Sollecito v Italy & Guede: Damning Incriminations Guede’s Team Says RS Will Be Stuck With
Posted by The TJMK Main Posters
Guede’s team in Rome and Viterbo have a number of cards up their sleeves against Sollecito.
Sollecito and his father and legal team have apparently filed some damages lawsuit in Florence for compensation from the Republic of Italy.
His intention seems also to be to sue Rudy Guede, for defamation. In the RAI interview Guede did pretty solidly place him at the scene of the crime.
This post and later others will suggest what Sollecito could see thrown back at him. We’ve already pointed out that previous legal threats and court filings went nowhere. We may of course see that not happen here also.
This is a pre-emptive rebuttal published by the pro-bono team working for Rudy Guede at Viterbo Prison. (He also has a pro-bono legal team in Rome now.) They are responding to an attempt by Sollecito to put his case to bed in the weekly Oggi.
As with Guede’s interview this includes claims that are very self-serving. But it does also highlight the kinds of problems Sollecito faces.
It is kindly translated and submitted by Guermantes, one of our friends at PMF dot Net. Guermantes in part used Catnip’s new translation of the Micheli Report explaining Guede’s original verdict.
First Shot From Guede Team
February 5, 2016
The Centre for Criminological Studies of Viterbo responds - on behalf of Rudy Guede - to Sollecito’s assertions made in the Oggi article of January 26, 2016:
Raffaele Sollecito responds to Rudy Guede: “How many lies in the interview with Leosini”
Raffaele Sollecito “challenges” Rudy Guede on stories told by the Ivorian on TV
OGGI, analyzing word for word the interview with the Ivorian, imprisoned for the murder of Meredith Kercher, has identified at least eight omissions and blatant lies aired without being corrected. Among these, the appointment with the girl, the denial of having performed thefts, the use of hard drugs, the content of the judgment of the Supreme Court regarding the placement of Sollecito and Knox in the murder house.
The story of Rudy Guede still stands up though. Here is why …
Viterbo - Received and published – We learned of Raffaele Sollecito’s indignation, who, in an article published by a well-known weekly (Oggi, ed), complains about the inappropriateness of the broadcast of the ‘Cursed Stories’ program, in addition to the way it was recorded and run without contradiction[uncontested].
On this point, it is hardly necessary to recall that Raffaele Sollecito had been the guest on a large number of programs such as Porta a Porta, La vita in diretta, Domenica In, Piazza Italia (Rai programs, public television), Quarto Grado, Pomeriggio 5, Matrix (Mediaset), Otto e Mezzo (La7). All this - before, during and after the trials / verdicts that concerned him.
In the article just published, he notes, however, that comments and observations about current events should be offered before the verdicts and not after. Otherwise we would be “in the presence of a surreal fourth degree of judgment.”
We respect this opinion but we would also like to add that another school of thought argues that trials should be conducted in courtrooms and not on the pages of newspapers or in television studios. And Rudy Guede has waited eight years until the end of all sets of proceedings (including those relating to Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox) before expressing his opinion.
Among other things, during a single television broadcast and not on the talk show circuit of national broadcasters. A choice, of Rudy, which should be respected. Because it is broadly related to the principles and values that characterize the Italian legal system.
Then, shifting the focus to the set-up of the program “without contradiction” [counter-arguments], it is necessary to point out at the outset that, in all those years of “Cursed Stories” programming, no one has ever complained about this mode. Moreover, Raffaele Sollecito himself was also the only guest “without contradiction.” Beginning with Porta a Porta of Bruno Vespa and ending with Otto e Mezzo of Lilly Gruber.
The [Oggi} article summarizes in eight points the alleged lies by Rudy quoting in some cases (not all) excerpts from transcripts or judgments about the case of Perugia. We try to respond to each of them, expressing the views of Rudy.
Rudy had no appointment with Meredith? It may be! But speaking of appointments, the Court of first instance expressed itself by saying that “it is normal for twenty-somethings in a university town to meet up in the usual places without having to first set up a notary’s deed. “ [Par. 206.50] (page 93, Sentence of the First Degree Rudy Guede). This statement may also be taken into account even in the case of objection to Rudy’s words as having no value?
