IN THE NAME OF THE ITALIAN PEOPLE
THE COURT OF ASSIZES OF APPEAL OF PERUGIA
Composed of the Magistrates:
Dr. Giovanni BORSINI
President
Dr. Maria Rita BELARDI
Reporting Judge
Mr. Gianfranco FESTUCCIA
Popular Judge
Ms. Elide GRAZIANI
Popular Judge
Ms. Federica FRANCHI
Popular Judge
Ms. Rosalinda Cinzia ABRAMO
Popular Judge
Ms. Gabriela CASTELLINI
Popular Judge
Mr. Roberto MADOLINI
Popular Judge
Has delivered the following
RULING
In the Council Chamber
In the case
Against
GUEDE RUDI HERMANN, born 12/26/1986 in Agou (Ivory Coast);
- presently detained in state of precautionary incarceration at the Viterbo Prison-PRESENT-
CHARGED
A) with the crime quoted by articles 110, 575, 576 first section n. 5, concerning the felony
under section C) and article 577 first section n. 4, relating to article 61, sections 1 and 5
of the penal code, for having, together with KNOX AMANDA MARIE and SOLLECITO
RAFFAELE, killed KERCHER MEREDITH, through chocking and resulting breaking of the
hyoid bone and through a deep wound in the left and right forward lateral regions of
the neck [caused] by a stabbing weapon referred to by charge B), and hence
metahemorrhagic shock with a substantial asphyctic component incidental to the
bleeding (originated from the stabbing wounds affecting the left and right forward
lateral regions of the neck and from the contextual abundant aspiration of hematic
material [blood]), and benefiting of the night hour and of the isolated location of the
apartment rented by KERCHER and KNOX themselves, and also by two Italian girls
(ROMANELLI FILOMENA and MEZZETTI LAURA), apartment located at 7 Via della
Pergola, Perugia, committing the deed for futile reasons, while GUEDE, with the
complicity of others, perpetrated the crime of sexual violence.
B) Omitted [should be the abusive carrying of the knife].
C) of the crime quoted by articles 110, 609-bis and ter n. 2 of the penal code, for having,
in complicity with KNOX AMANDA MARIE and SOLLECITO RAFFAELE (GUEDE being the
material executor, in complicity with co-defendants), forced KERCHER MEREDITH to
suffer sexual acts, with manual and/or genital penetration, through violence and
threats, consisting of acts of coercion having produced injuries, particularly to upper
and lower limbs and in the vulvar area (bruises on the side-frontal face of the left thigh,
injuries to the vestibular area in the vulvar location and bruises on the front face of
third middle area [terzo medio] of the right leg), as well as of the use of the knife
referenced to by charge B) –
D) Omitted [theft of cash, credit cards and cell phones].
E) Omitted [simulation of burglary].
F) Omitted [calumny against Lumumba].
All the events happened in Perugia, on the night between November 1 and 2 2007.
APPEALING
against the ruling pronounced on October 28 2008 by the GUP [Judge for the Preliminary Hearing]
of the Court of Perugia, which found GUEDE RUDI HERMANN guilty of the charges A) and C),
considering this last charge included in the crime of aggravated homicide, and, considering the
reduction of sentence deriving from the choice of the shortened proceeding, sentenced him to 30
years of imprisonment, as well as to the payment of the costs of the proceeding and to the
refunding of the cost of his support during the cautionary imprisonment he was subjected to.
He was declared perpetually diqualified from public service and from whatever office concerning
tutelage and caring [curatela], as well as to legal interdiction while serving the sentence; he was
sentenced
-
-
-
to the refunding of the losses experienced by the civil party TATTANELLI ALDALIA, to be
defined in a separated trial, as well as to the payment of [her] costs of the proceedings,
defined in euro 2.800,00 for [lawyers’] fees and certified expenditures, besides general
expenditures, VAT and others;
to the refunding of the losses experienced by the civil parties KERCHER JOHN LESLIE,
ARLINE KERCHER CAROL MARY, KERCHER JOHN ASHLEY, KERCHER LYLE, defined in a
balanced way [via equitativa] in the sum of euro 2.000.000,00 each to KERCHER JOHN
LESLIE and ARLINE KERCHER CAROL MARY, and in the sum of euro 1.500.000,00 each to
KERCHER JOHN ASHLEY and KERCHER LYLE, as well as to the payment of [their] costs of the
proceedings, defined on the whole in euro 30.000,00 for [lawyers’] fees, besides general
expenditures, VAT and others;
to the refunding of the losses experienced by the civil party KERCHER STEPHANIE ARLINE
LARA, defined in a balanced way [via equitativa] in the sum of euro 1.500.000,00, as well as
to the payment of [her] costs of the proceedings, defined on the whole in euro 18.000,00
for [lawyers’] fees, besides general expenditures, VAT and others; OMITTED.
