than hotels. Like you, they are multi-talented and fun and you will meet all of them.

I think your best possibilities for good income and good boyfriends and our business model part two will come from covergirl modeling. There may be room for only one celebrity dancer of this kind in the US and why should you not be her?!

I'm game for making some video next weekend or next week week at City Center or anywhere you want to go like Central Park and Battery Park. We are developing a whole new model here always remember and our photos need to be our own special kind and not like everyone elses.

What about YouTubes of you just sitting and talking to the camera about this and that? I can think of 1 million questions to ask (and no, not that one again!)

1) Could we maybe meet at that Starbucks just across from Cooper Union? It gets crowded but does have wifi. And/or you or I could search that whole area for an internet cafe we can make our regular place.

Peter Quennell Wrote:

The website name Exciting Arrival dot com is available. I like it very much. Better than AA. Okay with you?

Once I check if it is available like this, we have to move very fast to grab it.  Otherwise they will make it unavailable to us except for a big fee.  :-(

Jane wrote:  


I was already sleeping at that time. How about just The arrival? Like you suggested in the other email.


Peter Quennell Wrote:

Yeah I sent that at about 4 in the morning! I had to post something on a site then - many of my readers are in Europe.

And you ARE exciting - that was very obvious yesterday, your looks and confidence and ambition and chutzpah are rising right in front of my eyes!

Please say yes, Jane?! Amazing Arrival is, I agree, a bit much!!

Peter Quennell Wrote:

Jane: You are sure you are all okay? Do you want a quick coffee before I go? That last msg sounded like perhaps you are a bit down. Pete

Jane wrote:


I'm totally okay! Why wouldn't I be. I have plenty on things to do today..I've been practicing pretty much and a little tired from that, but that's just good.
Glad that the new site is up, cheers. And yes, modeling can be in two different sections, totally.


Peter Quennell Wrote:


No, it was just a possible concern. Your emails are rather short and you havent said much lately in response to mine. I thought I might be pressing you or something. Glad you're okay. See ya..

Peter Quennell Wrote:

Oops! Ignore that! Like you, I'm really pretty tired.

You had agreed to meet me yesterday (I canceled), and it is in meetings and face to face chats generally that you excel and do all thats ever necessary.

I send u emails in part because I do need your input, but also because I hope they make you more buoyant and the more buoyant you are the better.

Looking forward to seeing you again next week. Face to face!

Perhaps I should add this as I never said it before. In my line of work (the programs) an awful lot of people's efforts and futures are dependent on me.

Peter Quennell Wrote:

Hey Jane

I hope you are doing fine. A soon as I return we need to take so many shots.  My new camera is a DREAM and you are going to love these ones. I think they should all be posed to make art directors and companies want to pay for you as a model. You should not need to give any more away for free, the commercial demand for you IS there.

I may have some time tonight and tomorrow night to do some work on the new site. I want to get everything over there, and then redirect everyone from the old site, so at least we only have one site!

There are 1.3 MILLION links on Google to complaints about YouTube stopping counting at around 300.  I understand the problem and will explain. Its actually deliberate! They want (and need) money and the problem goes away if we pay

I think I owe you a bunch of roses on this below. You like red or white or another color?

In the email below Quennell mentions his looks once again.

Peter Quennell Wrote: 

Hey Jane

I think you are RIGHT about the hugging and kissing when one meets people here! Mostly it is just a big nuisance.

For most of my life I was really very good looking (like you)(and Hope) or so I was told like 5000 times! So I was always being grabbed, and I hardly ever really appreciated it.

Most times when the women grab me like that, it feels like a sex thing. A few times it feels like they know it is a powerplay. I think the Geneva girls do it for that.

Okay Jane I do know how you feel. If you just want to shake hands... I'm happy.  8-)

Jane wrote:


Please take off the first and the third picture with me and Lucy, I look horrible in those. We agreed that you ask me first before posting new pictures.
See you tomorrow at 4.00.

Good night,

Peter Quennell Wrote:

This was a slightly grumpy welcome back! Best you can do?  8-)

Peter Quennell Wrote:

Jane, I also am incredibly busy - but I always make time for you, and I always try to send you nice messages. I know your dance classes and I know the hours and I dont want to affect those in any way. But that still seems to leave enough hours especially in the evenings to devote ten minutes to keeping in touch. Who are these photographers, by the way? Pete .