Still on point 1, credence is given to a few statements by Mr. Barrow, without saying, however, that the same had not only debunked at the hearing all his previous claims, but had also been in conflict with Rudy as regards girls. Moreover, the testimony of Mr. Barrow was interrupted by “the emergence of criminal behavior regarding monetary negotiations with a television news organization” (p.52). So much so that the witness was deemed unreliable.
Source: The Micheli Report
 Mr BARROW, already interviewed by the Public Prosecutor on the 11th of December 2007, which is to say a few days after Mr GEUDE’s return from Germany, had declared to knowing Mr GUEDE for some years, having often played basketball. On that occasion, though, he specified not moving in the same circles as him, due to RUDY being a habitual liar, drinking and using drugs, not to mention annoying the girls by molesting them in public and trying to kiss them.
 As for Ms KERCHER, who he described as shy and reserved, Mr BARROW had said he knew her from their shared visiting of the night clubs in the town centre, and in fact he had seen her on Halloween at the Domus, where – he says – RUDY definitely wasn’t; nor did it appear to him that the accused knew MEREDITH, and according to him it was not in fact true that he had spoken to her or had met her.
 In court, Mr BARROW restructured his grounds, saying for example that Mr GUEDE used to drink but a bit like how all the other young men were doing it, even if he had often seen him drunk; he instead denied being certain about any drug use on the part of RUDY, about whom he had mentioned it only for having heard gossip.
And also as regards the molestations, he corrected the gist of what he’d said in remembering only once when the detainee had struck up a conversation with a girl, without knowing that she was actually Mr BARROW’s girlfriend, and a squabble arose: on other occasions, he had seen him pull a girl towards himself while they were talking, although describing it as a gesture common to many others of the same age.
 On RUDY’s lies, the witness limited himself to saying that one time Mr GUEDE had been accused of having robbed something in a discotheque from a girl’s purse [translator’s note: handbag in BrE], the accused had immediately denied it, but then it had come out on the grapevine that it certainly had been him; on the presumed certainty that Mr GUEDE had not been at the “Domus” on the evening of the 31st of October, finally saying (and in effect he could not have said otherwise, ab initio) that he had not seen him, without being able to rule out that he really was there.
 The testimony, which in practice had not led to anything of significance being acquired, was then interrupted by the emergence of the outlines of an offence by Mr BARROW, concerning negotiations of a monetary nature with a leading television journalist, in whose regard he had presented a claim of trespass (when in reality he had invited those reporters in asking them for money for an interview), and it turned out he had then put forth a further request for money to settle things back to normal.
Point # 2
Rudy is a serial thief? The article in question contains two sentences that actually relate to the same incident five days before the tragedy, namely his entering an asylum in Milan. A reprehensible episode. So much so that Rudy has earned a related conviction for it (i.e. for possession of stolen goods.). However, beyond this, there is not a single record of another conviction, nor the presence of a complaint concerning other items mentioned in the article. Not only that, but the same Sentence of First Instance refers on page 101 to the absence of a “previous criminal record”, Rudy not having been tried yet for the Milan incident.
[Par. 44]”…on 27 October 2007 (ergo, just five days before the murder) he had been identified in the Milan jurisdiction and had been charged without arrest [a piede libero] for theft, receipt of stolen goods, holding and carrying arms.
Point # 3
Rudy had left genetic traces in Meredith’s purse? In the trial papers we have not read even one time that Rudy’s genetic material was found inside her purse; if anything, only on the outside. And the difference is not trivial. In fact, finding his trace on the outside of the purse would allow to assume / hypothesize a simple movement of the object in question, while claim to have isolated Rudy’s DNA inside it would mean that the boy might have really went through it, the latter circumstance, which did not result in any conviction, was not confirmed because not supported by any element.
It is therefore in itself horrible and defamatory, the expression used in the [Oggi] article: “While Meredith was bleeding to death” Rudy “rummaged” [in her purse,] Also cell phones and anything else missing from Meredith’s bag were found elsewhere, without any fingerprints or traces of Rudy.
As far as first aid provided by Rudy to Meredith, his efforts were described even by judges who – still on p.101 of the Sentence of First Instance – conclude: “not being able to explain otherwise the presence near the body of three towels.”
Point # 4
flight into disco. As unspeakable as this behavior is, it is hardly necessary to mention that as regards Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox, the Court of Appeal judges commented that there were “numerous and varied ways of how human beings react, faced with tragic situations” (taken from the Supreme Court with reference on page 17). Why should the same not apply to Rudy?