WITH CONSTITUTION AS CIVIL PARTIES OF:
1) LYLE KERCHER, born in Greenwich (British Citizen) on 07/03/1979 – (brother), formally
domiciled [for matters involving the trial] at the office of his lawyer FRANCESCO MARESCA,
Via dei Vecchietti,1 - FIRENZE
2) ARLINE CAROL MARY KERCHER born in Lahore (British Citizen) on 11/01/1945, living in
Couldson Surrey Fairdene Road, 24 (United Kingdom) (mother), formally domiciled [for
matters involving the trial] at the office of her lawyer FRANCESCO MARESCA, Via dei
Vecchietti,1 – FIRENZE
3) JOHN LESLIE KERCHER, born in Balham (British Citizen) on 12/11/1942, living in Croydon
West Croydon Queens Road, 27 (United Kingdom) (father), formally domiciled [for matters
involving the trial] at the office of his lawyer FRANCESCO MARESCA, Via dei Vecchietti,1 –
FIRENZE
4) JOHN ASHLEY KERCHER, born in London (British Citizen) on 10/21/1976 (brother) formally
domiciled [for matters involving the trial] at the office of his lawyer FRANCESCO MARESCA,
Via dei Vecchietti,1 - FIRENZE
5) STEPHANIE ARLINE LARA KERCHER, born in London (British Citizen) on 07/21/1983, living in
Portsmouth Southsea Telephone Road, 33 (United Kingdom), (sister), formally domiciled
[for matters involving the trial] at the office of her lawyer SEREMA PERNA, Via dei
Vecchietti,1 – FIRENZE
6) TATTANELLI ALDALIA, born in Tuoro sul Trasimeno on 03/12/1925, living in Rome, Via
Bradano, 26 formally domiciled [for matters involving the trial] at the office of her lawyer
LETIZIA MAGNINI, Via Vermiglioni, 16 – PERUGIA
HISTORY OF THE CASE
With the ruling of October 28 2008, issued following the shortened proceeding, made contingent
on the examination of the witnesses Ivana Tiberi, Mancini Gabriel and Kokomani Herkuran and on
the acquisition of documents apt to refute the testimony given by the latter during the preliminary
investigation, the Preliminary Hearing Judge at the Court of Perugia convicted GUEDE Rudi
Hermann for the murder of KERCHER Meredith Susanna Cara in complicity with Amanda Marie
Knox and Sollecito Raffaele ( judged separately with ordinary proceeding), with the aggravating
circumstances of the night time and of the isolated location of the apartment, occupied by
KERCHER herself, by Knox, by Filomena Romanelli and by Mezzetti Laura and with the additional
aggravating circumstance of trivial reasons and of sexual violence against KERCHER , perpetrated
in Perugia, in the night between 1 and 2 November 2007, and once having considered the crime of
sexual assault absorbed [included] in that of murder, making allowance for the chosen proceeding,
sentenced him to 30 years of imprisonment with perpetual disqualification from public office and
from any office pertaining to tutelage and caring and to legal interdiction while serving the
sentence; condemned him also to pay damages in favor of the civil parties, to be defined
separately, in favor of the landlady, Tattanelli Aldalia and defined in € 2,000,000.00 each in favor
of the victim's parents, in € 1,500,000.00 each in favor of her siblings, condemning him finally to
pay the legal fees of those civil parties; acquitted him then according to the 2nd paragraph of Art.
530 Criminal Procedure Code for the crime of complicity in the theft of the sum of 300.00 Euros,
two credit cards and two mobile phones to the detriment of KERCHER, for not having committed
the crime, not having come to light univocal elements capable of proving his participation in the
misappropriation of those objects.
THE FACT
At 12.35 on November 2 , 2007, personnel of the Postal Police of Perugia reached via della Pergola
7 , in order to track one named Filomena Romanelli, following the discovery, at different times, by
Lana Elisabetta and her family, of two mobile phones, in the garden in front of their home, one of
which having the Vodafone Sim Card handler relative to number 348/4673711 assigned to said
Romanelli .
On the location, outside the building, said personnel found two youngsters, identified in the U.S.
citizen Amanda Marie Knox, domiciled in that very house at Via della Pergola and in her boyfriend,
Sollecito Raffaele, who reported to be waiting for the arrival of the Carabinieri, called by them
through the "112" [emergency number], having they noticed, when coming home in the morning,
the presence of a broken glass, in correspondence of the room occupied by Romanelli and
suspecting that a theft had been perpetrated (later it will be ascertained that the “112” call was
made after the arrival of the Postal Police [this was demonstrated to be false already during the
first instance trial of Knox and Sollecito]).
The two youngsters told Inspector Battistelli they had noticed blood stains in some rooms of the
apartment, particularly in one of the two bathrooms and that the door of the room occupied by
KERCHER appeared to be locked, having Sollecito vainly tried to open it after having verified that
the same [KERCHER] was not answering to Knox's phone calls.