Peter Quennell Wrote:


It was not that you were not emailing enough that made me ask to meet instead next week. Even I had said earlier, dont email, because we'll meet.

The core problem was that the one email you did send me when I arrived back sounded quite unnecessarily cross. Read it and you will see.

In the email below Quennell lets Jane know that he and his wife sleep in separate beds.

Peter Quennell Wrote:

I should not have told you we have separate bedrooms at home! At least without going on a while longer.

You'd be surprised how many men and women especially if they are rich and have large homes prefer to have their own space. It is not necessarily a sign that they are short of sex or never spend the night in one anothers arms.

In our case we each have a lot of clothes and junk of our own which requires a room to hold it. Hope always reads at night, turns off the light quite early. and gets up at 5 in the morning. And I watch TV at night, turn off the light very late, and usually get up around 6:30.

By the way, you and I were alone together in a room, and I was amused that you didnt even seem to notice. You were very relaxed, in fact, and I really liked and appreciated that. Remember where?

And the word for the charismatic "you" that sometimes emerges is PERKY.  Google some definitions. You will not I think be unhappy.
Good night. Good going this evening, I thought.


PS I think how you approaching our project promises very well indeed for a good marriage on your part. Very few girls will be so totally prepared in every possible way. And I could write the book on girls...

Peter Quennell Wrote:


I was really a bit shocked tonight after the fun and amazing meeting we had on Monday, and the great one with [edit] on wednesday.

You seemed defensive, small, negative, unnecessarily argumentative, and forgetful of just about all the ideas we have already ever agreed.

The text you have me was useful but hardly exciting, and if you are going to block all ways to getting us some good images quickly this thing will never fly.

Maybe there are things I dont know?? I try always to be sympathetic.Lets maybe take a week off and see if your enthusiasm is still there??

I have the actress Angela Gots now wanting help to start a site so I can do that for now.  Tell me when you feel ready again.

In the email below  Jane lets Quennell know that she would like to end their business relationship.

Jane wrote:

Hey Peter,

I don't know what you wanted to say with that youtube. Why did you send it me?
I'm happy with my life dating guys, having real friends and a supportive parents. I started to work with you on the site, not give me advices in life. I'm a grown up person, in my best age right now and enjoying life.
I was very grateful when you offered your help regarding my career, and I fully thought you wanted to help me with dance. I think that's wonderful that you love dance and admire dancers.
The thing is that I don't need anyone to tell me how to live my life, that's why I brought it up in one of the meetings after San Fran, do you remember? I told you that if will work together it is fully and only going to be business, which means my career. Not my love life, not my friends, not my family. You agreed with that. But I don't see any difference.
I told you that I don't want your money, do you remember? Because I said that my parents will help me. But you said that it is really not a problem and that you want to support my career. Then I was that okay, if you really want to help me with dance, I am more than happy, 'cause that's what makes me happy, when i get to dance and improve my technique. Why I accepted money was because of my career. I only used it on that. But once again, you know that I'm gonna pay you back, right? I don't want to take anyone's money just like that. I am very very grateful 'cause you helped me, but I want to pay you back. You are not my relative and I can't take your money like that. I talked to mom and she said also that she agrees with me. She said that it's very kind of you to help me with dancing and stuff, but another person's money is another person's money. If it was my relative, it would have been another story.
I think it's good to stop now, because we have been having a few arguments already. You know that. And actually everytime you tell me that we seem to have a problem. If you think we seem to have a problem, why would you want to continue with me?
Peter, you have so many other sites, and I want you to concenrate on them. Don't waste time on me, if you even think I we are on different pages with this project.
Please don't tell me now that you were having a bad day and that's why you said we seen to have a problem. That wasn't the first time. The thing is that you've been saying it once in a while, so why would we continue? I don't want to hear that there is something wrong with me if I don't answet on my email on the same day or leave for the next day. I don't want to hear that I'm not focused if I'm having some social life with my friends or meeting guys. That's my life. I have dance, which I LOVE. I do it every day. But on my time off I wanna relax and live my life. Please do understand. \
Like I said in one of the meetings that I want the site to be a good add to my life. Do you remember? I said " we want it to be a good thing, right? pleasure for you and pleasure for me, right?" And you said "yes I promise not to be meanie to you anymore".
Then it happened again. You said that we have to trust each other in this business. But now honestly, I don't see that. Everything what I asked, is not actually happening. You kept saying that I'm the boss and what ever I want to be on the site it's gonna be like that. But when I say that I don't wnat those pictures, you won't listen. I said that I don't want my personal life on the site, and you won't listen. Even my parents said, that THEY don't want to be on the site, and you won't listen.
So I don't really understand?
It doesn't seem to be what I was expecting. And I guess it doesn't seem to you what you expected either. So why keep going? We both don't want to get dissapointed anymore.
I would just keep dancing and focus on my thing. And you do your own thing.
I'm trying to explain this in a right way, not saying you were doing anything wrong, but that we were wanting different things and just can't stay on the same pages. That's all.
I think you are a wonderful person that you have so much passion to help people and do amazing sites. This is just not for me.
I don't want to make you feel bad or anything, I just want you to understand that I'm not the person for this.

