The Brutal Killing of Meredith Kercher – Part 4
Fred Davies in the fourth chapter of his critical examination of the trials and subsequent appeal hearings of Rudy Hermann Guede, Amanda Marie Knox and Raffaele Sollecito
The Trial of Rudy Hermann Guede and the trial Court’s findings (the Micheli Sentencing Report) – origins of the forbidden reasoning
As stated earlier, Guede was able to opt for a separate and fast-track trial from his co-accused. His trial commenced on October 28, 2008 and concluded on January 26, 2009. Guede was charged with sexual assault (digital rape by English law), murder and theft.
The following is a summary of the key findings made by the Court.
The central issue concerned the credibility of Guede because his presence in Via della Pergola 7 on November 1, 2007, when Meredith Kercher was murdered, was unquestionable. Guede’s strategy therefore was an attempt to minimize his role in those heinous events.
At the outset, to admit being present at the scene of the crime was inevitable. There was ample evidence already leading to his identification, namely, his palm print on the pillow, followed by the equally unequivocal results of the DNA analysis relating to vaginal swab, toilet paper, bra, handbag (purse), and the sweatshirt, as well as the latest fingerprint comparisons of his model of shoes "Nike" with those imprinted on the floor of Meredith Kercher’s bedroom.
When Guede decided to tell his own version of what transpired that night, almost 20 days had elapsed. From that time onwards, although the core of his story did not change, having analyzed the narratives of the accused, the Court concluded that the several accounts he gave were inherently unreliable. (Put another way, the evidence disclosed that his version of events did not happen and was not true.)
In summary, the trial Court rejected Guede’s account that there was a chance meeting between him and Meredith on October 31, and, that she agreed to meet with him on November 1. This was because he changed his story to fit the facts as to where Meredith had gone on Halloween; because there was no evidence placing him in the same place as Meredith on October 31 and no evidence from friends who accompanied Meredith that Guede was seen at the relevant location and/or was seen with Meredith. There were just too many holes in his story to bear a ring of truth.
The Court also rejected Guede’s account that he was let into Via della Pergola 7 by Meredith Kercher. Crucially, it was at this point that the Court was forced to speculate as to how Guede did get into the flat: because there were no signs of a forced entry following the death of Meredith. The only conclusion the Court could reach is that Guede was able to walk freely into the house.
Having regard to the biological and physical evidence the Court concluded that the sexual assault and murder of Meredith Kercher was by “multiple attackers”. At the outset there was an agreed plan to satisfy sexual instincts, but then the attack escalated to a murderous intention judging by the emergence of “a knife” (my emphasis), used in the first instance for purposes of threat. The understandable reaction and resistance by Meredith caused the attackers to subdue Meredith who was eventually stabbed, on more than one occasion, leading to a very painful death. The Court said this attack lasted well beyond the appearance (and brandishing) of the [murder] weapon, and significantly there was no evidence that one or more of the attackers “fled before the attack commenced, tried to stop the others, to solicit assistance, or expressed disagreement with the progression of the attack on Meredith” (evidence of complicity – author).
Having stated that Guede had ultimately participated in the attack and murder of Meredith, the court made a somewhat perplexing statement. Due to the absence of a physical weapon linking Guede to the stabbing, it declared that Guede was guilty even though he might not have physically delivered the fatal blow. As a pure statement of law, the Court was correct. By English and Italian law it does not strictly matter who struck the fatal blow or blows, as long as the co-accused (multiple attackers) “lent themselves” to the joint enterprise (ie, encouraged or joined in).
The author will analyse this finding later on. Of course, by implication, it added weight to the prosecution contention that Knox had let Guede into Via della Pergola 7 and, both Knox and Sollecito participated in the digital rape and murder of Meredith. As we shall a little later, the finding of fact made by the Micheli Court neatly traversed the issue as to whether one or more of the defendants had stabbed Meredith Kercher leaving it to the Massei Court to determine who was responsible. It also overlooked the fact that the stab wounds to one side of Meredith’s neck, possibly both, were not made by the kitchen knife found in Sollecito’s house. In other words, the prosecution had not located and could not adduce the sole or secondary weapon which had been used either to inflict the fatal wound (on the left side of her neck) or to stab the victim on the right side of her neck – although the Court could infer it was a small knife having regard to the blood outline found on a bed sheet in Meredith’s bedroom.
The Court found that there was no evidence Guede had staged a break-in at Via della Pergola 7 and there was no evidence that he had taken any property, not belonging to him, from those premises. He was therefore acquitted of the charge of theft. However, having concluded Guede had participated in the digital rape and murder of Murder Kercher, due to the aggravating circumstances, he was found guilty of the sexual assault and murder of Meredith Kercher. For those offences he was sentenced, inter alia, to 30 years’ imprisonment.
Analysis and Evaluation – the forbidden reasoning
The holding of a separate fast-track trial for Guede was to facilitate precisely what the Micheli Sentencing Report alluded to during the Court’s written judgment. It provided Guede with a golden opportunity to minimize his part in the attack upon and murder of Meredith Kercher; loading the blame on to Knox and Sollecito who, by this time were suspected to be the chief architects of the attack. It is submitted that the combined circumstances, including the illicit interviews of Knox and Sollecito by the State Police had already contributed to a conscious or unconscious bias against Knox and Sollecito, which blinded the public, press and organs of the State to potential shortcomings in the motivations for the crime and/or the prosecution evidence which for convenience has been dubbed “the forbidden reasoning”.
In one sense, the Micheli Court added to the furore by speculating or deposing as to Knox and Sollecito’s complicity when that was not the Court’s function. The only issue for the Court was to determine whether there was sufficient evidence to put them on trial. On that point there was, prima facie, an abundance of untested circumstantial and forensic evidence, even witness testimony eg, Antonio Curatolo. Although the Micheli Court was careful to stress that specific issues relating to Knox and Sollecito were to be determined at a later date eg,: “…on which the Judge of the trial also will be called upon to take decisions”, the damage had already been done.
