Thursday, October 29, 2009

Prediction: Guede’s Appeal Will Totally Fail - His Intentions Ugly And Likely To Anger

Posted by Peter Quennell

[click for larger image]

Rudy Guede opted for the fast-track trial in front of Judge Micheli last October. His side of things went approximately as follows at the time.

  • Guede was legitimately at the house on the night to have consensual intimate relations with Meredith.
  • He was on the toilet when a bizarre murderous intrusion took place that seemed to involve Sollecito and Knox

That was about it. Judge Micheli didn’t believe a word of it. In his 106-page report he described the voluminous evidence for this being a three-perpetrator crime. And he found it totally unlikely that Meredith would have had consensual relations with Guede that night.

Nothing at all known about Meredith’s intentions that night (she had an urgent assignment to complete) or her chaste moral behavior supports Guede’s claim, and his trashing of the poor victim seemed to anger Judge Micheli.

And so the judge handed Guede the maximum sentence available, thirty years, for murder and a sex crime, and wrote up the case against him in a pretty ironclad way.

Now Andrea Vogt is reporting from Perugia that in effect Rudy Guede will testify to the following at his appeal.

  • Guede was legitimately at the house on the night to have consensual intimate relations with Meredith.
  • He was on the toilet when a bizarre murderous intrusion took place that seemed to involve Sollecito and Knox

Huh? The ONLY way forward now in the opinion of our legal watchers which could get Guede years off his sentence is at this point to tell the truth.

Which seems to our legal watchers and us to be that Guede might have been somewhat accidentally there at the house, and might have been somehow roped in by the other two to a planned taunting and humiliation of Meredith.

That might have then led to her cruel death.

Truth and real penitence and great sorrow and sadness shown to the Kercher family, and a real respect for Meredith’s memory, might win him some points in his appeal.

But this above? If Guede proceeds with those intentions, his thirty years in the sex-offenders wing will be confirmed for sure, and he will face a lifetime of contempt. 

Grow a brain, Rudy. Try to do yourself some good. And maybe get yourself some new lawyers.

The quality of your legal advice seems atrocious.

Below: Guede’s lawyers Biscotti and Gentile with the Kerchers’ lawyer Maresca

Posted by Peter Quennell on 10/29/09 at 05:20 PM in Trials 2008 & 2009Guede appeals


Guede has never been the sharpest tool in the box. His ludicrous tales of kebabs and ipods are an insult to the judges’ intelligence if not his own.

Right from the word go he has through his lawyers promised / threatened (from AK & RS point of view the latter) to tell the whole story and then failed to say anything meaningful. A saga that has been drawn out for two long years. Even before he had been brought back to Italy Biscotti promised that he would name the ‘real’ killers. Setting the form, Guede promptly failed to do so.

Now yet again we are told that he will ‘tell his side’ and it seems we are in for more drivel about towels and how it shows he could never hurt anyone and tried to help Meredith Kercher. Innocent people do more than fetch a towel from the bathroom; they call an ambulance and police, run for help and shout the roof off. They do not run away, bump into potential help but keep running, take a shower at home and then go dancing to establish a partial alibi.

But Guede will convince himself that he is playing a subtle and clever game of stopping the other two from directly talking about his role while reciprocating but still giving hints and nudges about theirs.

All three defendents have an ability to cling to the hope of complete aquittal in the face of overwhelming odds. Only when they fully realise that there is no possibility of just walking away will they even contemplate admitting any involvement at all.

Perhaps that day is nearing. Despite the customary spin from the lawyers, RS’ and AK’s reactions to the judges refusal of further independent scientific tests speak volumes. RS wept the tears of self pity. Tears that he could not shed when impassively looking at the graphic pictures of the crime.

And AK was apparently shocked by the decision. I think like many a budding actress she has overestimated her talent and deluded herself that the directors have fallen for her. Only when she reads the reviews will she understand how woefully short fell her performance. But she has been encouraged at every step by the antics of her family and may stick with the martyr’s myth to the end.