Take care,


Peter Quennell Wrote:


"You know us girls, we have our days.." What? You were having your period or PMS? If so, its better you warn me, other girls often do. Better to warn than risk breakup.

If it wasnt this, we do seem to have a real problem. We seems to have VERY different concepts of the project. We can meet monday and see if we can figure out what to do.

Before I read this, below I was tossing up between "she has deep-down very little confidence in her looks" and "this praise by [edit], Joan and me is really going to her head".

Is this you?  [youtube link removed] If yes as I rather suspect, thats a fourth - and best - reason.

In the email below Jane lets Quennell know once again that she would like to end their business relationship.

Jane wrote:


I'm not back being sad. Everything is very good and I'm waiting for rehearsals to start.
As I told you my parents help me with money and I have great friends here in the city. Lucy has been always a big support to me also. So there are many people who actually are pulling for me. You sound like I'm misarable or something. I am a young girl, full of energy and living my life fully right now.

As I told you I'm not a person for this. I'm not really getting anything from our meetings anymore.

If some day I get known, I want to deserve it. If I won't get that through dancing, I don't need it. I don't want anyone to "make" me famous.Like I told you in the beginning. I'm just happy when I get to dance and perform, and on my time off enjoy my time with my close people. That's all I need, and I have it. I figured that the site is taking too much time of my life. And if it's so much work, I rather not do it.

I didn't get that money what you are talking about. Thank you, but don't send me more money because my parents are helping me now. They are always there for me.


Peter Quennell Wrote:


You are criticizing me very unfairly. You make everything I say look bad. You sounded sad (or wounded, or something) in the earlier note so I simply said I was sorry for that.

Your whole note earlier was full of criticisms of me that actually could be taken two ways. You were very very tough on me and yet you said nothing about your own frequently angry notes or your indecisions over what should be on the site.

I worked very hard on your behalf with NO payback for myself. It was ALL to boost your spirits and career and do something for dance. I did many hours of work for you with material that was often frustratingly meager - and I completely rebuilt the site because you wanted the name to be changed. That took me two days.

I was warned not only by Hope but by others who have had bitter experience with Russians here (and dont get me wrong, I myself like and admire many Russians) that once you had the money you might abandon the project the minute something better came along with lots of claims it was all my fault.

You promised me - promised me - in your case that would never happen.

Well, last week you got your new contract, a very good one, and you came to the meeting friday seemingly determined to give me a very hard time, and now you are abandoning the project with lots of claims it was all my fault.

Jane wrote:


Read it once again. I'm not criticizing you, I'm saying how things are. And I'm actually complimenting you alot.
As I said I appreciate what you did. I understand that you worked for it a lot, but it was all your initiative. You know that. I was never asking you to do it. And I even said many many times that don't cancel your plans because of this and I was never never rushing you to do anything.
And yes, I did say that I won't just dissapear like many "Russians". And I won't.
You will get your $5000 back in the spring after I start getting my salary again. I think that's fair.
Don't say I'm not being unfair. I'm a very honest person and you can trust me in that.


Peter Quennell Wrote:

Again you get it seriously wrong. "I was never asking you to do it."