Point # 5
Rudy is a liar and he used cocaine? It is true that during the indictments are read expressions like the ones shown in quotation marks in the [Oggi] article, but in many circumstances the same assertions are revisited and subsequently confirmed by the judgments. Moreover, even as regards Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox, it states that “the two have given versions not supported by objective evidence and not credible”.
Among other things, it is certainly not the case of measuring the credibility of all the defendants relying on the seriousness of the lies told; otherwise it would be appropriate to recall that Amanda Knox put at the scene of the crime an innocent, namely Lumumba, who only through an iron-clad alibi managed to get out of it.
[Par. 260.77] “It must finally be taken into account, still on the level of serious indicia of guilt and however arguing a contrario, that the two accused have given implausible versions [of alibis] or not substantiated by objective corroboration.
[Par. 260.78] “The circumstance of the missing memory or of the state of confusion, perhaps invoked with (convenient) reference to suggestive pressures on the one hand, or cloudiness of mind through use of stupefactants on the other hand, does not have concrete merit.
Point # 6
On this point Rudy says nothing special, so we do not understand just where the challenge is to what he said during the TV program.
Point # 7
The presence of Amanda and Raffaele at the crime scene. It turns out that during transmission Rudy have never claimed to have recognized the person he encountered that evening in via della Pergola. So we don’t understand the complaints about the alleged presence in that house.
It should be noted that in the Supreme Court ruling that absolves Sollecito and Knox is stated (p. 44) that “the hypothesized presence of the current appellants cannot in itself be considered as a demonstrative element of guilt.”
Why cannot the same reflection be taken into account for Rudy? Because the latter would leave traces “everywhere”? Rudy was there and admitted to having been there.
It should however be pointed out that this alleged abundance of traces must be scaled down seeing that on page 97 of the Sentence of First Instance it states that “the quantity of biological material referable to the accused could have been categorized, in effect, as minimal” [Par. 201], “ultimately nothing suggests that there was Rudy’s biological material in great abundance.”
[Par. 201] ”… with the conclusion that the biological material of Ms KERCHER was abundant, and Mr GUEDE’s, in proportion, was quite small.”
[Par. 9.3 on p.41 of the English translation (“pre-final”) of the Bruno/Marasca Report]: “…the supposed presence in the house of the current appellants cannot, in itself be considered as a demonstrative element of guilt.”
Point # 8
In the last point it is reported that the substantial reasons for the denial of permission to obtain benefits requested by Rudy is to be attributed to the “lack of critical review of what has happened. He has not showed any remorse or repentance”.
First, if you intend to bring back quotation marks, it would be appropriate to bring it [the quote] back as it was actually written. And that is: “…found that the applicant has committed serious crimes in respect of which he does not recognize his responsibilities.”
Why would he recognize [his responsibilities] if he claims to be innocent to the point of wanting to request a review of the process? Is it not his right? Or the rights that characterize the Italian legal system do not apply to Rudy?
If he really is a liar, he takes the consequences and responsibilities. But ultimately, in this dramatic story, it seems that it is widely assumed. Maybe - and we stress, maybe - far beyond his faults.
It’s getting slightly easier to envisage Guede cracking at some point if, and it is an if, Sollecito does actually take him to court.
I can imagine Sollecito may be emboldened if his damages claim is successful but given that this is Italy, this may be some considerable time away yet. Presumably Italy has a time limit on bringing defamation charges? I know it’s a year from the act of defamation in the UK because I’m currently bringing a defamation suit of my own, entirely unrelated to anything or anyone connected to this case.
At some point, assuming this does end up in court, Guede may well feel that in order to expose Sollecito and wipe the smug grin from his face, he has to give full disclosure; despite the fact that this will expose the truth of his own heinous involvement. It’s a fairly slim hope all the same.
More likely is that Guede may well change his story slightly to say that Sollecito was definitely in the house but that he was afraid to speak out because of papa Sollecito’s alleged crime links.
I wonder what Knox is thinking as she sits back watching this unfold? I’m sure she’s wishing Sollecito would just leave well alone but, depending on how successful he is, I can see her own narcissism and opportunism causing her to pile in as well if she thinks that Guede is getting hung out to dry.