Posted by Faustus on 10/30/09 at 06:36 PM | #

my my Faustus how you hit the nail on the head! i do wonder if Rudy is listening to legal advice or continuing down his own destructive path, rather than admit to whatever it was that he actually did.

Posted by mojo on 10/31/09 at 12:21 AM | #

I don’t think 30 years is nearly enough. 

They ought to get an additional year for every time they have lied and I think it should be another ten for each and every time their lies caused an insult to Meredith. (Which means every time they open their mouths.) 

Rudy is as pathetic as they get.  It is as if they all just spit at the ground cloaked with their own arrogance. With every smile in court there is a wrenching kick to the stomach for those of us who love Meredith.  No one is shocked or surprised anymore. 

The numbness comes as the parents themselves demonstrate their malice and disregard for any decency or worth.  Truly one must have some dignity to lose any.  Seems like a whole lot of people don’t have a shred of it. 

Justice is coming.

Posted by Professor Snape on 10/31/09 at 10:26 AM | #

Rudy wrote in his diary:

“As far as I’m concerned, I don’t deserve to live…I fell, but don’t know how to get back up…Paolo has reason to say I am a Loser, and it’s true. My life hasn’t been easy. Yes, I’m inclined to tell lies…”

And, the sad facts of this case demonstrate that everything Rudy claims about his involvement with Meredith is a complete lie.

Everyone, including his closest companions, had Rudy pegged as a loser.  Meredith would not, for any reason what-so-ever, latch-on to a loser.  And while a loser may fantasize about dancing with someone like Meredith, kissing her, going out on dates with her, and having romantic sex with her - there is no chance in hell that it could ever come to be.

As far as Meredith was concerned, Rudy could never have amounted to anything more than being an annoying stalker. And Rudy’s self-depreciated personal diary accounts cast serious doubt about whether or not he could actually be a “successful” stalker in the sense of being obsessive or aggressive.  Rudy has never expressed the serious delusions of grandeur that one needs to be capable of such a thing – he’s just a plain old loser.

From Rudy’s diary writings, I find it very hard to view him as someone feeling so self-important or so deserving of something that he could not possibly lay his hands on that he would resort to violent crime, up to and including murder, to get what he wants. The picture painted is of someone who lives in an unmotivated fantasy world, sustained entirely by the drugs he takes and the lies he constantly repeats to himself and anyone who will listen to him.  He says so much in his own writing and his writings strongly indicate that while he knows full-well that it is all over for him he is simply unable to come to terms with telling the truth.  I don’t think he knows how to do such a thing.

Rudy was involved in the murder of Meredith because he was consumed by his fantasy, but he did not have the wherewithal to pull it off by himself. It’s one thing to say that Rudy was a Lone Wolf rapist/murderer, but quite another to actually describe a plausible scenario for the Lone Wolf that actually matches the murder scene evidence, along with all the other evidence that has been collected in this case. No one has been able to do this and it is quite clear - Loser Rudy required enablers.

Posted by Fly By Night on 10/31/09 at 09:37 PM | #

This is my first post here.  I’m curious why there has been no discussion in this blog or the trial records about the absence of the assailant’s DNA on Meredith’s shoes, socks, trousers and panties. Afterall, her body was found unclothed from the waist down, and, if these articles of clothing had been forcibly removed, surely some trace of DNA would have been imbedded in the fibers, similar to traces of RG’s DNA on her sweater sleeve.  Perhaps, then, Meredith removed them herself as she was undressing for bed.  Consider this possible scenario:  AK and RS decide to go out for the evening after the downloaded movie ends. 

They run into RG.  (We know from the records that AK and RG are acquainted.)  The conversation turns to the topic of drugs.  RG has a source, but no money.  AK is also feeling short on cash, having just possibly lost her job or at least had her hours reduced.  Given the animosity AK feels toward Meredith (which has been thoroughly discussed in this blog, and which I believe) she suggests they steal Meredith’s rent money for the purchase.  RG can attest that Meredith is not at home, having just been at the cottage within the hour (according to his own testimony), so they set off for the cottage. 