Actually you agreed and agreed and agreed, and you made many demands that I ALWAYS despite your claims took into account.

You have acted very badly Jane  Just as Hope and the others predicted.

In the next series of emails Quennell tries to continue the relationship with Jane after she told him she no longer wanted to do business with him.

Peter Quennell Wrote:

I think I have an idea you'll really like.

Jane wrote:
And that would be?

Peter Quennell Wrote:

Hi Jane

If you do decide you still wanna go ahead, we might make it a dance-only site,

Our hang-ups (which I think are pretty minor - creative process) are in those other areas, modeling and life, which are tough and innovative and there is no real road map to follow and you are somewhat reserved (so would I be).

For Monday? Take care.

Peter Quennell Wrote:

Hey Jane

The second mean email I sent you the other day really was intended as a joke, and the kids from Geneva would have laughed. But I know you ain't them - you are better.

I am sorry I mentioned what to you is probably the unmentionable, perhaps I misunderstood, and I had not realised you would take literally "lonely girl" I only wanted you to smile at the great guy.

So heres a promise.A new system.If you ever think I have been too mean, and you email me that two days in a row, I will pay $1000 to the ABT no questions asked to make up for it.

I dont think you are capable of being really mean - even in your own emails back, I saw you were trying to be mean nicely!!  8-)

In the email below Quennell tells Jane once again that the money was not a loan.

Peter Quennell Wrote:

Hey Jane

I am still at Newark Airport - flight is delayed but I will be flying off soon. I really need to say this to you before I go or I will not sleep well. This applies forever, regardless.

Dont return the money, ever,  regardless of what happens, and dont feel bad about it. My original undertaking still stands, that the money was an investment and not a loan.

Actually you could even win in court if I tried to sue to get it back! If the investment goes sour, I concede it is partly or mostly my fault for not managing things better.

I was playing bad games today when I was frustrated. We are so close to winning and yet you hesitate, and it just isnt getting across to me why you wont go the last mile..

Anyway. Enjoy! Feel no guilt! Take care.

Peter Quennell Wrote:

I think we may be on to something. I will chase it up when I get home

NBC still want to meet you. PLEASE stop being nervous and help me out here?!!

Peter Quennell Wrote:


By the way... You needed to whack me with a stick. Twice!! I really laugh at that now.

Glad you showed that you are such a toughie. More than ever now, I know you'll make it up there.

Peter Quennell Wrote:

Okay you can relax Jane. Nothing mean is getting posted.

I think you get the point? Please dont say nasty things about me to others that are not true? I know several people other than Lucy and Joan who know you, and one of them said you did.

I think you went a little nuts at both those recent.meetings we had - but  I accept I had pushed the site as your answer when you were more worried about your dance.

Two things to think about.

1) I dont think you have enough money to rise to a higher  plane with Lucy and I want to pay Lucy direct to give you special classes for as long as it takes.

2) Would you and Joan like to come to Las Vegas for 3-4 days when you have a break early next year especially for more photos for the site plus plusplusplus..

Anyone who saw them said the San Francisco photos made you look wonderful.All your amazing moods and looks there, funny, and great poses. They did you a lot of good.

But I have a much better camera than I had in San Francisco and also the movie camera for video. I will bring someone so you two go one way till 4:00 am and we will go another.

Quennell sees that his efforts are failing and he begins to threaten Jane with unsubstantiated legal action.

Peter Quennell Wrote: 

Dear Jane

I like you and even more your fabulous dancing and I have worked hard with increasingly good effect here to give the supportive help you requested when you were desperate.

I also paid you around $6000 to keep you alive [when you lost your contract], and I paid a trip to San Francisco. And I said that you had no need to pay it all back.

It was certainly rather surprising and difficult running this project with you. You seemed to me pretty lazy, have few ideas, and be unable to stick to your words.

And although I always respected your knowledge of dance infinitely and always deferred to you, you treated with suspicion and denial my expertise on websites and the web.

The very long email you sent me two months ago after I insulted you (or so you wrongly thought) by sending you a link to Lonely Girl was okay and sorta justified.

But then you agreed to meet, twice in four weeks, in what seemed a cordial way - and each time you were from the very start bizarrely ranting, vicious and vengeful.