I also bet she’s wishing she hadn’t brought the ECHR case either given the legal costs she’s incurring and the likelihood that it will be thrown out. This was done as part of the smoke and mirrors and scattergun lies exercise. Now that the fog has lifted somewhat, she’s looking much more exposed.
Very interesting times ahead indeed.
Parties bringing a defamation suit in the UK should make a point of thoroughly familiarizing themselves with the cases of:
David Irving v Penguin Books and Deborah Lipstadt
Dering v Uris and Others
Whistler v. Ruskin
Wilde v. Queensbury
Thanks Cardiol. Heh heh.
Impressive, that rebuttal above, dont you think? Guede’s team know their stuff. Sollecito’s suit may already be DOA.
I’d say these Viterbo lawyers outclass Bongiorno who within the profession is regarded as so-so at best. She screams a lot and is connected, and brings politics in on her side. But no great legal brain.
That is the “secret” of how Guede got legal offers of help from Rome. Many better lawyers would like to conspicuously argue her into the ground.
Sollecito lawyer Maori is already in Mignini’s crosshairs and Sollecito’s “lawyer” for the trial on his book - may not even have been admitted at bar.
Sollecito’s coffers may be nearly empty certainly diminished. What is Sollecito’s sister doing now as far as work is concerned? Sollecito himself can’t have much of a job if any and Papa Sollecito must be just about giving up. The lovely point of all this is that it will rattle Knox cage. Of course she will ignore it in the faint hope that it will go away. It won’t.
Nice. You always see far down the road. Guede may not win at Cassation (no retrial) but if he wins in Italian eyes by “leveling down” Sollecito and Knox - and his interview was a good beginning at that - he will have served out his time, and have the other two dangling by a hair.
The Knox appeal to ECHR was of course filed at the wrong time. Her legal process was not done. ECHR demands that it IS done. She will have to refile - and if she does ECHR will be sitting there looking at Marasca’s and Bruno’s pre-emptive decimation of her case as the last word.
Hi Grahame Rhodes
The net worth of the Sollecitos has always been a puzzle to us, but probably less than foreign media sometimes suggest.
The two apartment buildings Sollecito grew up in were nothing special. You can see both on Google Earth Street View.
Francesco lives in a nice enough bungalow in a gated community - but “gated” there simply means he uses a remote to open the gate, there’s no guard.
Vanessa lost her Carbinieri job of course and then her appeal. Last mention of her was last March when she jumped the gun in saying it was all over and done. There is a video of her here.
In the remarks outside Cassation she and Francesco dumped all blame on Guede and claimed “new facts” exonerating RS were discovered after his trial.
Both urged that they bore no ill-will toward the state, merely wishing that some had done their job a little better. Bongiorno said more or less the same thing. She shut RS down when he began to sound like a rooster.
Now he’s sounding like a rooster again and she seems to be sounding like one too.
I forgot the UK Defamation Act of 2013:
“includes a requirement for claimants to show that they have suffered serious harm before suing for defamation
removes the current presumption in favour of a jury trial
introduces a defence of “responsible publication on matters of public interest”
provides increased protection to operators of websites that host user-generated content, providing they comply with the procedure to enable the complainant to resolve disputes directly with the author of the material concerned
introduces new statutory defences of truth and honest opinion to replace the common law defences of justification. and fair comment.”
Thanks @Cardiol for the information on defamation within the UK. I’m already fairly well versed my friend but the information is appreciated nonetheless.
For avoidance of doubt, my case relates to a fellow who was tried and found guilty in court last year who had, in the process of committing his crime against me, said some very unpleasant and completely untrue things about me in the public, online space.
His bile attracted some comments which clearly showed his actions had damaged my reputation, even if only among the idiots who blindly follow him.
He’s a reasonably well known chap in Scotland and has appeared on television as a talking head on political matters and other subjects. He does have a variety of personal problems but in my opinion his sentence was fairly light, hence my intention to see him in court again.
I’ll leave it at that I think.
@davidmulhern, I know what it feels like.
Thank heaven there’s a rewarding remedy - at the perps’ expense.
Not to take it only rewards them.
Cote d’Ivoire Embassy visits Rudy Guede in prison
Where next:Click here to return to The Top Of The Front Page
Or to previous entry Italy Fights For Justice For A Murdered Student As The UK Government Never Did