On the one hand, the motive for Guede’s attack on Meredith Kercher was clear: an intention to rape based on a distorted thought-process evidenced in his pre-trial declarations supra. The notion that Meredith was even remotely interested in Guede was nonsensical and pure fantasy. Guede’s DNA was found in Meredith’s vaginal area. There can be little doubt therefore that the totality of the evidence proved he was guilty of her digital rape and by clear implication, even if another person or persons were involved, the prime mover in her murder. It did not take a leap of the imagination to infer that he was the person who subdued Meredith Kercher with a knife and struck the fatal blow. On the other hand, the motive for Knox and Sollecito being involved was far from clear. For example, their lack of association with Guede; the fact they had just begun an intimate and passionate relationship; until 8.40pm on November 1, 2007, they, unlike Guede had pre-arranged commitments.
Aside from Guede’s pre-trial admissions, unlike Knox and Sollecito, there was independent witness evidence placing him at Via della Pergola 7 at the material time. The reader is referred to the evidence of Mrs Nara Capezzali, Miss Alessandra Formica and Mr Giampaolo Lombardo in the section: Meredith Kercher’s murder. If one accepts the evidence of the above witnesses, even allowing for a few minutes either way, it can be inferred that the man seen fleeing the apartment was Guede. That sighting fixed the time of the murder at or about slightly after 11pm.
The reader is now referred to the testimony of Antonio Curatolo, who the prosecution called to establish that Knox and Sollecito were seen in the area of the piazzetta between 9.30pm and 11pm the same evening, but not Guede it must be added. If Curatolo’s identification evidence was correct, Knox and Sollecito must have met Guede in and around 11pm, almost immediately agreed to go to Via della Pergola 7 (for what reason one is left to speculate but to force Meredith to submit to sex is likely), entered the house, located Meredith and shortly thereafter carried out a sexual and murderous attack, thereafter fleeing in separate directions. The reader is left to determine whether this scenario or hypothesis sounds feasible. One might add that the hypothesis propounded by the Massei Court, in order to explain the role of Knox and Sollecito in Via della Pergola 7, when Meredith was murdered, although similar, is subtly different. One can observe that by the time the case reached the Supreme Court (Galati) and the Court of Assizes of Appeal for the second time (Nencini), the motivations for the attack, according to the prosecution and the Judges, was markedly different!
Micheli’s analysis thereafter conveniently sidestepped a number of crucial questions. These issues can be summarised as follows: (1) Guede’s motivations and character (2) Why was Guede at Via della Pergola 7? (3) How did Guede gain entry to the house? (4) The absence of a [primary] murder weapon. (5) The preponderance of forensic evidence placing Guede in Meredith’s bedroom at the time of the attack. (6) The paucity of forensic evidence placing Knox and Sollecito in Meredith’s bedroom (the “killing zone”). (7) The rejection of the theory that Guede acted alone (the “Lone Wolf” theory). (8) The staging of a breaking and entering; Micheli’s conclusion that Guede was not in involved in the simulation of the burglary; and, the acquittal of Guede for theft of items from the premises. (9)Conclusions.
Dealing with the above subheadings seriatim
(1) Guede’s motivations and character
As we shall see later the characters and mores of Knox and Sollecito came under the spotlight particularly at their trial (Massei Report). As was deposed to earlier (see: Background) Knox and Sollecito were not pre-disposed to more serious acts of criminality such as breaking and entering or handling stolen goods. Instead, the prosecution made great play on their smoking of hashish or marijuana and its likely effects on them. To level the playing field it is only right that the antecedents of Guede and his disposition to criminality are outlined.
Sometime between October 13 and 14, 2007, there was a break-in at the law offices of Brocchi and Palazzoli in Perugia. A window was smashed with a large stone (my emphasis) and a computer, cell phone, USB keys and a printer were taken. On October 29, a colleague telephoned Paolo Brocchi to tell him that a man had come into the same office to say that he had legitimately purchased some goods in Milan which had earlier been reported as stolen from those premises. That person was later identified as Guede (source: Massei Report).
On the morning of October 27, 2007, the principal of a nursery school in Milan found a stranger carrying a backpack coming out of her office. The stranger was apprehended immediately by the police and the person was identified as Guede. There were no signs of a break-in (my emphasis) and on a cursory check the only item missing was a small amount of change (money). However, on a search of Guede’s backpack the police found a computer, a 40cm kitchen knife (taken from the nursery school kitchen), a bunch of keys, a small gold watch (female) and a small hammer (often used on public service vehicles [buses] to break windows). The computer was later identified as the one stolen from the law offices in Perugia. As part of his stock in trade, Guede put forward a plausible explanation for his presence at the nursery school. He was subsequently interviewed and released by the police. A charge of possession of stolen goods was eventually brought in February 2008, by which time Guede was in custody for Meredith Kercher’s murder (source: Massei Report).
There is a further reference in the Massei Report to another incident involving a burglary of a dwelling in which the householder confronted the intruder who allegedly pulled out a jack-knife and threatened him. The householder only identified Guede when he saw his picture in a newspaper, after his apprehension for the murder of Meredith Kercher. The householder’s identification involved a declaration that “I think it might be him”. Given the fact that the date of the alleged offence was never specified, plus inherent weaknesses in the identification evidence, it would be patently unfair to rely on this incident as being credited to Guede. Nevertheless, one might say, the evidence is equally as convincing as that put forward by witnesses at Knox and Sollecito’s trial infra eg, Curatolo and Quintavalle.