Although I have only seen you for 6-7 hours (several with Lucy) since San Francisco, to get agreements and materials, you made it sound like days and days, and to no good effect.

You seemed to have invented some complete dark fantasy world about my interest in you, and you came out with untrue statement after untrue statement after untrue statement.

I never never accept to have dangerous charges floating around about me, and I have told you that a few times already - if anyone ever slanders me, I hit back quite hard.

Please now admit that your grudges and stubbornness and nasty claims were unfair, excessive and uncalled for, and retract them from everyone you have shared them with.

Or on legal advice it may come to this. First I may list on the site EVERY charge yyou made, with the real truth. And then, if I have to, I may put my lawyers on the case.

Do the smart thing, girl. You were in the wrong - and you know it.

Oh and if I was going to go nuts over a dancer as you seemed maybe to think... she would look more like Veronica Park or Diana Vishneva. All of my girlfriends do.

Its your fabulous dancing and (when you show it) the sweet side of your personality and funny grin that I really like. Nothing more.

This is an interesting email from Quennell as he seems concerned that Jane may be talking about him.

You never ever say to people I'm a meanie, right? (Which I'm actually not.)

The best way to help everyone (you included) is to say I am a really nice kind guy who really knows what I am doing (which I do) and who is not looking for any personal profit..

Quennell tries to lure Jane back to him once again.

Peter Quennell Wrote:

Hi Jane

They like what they are seeing and say they appreciate the help. Actions I (we) have taken could net them millions of dollars - I've done that dozens of times before, though usually on a much wider scale.

I have a number of new moves in mind for the 2 sites. Let me know if you want to sit and chat, I'd like that, this is exciting and good. Otherwise, I will just go ahead.

I am against setting out ideas for you in emails any more. I have read through all our correspondence (emails over 6 months) and my advice was very sound and nice. But I wonder now how clear it was to you.

In the email below Quennell changes his tune completely regarding the money. He tells Jane that she needs to pay him back. He tries to scare her by telling her she could lose her Visa.

Peter Quennell Wrote:

Hi there Jane

Just thinking. I've known you now for eight months - and for four of them, you havent said even a single nice word. Just sayin.... Unusual.

Remember I came into this with a great deal of compassion for you, after your first email and the meetings in June and (especially) after Helsinki. Not smart or kind to just throw that away. 


By mid March we need to have an agreement or a liquidation.
We cant leave it any longer because the $10,000 MUST be accounted for for tax purposes (you could lose your viza if you evade taxes).

Also I must move on developing and spreading the sites if ABT is to see any benefit from them in Chicago.

I have already sent you messages explaining both the downside of liquidation, which I think is considerable, and the upside of sticking to our original Plan A, which looks better all the time.

How are you placed around mid-March? Do you want me to draft an agreement?

If you do pay the money back, you said you were eager, and the parents or the Montclair trade union guy would make it up to you. True? I doubt it    8-)  but it would be good to really know.

In the email below Quennell makes more demands on Jane regarding the money that he repeatedly told her was a gift.

Peter Quennell Wrote:

Back to this tax etc issue again. Sorry to bother you but the accountant now says for this below to stick you have to actually agree in writing:

1) Either to help me in some ways down the road to advance the project as you promised me originally. I reckon between San Francisco and the last of the meetings you did about one days work.

2) Or to return the money I gave you to help you out (I said I would settle for half, which is $5000, though that still leaves me with a pretty big hit) and the websites and YouTubes would come down. .

You are welcome to set out some conditions and requirements. We can meet if you like. Or we can take care of them later. Make your choice and please email? I need to get taxes done before I fly.

In the email below Quennell tells Jane that she needs to pay him if she wants the website taken offline. He seems worried that he has behaved inappropriately in his emails to Jane.

Peter Quennell Wrote: 

PS Jane

If you do seriously want to get out and take down the websites and YouTubes you really need to do it right now. 

I have to be accurate and honest in accounting for the $10,000 as an expense or we could both get into serious trouble.

If you agree to pay the money back to get out and take down the websites and YouTubes I wont argue. If you think its unfair that you pay the money back (say $5000) please do explain why.

I had earlier thought the written record (emails) made me look bad. But when I checked them - actually they dont. There were only 2-3 jokes that you didnt get and a couple of impatient remarks.