In the meantime, Meredith has arrived back at the cottage and just concluded the telephone call to her mother.  She retires to her bedroom to change into her nightgown and get into bed to study.  Just then the gang of three arrive, and not realizing Meredith is home, head straight for her bedroom where they interrupt her in the process of undressing.  Meredith demands to know what they are doing and heated words are exchanged.  AK becomes enraged at Meredith’s rebuff and goes after her. And there you have it - three people against one half-naked, vulnerable and defenseless woman.  It escalates into tragedy.

Alternatively, here’s where some of RG’s story may be true - when the gang of three enter the cottage, he heads for the bathroom while AK and RS head to Meredith’s room for the money.  The struggle and attack have already started by the time RG enters Meredith’s room, but he participates nonetheless.

I’ve also been bothered about the traces of mushrooms found in Meredith esophagus and how RS’s knife got to the cottage.  Here’s my theory:  Earlier in the day AK and RS talk on the phone.  AK is hungover and hungry and asks RS to bring her something to eat.  (Since it’s a holiday weekend there probably isn’t much food in the house with Filomeno and Laura planning to be away.)  So, RS gathers together what he has in his kitchen, including the mushrooms, and at the last minute decides to bring his own knife, having never cooked at the cottage before and not knowing what type of utensils they have.  He prepares a meal for AK and the leftover mushrooms are wrapped and put in the refrigerator.  They clean up and leave his knife on the countertop as a reminder to take it back to his place.  When they finally leave the cottage that afternoon they forget all about the knife.  There it sits in plain view in the kitchen, for AK to use later in the attack. 

Regarding the mushrooms, Meredith may have been a little hungry when she returned home that evening and ate the leftovers she found in the refrigerator before placing the call to her mother.

Posted by Ruby on 11/01/09 at 04:27 AM | #

Hi Ruby. The first part of your statement above is incorrect. Our DNA expert Nicki has explained repeatedly why there was no strong reason for any of the defendant’s DNA to have been on Meredith or her clothes. You can reach her posts via the right-column links on DNA. The rest looks like an okay hypothesis. There are so many now. Let us hope that Guede narrows them down to one before his appeal is over.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 11/01/09 at 04:46 AM | #

I can’t understand Rudy’s appeal defence. I can’t see what possible motive he can have for shielding the other two. He has been given the maximum sentence, and the Judge wasn’t remotely swayed by his story. His legal team must know he can’t possibly win an appeal with the same fantastic lies.

So why stick to the toilet + towels story now? Whatever fantasy world he lives in, he must see that he might as well tell the truth. Especially since he knows that the crime scene was altered to frame him - he can’t be keeping silent from loyalty. Did someone threaten him?

I can believe a version of events where Amanda and Raffaele are partly shielding each other and also genuinely believe that they will walk away scot free. (Amanda in particular seems to have no idea that people can see she’s told lies and is still lying.) Maybe if one of them cracks, the other will. It seems clear by now that conscience and decency alone won’t make them admit what happened that night.

Have any of them been assessed psychiatrically by the way?

Posted by lilly on 11/01/09 at 03:52 PM | #

Hi Lilly. Psychological tests were done on Guede, Knox and Sollecito in prison during the preliminary hearings in 2008 but the results were never released and not presented at trial.

In the case of Sollecito and Knox, those tests were the grounds for their not being released to house-arrest. Several judges concluded that they could be a danger to others, and remarked so in very stark terms.

So presumably what is in those psychological reports is not at all pretty. A smarter defense and supporters’ strategy might have taken a cue from that. As it is, they are probably cooked. 

There is some buzz in Italy that Guede might have been threatened, and that this beating-up he took from two other prisoners - which he brushed off at a hearing the other day - could have him lying awake nights.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 11/01/09 at 04:34 PM | #

Hi Lilly,

Here is a selection of comments from some of the judges who refused Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito bail on the grounds that they are dangerous and could reoffend.

Judge Claudia Matteini to Amanda Knox:

“As for the danger of criminal repetition, we must say that from Article 133 cp we can deduce that this includes the way in which the fact occurred and its seriousness.

