Wednesday, November 04, 2009

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

Posted by Peter Quennell


A week ago we posted that Guede’s intended claims were really ugly.

Guede then was still intent on claiming consensual intimate relations with Meredith as his reason for being in the house at the time, even though nobody, especially not Judge Micheli, seems to believe that.

Now we seem to be getting a new and revised version from Guede’s lawyers [image below]. Il Messagero has the interview in Italian (links here and here) and the translation below is by our poster Tiziano.

Though there is no new explanation why Guede was there, this version seems to drop the very ugly claim that he was there for consensual relations with Meredith. It also seems to admit that he was a part of the struggle with Meredith, even though he still says he saw Knox only in silhouette.

And he never saw the final event coming, he was slashed by one of the others [see image at bottom], he attempted to save Meredith’s life with some towels, and he then fled in a panic. (He then of course went home, cleaned up, and headed out to a discotheque.)

For this to be a full U-turn to the truth and serious time off his 30-year sentence, Guede still presumably has to admit that (1) he was in the house nefariously, (2) he did see the attackers very close-up, (3) he can give a PRECISE accounting of the motive, and (4) he has VERY serious remorse.

He should look the Kercher family right in the eyes and say how infinitely sad and sorry he is that he played a part in Meredith’s passing.

Perhaps Rudy is getting there. He still has two weeks to do so. By the way, it is interesting, as in the image below, how often Guede’s two lawyers are being seen together these days with Mr Maresca, the Kercher family’s lawyer.

Verrry interesting.

RUDY ON THE ATTACK: “AMANDA WAS THERE, I TRIED TO SAVE MEZ”

Tuesday, November 3rd 2009

By: ITALO CARMIGNANI and VANNA UGOLINI

PERUGIA - Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, the young girlfriend and boyfriend, are the murderers of Meredith. “That night I was attacked by a young man who was armed, I heard the voice of Amanda and I saw her outline from the window.”

A little more than two weeks before Rudy Guede’s appeal, the young Ivorian already condemned to thirty years for the sexual assault and murder of student, Meredith Kercher, continues to defend himself, going on the attack.  He does so above all denying having “exonerated” Amanda during that chat, the Internet exchange with a friend while he was on the run in Germany.

He does so in an effort to explain why there are mainly traces of him in that room, dirtied by blood, where Meredith was slowly dying: his genetic imprint on the victim’s body and other articles, the print of his shoe with its bloody sole.

The prosecution has interpreted these signs as a type of signature from the murderer, but according to Rudy’s lawyers Nicodemo Gentile and Valter Biscotti [images below] the presence of these traces must be read in a different way.

“The explanation is clear,” says lawyer Nicodemo Gentile.  “The judge [Micheli] does not take the trouble to face up to this situation in his reasons for condemning Rudy.  But the only plausible explanation is this:  the other two accused strike the fatal blow to Meredith and almost simultaneously run out of the house, frightened by the victim’s harrowing scream.  On the other hand, Rudy stays in the room after struggling with one of the attackers, he plays for time in the attempt to staunch the wound with towels, he moves around the Meredith’s bleeding body.  This is why Rudy leaves traces and the others do not.”

Well then, why does Rudy flee instead of calling the police?  “Because he is afraid, he’s distraught.”  The lawyers have foreshadowed the fact that they will call for a psychiatric report about Rudy’s behaviour after the murder, about his disorganised and “disassociated” flight, which is regarded by the judge, however, as a serious indication of guilt.  “This is the disassociated flight of a young man who is overcome by what he has seen, not that of an assassin.”

According to Gentile, the two young people then “run away straight after the mortal blow, and then come back to alter the scene of the crime with all the precautions of the case.  The fact that the two move around bare-footed proves this, as is evidenced by the discovery of sole prints enhanced by luminol which belong to Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.”  Furthermore, “this reconstruction is perfectly compatible with the accounts of Mrs Capezzali and Curatolo.” 

The former gave evidence that she heard a scream and then the noise of someone running on the gravel in front of Meredith’s house (but a further four witnesses say that neither saw nor heard anything).  Curatolo claims that he saw Amanda and Raffaele in Piazza Grimana between 9.30 and 11.30 PM, in a way giving the two young people an alibi.  Yet the accused do not confirm this alibi: they claim that they were at home on the night of the crime.

[A problem for Guede is that] when the police entered the house at Via della Pergola and discovered Meredith’s lifeless body, there were no signs of the aggression Rudy claims to have sustained from the murderer… That is, there were no overturned chairs nor was any blood found in the living room of the house in Via della Pergola.  This is another reason the judge did not find Rudy’s confession credible. 

But, according to Rudy and his lawyers, among other things the cuts on his hands, still visible when he was arrested in Germany, are evidence that there was an attack by the murderer…  For Gentile “the wounds photographed and described at the time of the arrest in Germany are unequivocal signs left by the attacker’s knife.” 

So Rudy will present himself at the Appeal Court on November 18th with the intention of talking and he will say: “That night I was attacked by a young fellow armed with a knife, I heard Amanda’s voice from outside and I saw her silhouette through the window.”




Posted by Peter Quennell on 11/04/09 at 06:24 AM in Trials 2008 & 2009Guede appeals


Comments

The reason he ran away is that he, also, did something. The 2 others got him involved, maybe they wanted to humiliate Meredith and told him she just needed to be a bit “pushed” to agree to have sex with him, or else. But he was not attacked, and he was not innocent, even though the events took a turn he did not want.

The good thing I guess is that he is mentioning Amanda. If he changed his version so suddenly now, he may consider going all the way. Of course, what keeps him from doing so is that he IS guilty of something, maybe a “mischief” that turned deadly without him wanting that, but he was voluntarily involved in a very bad thing, and he knows it.