In the meanwhile there arrived Zaroli Marco, the boyfriend of Romanelli, tenant of the building
and with whom he had spent the night in another place, together with his friend Luca Altieri, they
had come at the urging of Romanelli herself, who was traveling around with a friend and who had
been warned by telephone by Knox to the presence of a broken glass in her room; shortly later
Romanelli herself arrived, who verified that nothing had been removed, stated that the Sim Card
assigned to her had been by herself donated to her friend and co-tenant Meredith, further stating
that both cell phones, also the one with the English Sim Card, belonged to the latter and pointing
out the oddity that they were not found in her possession, since, due to her frequent contacts
with her mother, she [Meredith Kercher] never separated herself from them; [Romanelli] noticed,
also, the strangeness of the locked door, so it was decided to break through that door, an
operation materially carried out by Altieri.
Once opened the door, those present were faced with a creepy view, with the room in complete
disorder and blood stains both on the floor and on the wall and it was noted, on the floor, one
foot sticking out from the blanket.
At that point, the Postal Police officers, to avoid any possible tampering with evidence, prevented
those present from accessing the room.
From initial investigations, it appeared that the deceased girl, who had a stab wound on the neck,
was to be identified precisely with the British student Meredith Kercher, in Italy since the month
of September, in the context of the Erasmus project and enrolled in the University for Foreigners
of Perugia.
The first inspections were carried out by the Scientific Police, which established , in particular, the
absence of break-ins of the entrance door of the apartment and of the gate, the presence of
shoeprints and of small bloody traces and footprints in the room used as kitchen and living room,
the presence of faeces and toilet paper in the toilet of the bathroom adjacent to the room of
Mezzetti, it not having been flushed, the state of disorder (emptied drawers, objects scattered on
the bed and on the floor ) in the room occupied by Romanelli, the presence, in the same [room], of
a broken glass in correspondence of the left pane, with glass shards scattered in the room and on
the internal and external window sills, of a rock and of a fragment of rock, other shoeprints and
traces of blood were found in the hallway, while in the other bathroom, used by KERCHER and
Knox, was noticed the presence of several blood spots on the sink, on the faucet, on the floor, on
the bidet, on the lid of the toilet, on the front door; many bloody traces were, of course, found in
the KERCHER’s room and, more specifically, on the inside handle of the window, on the inner and
outer panel of the open left door of a wardrobe, on a towel, abundantly soiled, placed on the bed
and also on the floor, where shoe sole traces were also noticed, with a concentric circular pattern,
more bloody traces on a bra, particularly on the right brace, which was found on the floor and on
other objects placed on the ground, while the body of the girl was on its back, covered by a duvet,
which left uncovered the left foot and the upper half of the face; the same [girl] was wearing only
a cotton shirt rolled up to the thoracic region (later found to be a double shirt), smeared with
blood, two more towels were found on the floor, one of them completely drenched in blood, the
top sheet of the bed, a blood smeared light blue shirt with zipper and blue collar and cuffs, and,
under the pillow on which rested the girl’s gluteal region, a strip of the bra with its clasps .
From the first technical assessments, carried out by the consultant of the PM, Dr. Luca Lalli, it was
ascertained that KERCHER’s death had been caused by a metahemorrhagie originated by a
vascular injury in the neck produced with a stabbing weapon.
The time of death was positioned, with a one hour margin of error, at 11 pm (i.e., between 10 pm
and 12 pm) of November 1st 2007; this on the assumption that her dinner with the English friends
was had at 9 pm, but , according to the GIP [Judge for the Preliminary Investigations], this time
could be anticipated to the timeframe between 9 pm and 11 pm, when taking into account Sophie
Purton’s statements, according to which at 9 pm dinner was already finished and at that time she
and her friend Meredith were on the way home (see order of application of the measure of
custody in prison of today's Appellant, November 16, 2007).
It was moreover ascertained that the wound had not affected the carotid artery, and that,
therefore, death was preceded by a rather slow agony, and this allowed to anticipate even more
the latest time [of death]; that the wound of bigger size (8 cm) was caused by harmful action with
a knife likely to be single-ended, which had caused the complete section of the right superior
thyroid artery and the fracture of the hyoid bone, with spill of fluid blood from both lungs.
The coroner then took some anal and vaginal swabs, which were handed over to the Scientific
Police.
Soon after the facts and [also] later numerous young boys and girls were heard, who had got to
know and spend time with the victim during her stay in Perugia, from said statements nothing
particularly significant emerged, except for a relationship undertaken by the girl since a few weeks
with one named Silenzi Giacomo, living, along with other boys from Marche, on the ground floor
of the house in Via della Pergola and who had gone back to his town during the holidays.