The homicide of Meredith was certainly not an impulsive act. On the contrary, all of the small wounds with the last fatal one demonstrate cold calculation within the context of pre-planned conduct, the characteristics of which are clear signs of perversion demonstrated by a ‘strange’ enjoyment of her suffering.

Meredith was a girl full of life and enthusiasm, who - for the sole purpose of having some pleasure and sensation during a boring day spent smoking joints - was subjected to acts of brutality and cruelty that are disgusting to any normal person.

In such a situation the danger of repetition of the crime is certainly very high and can’t be considered to have diminished due to the mere passage of time, during which - as a reminder - you have never shown any sign of remorse or reconsideration of your life.

Even the behaviors you mention in your motion requesting release, which are presented as being in your favor, could be read differently in the opinion of this judge.

Your conduct after the murder is symptomatic of a personality which, considering your young age, provokes no small measure of dismay and apprehension, considering how extremely easy it was for you to control your states of mind.

You, together with Raffaele, were able to pretend to have called 112 faced with the accidental arrival of the Police, in order to build yourselves an ‘alibi’. This was cold and rational behavior, not at all consistent with the state of stress you say you were feeling because you had found this strange situation at home.

Your stress is not really credible if, as you say, on the same morning of November 2, you came back home after having spent the night with Sollecito and, although you were aware of the situation, took a shower, washed your hair, changed your clothes and went back to his house and then - only after many hours - sounded the alarm with this ‘famous’ call to 112.”

The Italian Supreme Court to Raffaele Sollecito:

“You are a flight risk because of the gravity of the charges. Your danger to society matches your weak character and your personality, which we can’t define in terms of harmless juvenile stereotypes, since the context includes the habitual use of drugs.”

The Italian Supreme Court to Amanda Knox:

“The restrictive measure cannot be denied due to the gravity of the crimes; your negative personality, which we have deducted from the investigation and from your behavior during investigation and court hearings.”

This report in The Daily Telegraph explains the reasons why Judge Massimo Riccarelli refused to grant Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito bail:

The American girl suspected of murdering British student Meredith Kercher is “crafty and cunning” and could reoffend, an Italian judge has said.

Amanda Knox, who calls herself Foxy Knoxy, is “unattached to reality” and her alleged role in the killing was “by no means secondary”, it was claimed.

Judge Massimo Riccarelli gave the damning characterisation of the 20-year-old in a report in which he outlined why he refused bail to her and her boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito.

He said the “severity of the proof to hand legitimised the custodial measure applied to the pair who are accused of murder and sexual violence.”

Judge Riccarelli wrote, in the conclusion to a report released four days after the suspects’ bail bid was turned down, Knox was “privy of any refraining inhibitions and could reoffend.”

“From the reconstruction there is the concrete possibility of reoffending and the [alleged] role of Amanda Knox was by no means secondary,” he wrote.

The judge described her as “crafty and cunning” with a “multi-faced personality, unattached to reality with an elevated, one would say fatal capacity” to repeat her offence.

“To conclude I have to impose a custodial measure.” (Nick Pisa, The Daily Telegraph, 5 December 2007).

Posted by The Machine on 11/01/09 at 06:50 PM | #

Thank you for your responses to my questions!

It’s interesting to learn that the assessments of Amanda and Raffaele were so chilling. Amanda’s frankly bizarre behaviour in the courtroom alone reflect her being “unattached to reality”.

And if Rudy has been threatened to keep quiet or else, with perhaps a preliminary pre-appeal beating to drum that message home, it might well explain his unwillingness to spill the beans. I suppose such a weak character and coward would cave in to any threats quite easily. But who knows?

Posted by lilly on 11/02/09 at 04:57 PM | #
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.

Where next:

Click here to return to The Top Of The Front Page

Or to next entry Half A U-Turn In Guede’s Appeal Grounds? Perhaps Guede IS Growing A Brain

Or to previous entry Smart Lawyers Are Asking: What On Earth Possessed Lawyer John Q Kelly?