Posted by Patou on 11/04/09 at 07:18 PM | #

Who is Guede more afraid of, his fellow inmates in the sex offenders wing (where, at least, there are guards on duty) or whoever might jump him in the outside world, in retaliation for selling them out? I think a dyed in the wool coward such as he has so far shown himself to be would feel safer spending 30 years in nick. His life, pre- arrest, had been overwhelmingly devoid of usefulness. Here, at this late hour, is his single opportunity to stand up and be a man, by telling everything he knows. He has had two sober years to be freed from his delusions. Unless he is honestly mentally ill, he can’t continue to believe that Meredith welcomed him into her life or that he is free of blame for her death.

Posted by mimi on 11/04/09 at 09:47 PM | #

An article on ABC News International dated March 27, 2008 (I’ve just found it on the web, you can search it by using portions of the text below) has the following excerpt:

He [Guede] also told investigators for the first time that he clearly heard Knox’s voice in the doorway, although he does not claim to have seen her in the room where the murder took place, ANSA reports. Nevertheless, Guede did describe for police the clothes that Knox and Sollecito were wearing that night, the news agency reports.

My question is, does anyone know if the clothes he described matched what Knox and Sollecito were in fact wearing that night?  If so wouldn’t this on its own constitute strong evidence that he saw them that day?

Posted by annc on 11/04/09 at 10:58 PM | #

Hi annc. Very good point. I’ve searched the Micheli report and can’t find testimony on the clothing but it may still be ahead of us in the appeal.

Judge Micheli was extremely scathing of Guede’s original defense (just in case we havent yet made that clear enough!) and the analysis of Micheli by our poster Brian shows what a tough spot Guede remains in if he doesn’t really sing his head off.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 11/05/09 at 12:43 AM | #

Will any new testimony by Guede regarding his admission of seeing Amanda at the murder scene affect the current AK/RS trial? Or only any appeal?

It’s interesting that Guede’s legal team refer to “the other two” -  as if they expect AK/RS to be found guilty.

Posted by lilly on 11/05/09 at 10:51 AM | #

Hi Lilly. We were first told Guede’s testimony could be ported across to the other trial, and then we were told that as the evidentiary phase of the AK/RS trial is over, his testimony would only matter at their appeal.

But there is a possibility that Mignini could ask for the evidentiary phase to be re-opened. We keep getting buzz that he may have some huge ace up his sleeve - and maybe what Guede will say is that ace. 

Maybe the deal is already done? Maybe Guede’s lawyers are playing out some sort of kabuki dance to make sure Mignini’s ace remains hidden up his sleeve?

Who knows?!

Posted by Peter Quennell on 11/05/09 at 04:32 PM | #

I looked on the internet, and found this: http://www.repubblica.it/2007/12/sezioni/cronaca/perugia-uccisa6/rudy-amanda/rudy-amanda.html.

It is in Italian, but it says that Guede, the day he accused Amanda & Raffaele, gave elements to best identify the people that were in the cottage. He described particularly the clothing Amanda e Raffaele wore that day.

That would be nice if it is true - and validated!

Posted by Patou on 11/05/09 at 04:42 PM | #

I think the one thing people sometimes overlook in their ‘scramble’ to understand the rationale and motivation of Guede in his panicked ‘state’ is the fact he went to a disco after the murder.

Any truly ‘distressed’ individual who was overcome by the horror of being confronted with this sort of crime would retreat inwardly and certainly wouldn’t act so tactically as to go to a nightclub in a flagrant attempt at concealing any possible involvement with this crime.

Make no mistake, Guede knows far more than he is letting on and I’m (sadly) fairly sure he will take his secrets with him to the grave.

His ‘defence’ is of far more importance than the peace and closure he could offer poor Meredith’s family. I truly hope his shallow and selfish ‘defence’ fails miserably and he can take some real time to reflect on the part he played in this senseless and despicable crime.

Posted by Miss Represented on 11/06/09 at 10:10 PM | #

From another thread, reposted here for Commissario Montalbano.

This piece of news is a little off topic, as it relates to the appeal trial of Rudy Guede starting next week, and maybe you’re aware of this already since it came out last week.

It says that Rudy’s defense team found a witness who would corroborate Rudy’s version of the facts immediately after the crime. Apparently the witness will testify that Rudy’s friends confessed to her that they were indeed with him immediately after the crime (they had denied to investigators that he met them on that day) but lied to investigators because they did not want to get involved.

http://www.rainews24.rai.it/it/news.php?newsid=133807

http://www.repubblica.it/ultimora/24ore/MEREDITH-UN-NUOVO-TESTIMONE-PER-GUEDE/news-dettaglio/3732722

http://www.tgcom.mediaset.it/cronaca/articoli/articolo465260.shtml

Posted by Commissario Montalbano on 11/12/09 at 08:40 PM | #

Posted by Peter Quennell on 11/13/09 at 02:50 AM | #

Thanks a lot Commisario. We’d picked up a little on that and were waiting for a timely moment to update us on Guede. You have two fresh links that here that really help.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 11/13/09 at 02:53 AM | #

Can anyone say what implications this new testimony might have?

Guede does not deny that he was at the scene - and his story of complete innocence is too bizarre to be remotely believeable, so how does someone else seeing him immediately after the murder help him at all?

If he knew Meredith had been injured but met friends immediately afterwards as if nothing had happened, does that not make things worse? (Although he admits leaving her and going clubbing)?

Posted by lilly on 11/13/09 at 02:10 PM | #


Make a comment

Smileys



Where next:

Click here to return to The Top Of The Front Page

Or to next entry Is “Victims Rights Advocate” John Q Kelly Hiding Behind A Wall Of Silence?

Or to previous entry Two Years Since Meredith Was Taken From her Family And A World In Need Of Her