Romanelli, in particular, reported that Meredith was a reserved girl, who attended the same circle
of friendships of Amanda and that she had never let anyone in her room, with the exception of
Silenzi.
Knox and Sollecito were also heard, they giving different versions in date 2 and 5 November 2007;
the first , in particular, during the second examination, having warned that she had confused
memories for having smoked hashish in the afternoon, involved in the event the Congolese Diya
Lumumba Patrick, owner of the pub “Le Chic", where she herself occasionally worked, saying she
had met him at the basketball court in Piazza Grimana, that they went together to the apartment
at Via della Pergola, that she saw him withdraw with Meredith and of having heard, then, the girl’s
scream and of having covered her ears [with her hands], imagining her being killed by Patrick
himself.
The latter having resulted uninvolved [in the crime] in the course of subsequent investigations,
having provided verified alibis, was released from prison on November 20.
At this point the two [Knox and Sollecito] took the role of persons under investigation, also
because at Sollecito's apartment were found a pair of gym shoes, of the Nike brand, at least
compatible with a sharper print , found under the duvet with which the corpse of KERCHER was
covered, as well as a switchblade knife, which from subsequent investigations turned out to
present traces of Knox's DNA on the handle and traces of Kercher's DNA on the blade [incorrect:
that was not a switchblade knife].
During the interrogation made in the course of arrest validation, the two provided even different
version, that is not our interest to delve with, since theirs are separate positions, that are being
ascertained at the Court of Assizes, then defined in that context.
The involvement of GUEDE
During the follow-up of the investigation it was ascertained that, by comparing with a database a
palm print imprinted in blood found on the pillowcase of the pillow that was found under the body
of the victim, the results of which were reported by the Scientific Police in a note dated November
16 , 2007 , on the site of the crime had also been present the Ivorian citizen GUEDE Rudi Hermann,
already previously named by Bonassi Stefano, a tenant of the ground floor of the building, with
the nickname " The Baron " as being among the people who had attended occasionally the house
at 7 Via della Pergola, with the addition of the detail that he had fallen asleep on the toilet of the
apartment occupied by the Marche boys, where he had defecated, then forgetting to flush the
toilet, detail deemed of interest by the investigators as it had similarities to what seen in one of
the bathrooms of the apartment above; GUEDE, who had been subjected to the usual collection of
prints and other personal characteristics [rilievi] in relation to the procedures to get the
permission to stay in Italy, on 16 June 2005 and who on 27 October 2007 had been identified and
reported without arrest, in Milan , for theft, receiving stolen property ( a computer subtracted at a
law firm in Perugia and other material) and possession and carrying of knife (subtracted in a
school, where the defendant was found): a comparison with the 14 papillary print fragments
detected allowed to assign them, with absolute certainty, to the defendant.
Circumstances, these, which, together with the fact that, according to the landlady, GUEDE had
left his home in Perugia a few days after the crime and the fact that the he was used to hang out
at the nearby basketball court in Piazza Grimana and that, according to Bonassi, the evening he
had been a guest at Via della Pergola KERCHER and Knox had also been temporarily present, and
that he showed a certain attraction towards the latter, induced the GIP of Perugia to uphold the
request by the prosecutor of applying against him the measure of custody in prison, with the cited
warrant of November 16, 2007.
In the meanwhile it was acquired also the testimony of Formica Alessandra, who reported that on
the evening of November 1, at about 10:30 to 10:40 pm, while she was walking with her
boyfriend, Minciotti Luca, towards the Sant’Antonio parking lot, the latter, in walking down the
stairs of Piazza Grimana, was violently bumped by a black guy , who was running towards Via del
Pinturicchio.
Particularly important were then considered the statements of Capezzali Nara, living in Via del
Melo, a short distance from the house at 7 Via della Pergola, who reported that, having gone to
bed early, at approximately 9.30 pm on November 1, and having woken up to go to the bathroom
after a period of time she could not quantify if not with the generic expression "about two hours",
she heard a woman’s scream she defined as "harrowing" and that soon after she perceived a
shuffling of stones and leaves in the driveway of the house on Via della Pergola and she heard
someone dash off and run on a iron ladder that leads to Via del Melo and Via del Pinturicchio and
someone else running away from the driveway [of the cottage] in the direction of via del Bulagaio
or the University for Foreigners’ area, after that, while remaining awake, she had heard nothing
more.
A search for GUEDE was, therefore, made, questioning the people closest to him, as Tiberi Ivana,
his former teacher in elementary school and her son Mancini Gabriele, who provided details on
the boy’s past, on the difficult relationship with his father, on his transfer to an aunt’s in Lecco, on
his return to Perugia, on their efforts to find him a job, on his decision to go to live on his own at
26 Via del Canerino, on his temporary and unexplained estrangement in August, on his
reappearance and new disappearance, in October, on the new reappearance on the 20 th of that
month and further disappearance.