Otherwise (and 2 of the girls in Geneva looked and agree) they were terrific advice, smart business, good for dance, warm and funny, helpful to others, and always very encouraging to you.

In the email below Quennell shows disappointment that the business relationship has ended and then suggests they start talking again.

Peter Quennell Wrote:

PS Jane

Frankly it is a little hard for us to know what to make of you. I have offered you a few times a very easy way out for you (pay back half the money) but not a peep came back on that from you.

You seem to us to have acted nasty deliberately so's you could hang on to all the money while doing almost none of the things you promised - example: you obviously gave [edit] more time than the little you did me.

But then, there is also your early childhood, of poverty in the USSR, where everyone had to fight tooth and nail. That moved me a lot. Nobody I met who went through that (and I know many) is fully at peace with the world.

Mainly  I want to see you start talking again because (1) it would be really good for you (2) I need some (secret) advice (3) we both need better stuff on your site. Do please reply?

In the email below Quennell lets Jane know that he is still watching her.

Peter Quennell Wrote:

I liked watching you again - I always do - and you looked pretty good to me. I suppose you'd find 100 things to worry about.

But Jane... you worry TOO MUCH.

You were also smiling that smile I like and very relaxed. Head back and mouth closed, it looks sooo classy. You are lucky to have it.

In the email below Quennell lets Jane know again that he is still watching her. He also lets her know that he is looking better.

Peter Quennell Wrote:

Tonight was absolutely amazing.
Jane, you are looking so happy and confident this season. And your dancing is so smooth and rehearsed. And your eyes are actors eyes and such a big plus. It seems our website didnt mess too much with your mind after all!

PS I'm looking way better too. Brown and really quite fit.More of that to come.

Quennell lets Jane know that he is upset that she is not responding to him. He suggests that his wife is angry that Jane ripped them off.

Peter Quennell Wrote: 


You need to say something please. Are you receiving my emails? Hope is not unkind and it is your fault she is getting upset.

Periodically asking questions is Hope. If you mean that, she says, will you be paying the $10,000 or so back? She really wants to know now..

I told you long ago Hope had examples of  being ripped off for money.  They were very nice till they got the money, and then they revealed a whole other side.

You promised me you'd never do this and I believed you and trusted you, but Hope thinks she did see you do this and there does seem good evidence.

She also thinks you made up unkind stories, like to Joan about Lonely Girl. Clear this one up for her? She wont give up.

Peter Quennell Wrote:

Hope is worried and angry at what you have been saying about us. You need to clear this up or she will do something.

In the email below Quennell actually suggests that Jane does not have to return the money if she agrees to work with Quennell again. He refuses to give up. He also shows concern that she is talking to others about him.

Peter Quennell Wrote:

I presume you actually are still reading...

Hope is one of the kindest people you ever didnt yet meet. She asked me to set the record straight.

Like me, she is widely admired, has done a great deal for others, and has no arguments with anyone - ever.

She admires your dancing and looks and she was happy we help you with the project untill you became odd.

Like the girls in Geneva, she looked at the emails and just laughed and wonders why you didnt.

Jane, she agrees we give you the money and more if need it if you get back to doing the project.

No hurry. Bring back some nice video from LA and Helsinki. You have a lot to gain.

And please... do watch your tongue with others? Things do get back to us. 8-)

In the email below Quennell is still trying to encourage Jane to work with him on the website that she repeatedly asked him to take offline.

Peter Quennell Wrote:


The website took a lot of work and there is already a great deal of value in it.

I dont see the point of destroying it just because for some reason you see yourself as a weak nervous kitten who occasionally feels she has to use her claws.

I have always thought of you really as a tiger (or tigress!) and I think you should go all out to show American niceness, humor and chutzpah.

I think it will transform everything about you and make sure you have a rewarding career.

There were certain times last year when I just KNOW I empowered you. You were very empowered at some of our meetings and in S-F especially.

And remember this: at our meetings at the Japanses sushi place in the East Village we ended up with a very very good agreement.

I never did understand why you went funny on me at the coffee shop the last time and proceeded to throw it all away.

You are a good chick. A very good chick. Tigress, you could go a long way. Just love you in those boots by the way..