Mancini then stated that on November 12 or 13 he connected through computer, via the
Messenger system, with GUEDE’s account of the and after several unanswered message, to the
question of why he was running away again , GUEDE answered with the sentence: "I cannot", and
to the next question “Why you cannot?", he answered with the sentence "you know why", while
no answer was obtained to the question "What should I know?"
Meanwhile, through his friend Giacomo Benedetti, through contacts with the Skype program, it
was ascertained that the accused was in Germany (where, by the way, he had been denounced by
the Munich police on November 4, 2007, for providing the false name of Wade Kewin ) and during
the conversation, besides stating his non-involvement in the events, he showed his will of coming
back to Italy, which indeed he did, albeit he was arrested by the German police before crossing the
border.
Following the issuing of an European arrest warrant by the GIP, on November 20th 2007, in the
first days of December, having manifested his consent, he was surrendered to the Italian
authorities.
Information was afterwards collected by the people, mostly foreign, who were part of the group of
friends and acquaintances of GUEDE, about his movements, particularly from October 31st to
November 1st and the days immediately following.
In the meantime, the first results of the biological investigations were produced, Guede’s genetic
profile having been reconstructed using various samples, particularly that of his saliva found on his
toothbrush, from these findings it was ascertained that his profile was on a scrap of toilet paper
found in the toilet where the not flushed feces had been found, as well as, through the Y
haplotype, characterizing the mal individual and his eventual ascending and descending relative in
straight line, on the vaginal swab. Other traces of his genetic profile - mixed with that of KERCHER
- were detected on the bag found on the bed and on the sweatshirt, soaked in blood, of the victim,
while on the bra were found traces of DNA traceable to Sollecito .
The interrogations of GUEDE
Questioned on November 21st, 2007 by the judicial authority of Koblenz, GUEDE, having started
by saying that he was aware of the progress of the investigations since he was in contact, through
an internet-café of Dusseldorf, with his friend Giacomo Benedetti, reported that he had met
Meredith on October 31st, along with some Spanish friends, that he had flirted with her and that
they agreed for a date on the next day, at 8:50 pm; [he reported also] that he left home between
7:30 and 7:45 pm on November 1st; that he had looked for his friend Alex and that he then went to
Via della Pergola, without finding Meredith, nor the other two Italian friends of the floor below,
with whom he had sometimes played basketball; that he went downtown, where he bought some
kebab; that he went back to Meredith’s home and that, not having found her, he waited for a few
minutes; that he saw her arriving after eight minutes and entered the house with her; that they
kissed each other, once inside, without having sexual intercourse and that he went to the
bathroom; he remembered that Meredith complained about the money missing from her drawer,
suspecting Amanda, that she also accused of smoking drugs; [while he was] in the bathroom,
despite the high volume of the music he was listening on his iPod, he heard a knock at the door
and, after five minutes, he heard shouts and, quickly coming out of the bathroom without even
fully lifting his pants, he saw from behind a man slightly shorter than him, that he did not
recognize, and Meredith bleeding on the ground; he added that the man, at his question “what did
you do?” turned around and tried to hurt him a knife he had in his hand, indeed wounding him to
the right hand; while going back he stumbled but managed to defend himself with a chair, at that
point the man left the house, after uttering the sentence “black man found, guilty party found”;
that noticing blood everywhere and the stab wound on Meredith’s neck, he tried to blot the
wound with a towel taken in the bathroom, and that, since it was dripping blood, he took another
one; he realized that Meredith was trying to speak, but he was able to understand only the word
“AF”; he did not call a doctor because, due to all that blood, he was totally confused, then having
heard some noise, probably coming from the apartment downstairs, left the house and while he
was leaving, Meredith was still breathing; he went to his home; when he left Meredith’s bedroom
door was open, the shutters were open and the glass not broken [this in Romanelli’s room].
After having been surrendered [to the Italian judiciary] on December 6th 2007, in the interrogation
of guarantee in front of the GIP , the defendant referred about how he got acquainted with Knox
at the pub “Le Chic”, of having afterwards met her again going around, along with two Italian
friends he knew because he had played basketball with them, who lived downstairs at 7, Via della
Pergola, where they had invited him to; of having made comments, together with his friends,
about Amanda, when she had gone upstairs; of having gone to the bathroom, but flushing
regularly, after Amanda had come back downstairs; of having seen for the first time Meredith,
who had joined the company, of having seen her again at the “Shamrock” pub, on the occasion of
the England-South Africa rugby match; of having seen her again on October 31 st, together with his
Spanish friends, at a party at a house behind the “Pavone” movie theater, when they agreed for a
date on the next day, although he did not recognize in a photo portraying Kercher masked, the
house, rent by other Spaniards, where he hobnobbed with her; he reiterated his tale about the
evening of November 1st, adding that, once he had realized that nobody was at the house on Via
della Pergola, he went to see his friend Alex, with whom he exchanged a few words, reaching the
agreement to meet again later and that, while going to buy a kebab, he met his other friend Philip,
with whom he had agreed to meet again at Alex’s and to whom he confided he had plans to see a
person, specifying, upon request, this being a woman; he restated his subsequent meeting with
KERCHER, her bewilderment at noticing her drawer open and the missing money, her suspicions
about Amanda, whom she defined as “drugged”, adding that he had tried to calm her by cuddling
and that, then, they began to kiss and to touch each other in intimate parts [to have some petting]
and that he partially penetrated her with just his fingers, but when Meredith asked if he had
condoms, at his negative reply, the petting terminated and they recomposed themselves; he
reiterated that he had gone to the bathroom with his iPod, that he heard the scream, that he saw
the man, adding that he was wearing a black jacket, of the “Napapijri” brand, a white cap with a
red stripe in the middle and that he had brown hair, that he [the man] had said the phrase about
“black man found”, adding the uttering of the words “let’s go” and that, once the man had left, he
had heard on the gravel the footsteps of multiple people, without, however, being able to see
anybody from the window he had looked out from; he reaffirmed his attempts of rescuing the girl,
specifying that he saw her still wearing her jeans and with a white shirt and her breasts covered
and not half-naked; he repeated he perceived the word “af”, said by the girl and accounted for not
having called for help by claiming he had not anymore a cell phone and that he was confused and
afraid of not being believed, since he had left traces everywhere; he added he had put on [his]
shoes branded “Adidas”, which were, according to him, still clean, that he had gone back to home,
after having left [the cottage] at about 10:30 pm, and that he washed his clothes and then he
went, at about 11:30 pm, to Alex’s, where he also met Philip, subsequently, with both of them, he
went downtown, then to “Domus” and after 2:30 – 3:00 am, to “Velvet”; he also reported about
his whereabouts on November 2-3 and about leaving Perugia and his arrival into Germany.
On March 26th 2008, GUEDE gave a new interview in front of the PM [Public Minister, prosecutor],
in which, after having told about his vicissitudes once back in Perugia in March 2007 and having
denied being known with the nickname “baron” and having reiterated his meetings with Amanda
and Meredith, specifying that the meeting with the latter on the Halloween night happened at
“Domus” and not at the Spaniards’ house, and having also restated his whereabouts on the
evening of November 1st, entry into Meredith’s home included, the kisses, the cuddling and all the
rest, up to his going to the bathroom, he pointed out he had heard a ringing at the door and a
voice of woman talking in English with Meredith, a voice he thought he identified as Amanda’s,
whom, however, a few minutes later, after having heard the scream, he did not see in the room
after having come back from the bathroom; he added that the man with the knife had strong
cheekbones and a sort of double chin and [was] about his age, stating, then, that he had seen
something in that man which reminded him of people he had seen by chance, without making
explicit reference to Sollecito; he added that the scuffle with that man was swift and that, then,
looking out from the window in Romanelli’s room, he saw a female figure, who had the silhouette
of Amanda, walking away from the house and that he heard footsteps towards the back of the
house; he restated, about the rest, his previous tale, confirming the fact he was wearing Adidas
shoes and stating that he had not seen the cell phones in the house and that he had left passing by
the stairs beside the basketball field.
Finally, on May 15th 2008, turning up voluntarily in front of the PM, he stated that the evening of
the event [crime] he was not wearing “Adidas” shoes, as he had stated before, but “Nike” ones, 45
and a half size, which had disposed of in Germany, by throwing them in a dumpster.
THE GUP RULING
The first judge, on the base of documents, expert reports and testimonies, found GUEDE guilty of
the crimes of complicity in sexual violence and murder.
He derived such a complicity from it being consequential to the fact that wounds were found in
multiple parts of the body, to the blood spots found between the desk and the wardrobe, to the
traces of GUEDE’s DNA, found on the cuff of the sweatshirt, pointing to a consistent pressure on it,
sweatshirt which the judges deemed, against the thesis of the defense, donned by the victim at
the time of the aggression, since the lack of streaking of the blood spots and of signs of sliding on
the left hand, which would have been caused by the action of taking away the sweatshirt, found to
the left of the corpse, had to be explained with the contact, intervened only afterwards, of the
hand with the blood pouring from another part of the body and with the fact that it [the blood]
had in the meantime dried; [the judge] pointed out that, since the left hand, unlike the right one,
which had many, exhibited just one possible defensive wound, one had to deduce that said [left]
hand had been hold and prevented from moving freely, and that the one holding it, because of the
DNA found on the sweatshirt’s cuff, was GUEDE, albeit having to, consequently, exclude that he
had been the one to hold the knife and to stab.
[The judge] derived it [the complicity in murder], moreover, from Capezzali’s reliable declarations
referring to multiple individuals simultaneously fleeing some time after the scream, declarations
finding a confirmations, for what concerns the time, in those given by Formica Alessandra about
the running colored man who clashed with her boyfriend.
[The judge] ascertained the simulation of theft and the alteration of the crime scene, deriving it
from the fact that nothing of importance had been removed, from the fact that the glass was
broken from inside, as one could also deduce from Romanelli’s declarations, according to which
some glass splinters were found above the clothes scattered on the floor (which meant that first
the drawers were ransacked, spreading out their content and then the glass was broken) and from
the fact that very few traces proving the presence of other people besides KERCHER were found,
so much so that of Knox herself, who was living in that house, it was found only a fingerprint on a
glass (which meant that there had been a “clean-up” activity; in truth, through luminol two plantar
prints were also found which could be linked to the same [Knox]: see expertise Boemia-Rinaldi,
ordered by the PM) and that there was tampering on the corpse itself, like taking away the bra the
victim was wearing, found near to the victim’s right foot, fact deduced from the presence on the
cups of small blood spots similar to those found on the chest and from the shoulder strap
thoroughly soaked with blood, even if the bra had been recovered in a clean area.
[The judge] on the other hand considered likely that GUEDE had not participated in the following
sidetracking [mainly the staging of the break-in], as, moreover, hypothesized by the prosecution
when formulating the charges (otherwise he would have, at least, flushed the toilet).
[The judge] considered the sexual violence as proven, despite the conclusions, diverging among
them, to which had arrived the private and public experts and the Court experts, reasoning from
the element that there was evidence of a sexual activity of late with respect to the murder and
pointing out that the Lalli-Epicopo expertise, having found bruise-like violet spots on the internal
face of the small lips, hypothesized the possibility of sexual intercourse, attempted or consumed,
before the female subject had had the time to appropriately lubricate the vaginal channel, and
observing that Professor Umani Ronchi, during the evidentiary incident, had come to the
conclusion that there had been an escalation of violence and threats, inferred from the very small
lesion on the victim’s left cheek, which had logically to be prior to the more serious one, and
finally pointing out that on the corpse there were marks that could be referred to an action of limb
restraint, indicating grabbing operations.
[The judge] ruled being untrue the version of events given by GUEDE, having he been belied by his
friends Crudo Alex and Maly Philip Michael about his whereabouts before and after the time of
the murder on November 1st and also because of the contradictions he had run into, introducing
Amanda Knox at the crime scene only during the March 26 th 2008 interrogation, during which he
had also to admit, correcting himself, that he did not have a real date with KERCHER,
contradictions concerning also the event of the kiss, initially portrayed as happened at “Domus”
and later [as happened] at the victim’s; contradictions relating the meeting place of the evening
before [the murder, i.e. Halloween] (initially at the Spaniards’ house, that he accurately described,
ruling out of having met her [Meredith] again at “Domus”, later, but only during the March 26 th
interrogation, [of having met her] in this locale); [the judge] ruled it [Guede’s version] untrue also
because it had not been found the notorious iPod that, according to him, he was listening to when
he was in the bathroom at the moment of the scream and because of the unexplained fact that
when he resolved himself (during the third interrogation) to speak about Amanda’s presence, he
reported that she rang the doorbell, despite having the keys; [the judge] highlighted, as a
confirmation, the lack of plausibility of the sentence uttered by the stabbing man about the
presence of the “black man” to be used as a scapegoat, [not plausible because] said before leaving
the scene and without worrying that he [Guede] could call the Carabinieri, something that, in any
case he carefully avoided to do.
The untruthfulness of his declaration derived also, according to the first judge, by the fact that no
one among KERCHER’s friends heard her talking about a date and, however, of her least interest in
GUEDE, not even on November 1st during the dinner, when they had the opportunity of watching
the photos of the previous night and of commenting about the holiday; in the same way no one
among friends and acquaintances of the latter [GUEDE] received by him confidences or
appreciations about Meredith, nor, except the one at the apartment of the boys from Marche [the
downstairs apartment at 7, Via della Pergola], could witness any previous meeting among the two
of them.
[The judge] then ruled out the existence of anomalous participation [concorso anomalo] in
murder, defined by article 116 Penal Procedural Code, since it had to be desumed the acceptation
[by Guede] of the most serious consequences of the aggressive action from [the fact that] he
blocked the girl’s hand, preventing her defense, from the continuation in time of the behaviour
and from the criminal escalation, nobody having undertaken contrary actions at the appearance of
the [murder] weapon [i.e. nobody tried to prevent the stabbing].
[The judge] finally denied the granting of the generic extenuating circumstances because of the
severity of the actions and of the behaviour kept after the crime by the defendant and of the
falsehoods and fabrications told.
THE APPEAL
The defendant, through his lawyers, appealed against the ruling, arguing seven points [causes,
reasons] and an added one.
With the first point [the defense] inferred the inexistence of the sexual violence.
The defense, through the position of the blood spots found, has reconstructed the position of the
victim’s body when she received the fatal hit; that is towards the wardrobe; from the height of the
spray on the wardrobe door, they deduced that the victim could be kneeled down or that she was
standing and then fell down very quickly; about the position of the aggressor, they deduced that
he [the original Italian uses a male noun] was behind the victim, or in any case on the right
forward side, because of the blood spray that reached [not being blocked by the aggressor] the
forward door of the wardrobe; they excluded that the left hand of the victim had been
constrained, since the fact that that hand showed just one wound, unlike the multiple ones on the
right hand, could be explained with the almost immediate loss of consciousness due to the shock
caused by the substantial loss of blood and, however, since no bruises had been found on the
upper left limb [i.e. left arm], indicating that the arm had been grabbed and since the bigger
wounds found on the right hand could be explained with the fact that the victim was right-handed
and hence that she used that hand to defend herself.
[The defense] pointed out that the bruises found on the left thigh, defined by the Court expert
“very faint and scarcely visible”, had to be deemed not compatible with the “determined
grabbing” necessary to obtain a forced opening of the thighs; [the defense] highlighted that the
medical forensic investigations did not find the existence of external marks pointing to a sexual
violence.
They, then, pointed out that the magnitude of the wounds to the victim’s neck would have
frustrated any attempt to rescue her.
Concerning the DNA analyses, [the defense] observed that no trace of semen had been found in
the vaginal swab; that the presence of the defendant’s DNA on the swab, on the sweatshirt’s cuff
and on the right rim of the bra had been detected only from the analyses of the Y chromosome
markers, an indication that the biological material was found in minimal quantity, while the one
found on the purse was of more substantial quantity, in relation to an energetic grip on the purse
itself, meant to lift and move it, an energetic grip that, therefore, could not be inferred [having
happened] on the other objects, including the sweatshirt, hence one could hypothesize that
GUEDE’s genetic material on them was only made by simple sweat.
[The defense], then, criticized the reasoning of the first judge concerning the simulation enacted
by stripping the victim of her bra, observing that it was meaningless to simulate a sexual violence
when a real one had already taken place, without delving into the motive, proposed by the
defendant, of the cash short as the cause of the argument between Meredith and Amanda, which
resulted in the tragic event and into the thesis that the latter [Amanda] and Sollecito, authors,
obviously, of the simulation, could have ignored the already occurred sexual intercourse between
the victim and GUEDE and that they could have staged the traces of a sexual violence escalated
into murder to hide the theft escalated into murder.
[The defense] pointed out the illogicality of the fact that three youngsters, moreover provided
with a weapon, had not been able to rape a girl [weighing] just 50 kg for all the time they wished.
[The defense] protested the first judge’s thesis of the absence of a date between the defendant
and KERCHER, since he had not considered the fact that they were living in the same city, that they
had common friends and that it had been showed that they were, at the same hour, at the
“Domus” discotheque and in any case protesting that the conviction could be only based on the
untruthful declarations of the defendant [i.e. on the fact that that those declarations were false].
With the second point [the defense] affirmed the nonexistence of murderous will by the
defendant.
They, in fact, highlighted the lack of evidence of a murderous will by the defendant, since the
supposed sexual motive could be “nullified” by the as well valid hypothesis of a consenting sexual
intercourse, it being given that the possibility that the two of them knew each other is based on
the same arguments according to which the first judge has deemed that the defendant and the
other two accomplices knew each other (the background of twenty-some youngsters in an
university town, with the related opportunities for hooking up), nor could be considered as
adverse the circumstance that the victim had not confided to her female friends the date with
GUEDE (it had been found that she had not confided her cannabis use either); [the defense]
pointed [also] out that in any case the evidentiary incident had failed to prove the existence of
sexual violence.
[The defense] furthermore sustained that the absence of any link between the defendant and the
knife, used and hidden by others, had been widely proven.
With the third point [the defense] argued the nonexistence of the complicity of multiple
individuals in the crime.
Having started by stating that the simple presence at the crime scene is not, alone, enough to
prove such complicity, [the defense] criticized the assumption by the first judge that there had
been a criminal agreement to perpetrate sexual violence, given, first of all, the weakness of the
reasoning according to which the defendants knew each other and had agreed beforehand on
such an aim, and given the conclusion, by the same judge, that GUEDE was not the material
perpetrator of the murder, without, on the other hand, specifying on what elements his guilt was
based (participation to the preparation and perpetration of the crime), given the lack of evidence
of a link between GUEDE and the other two, his presence at the crime scene not being enough to
prove it, since complicity implies an active role.
[The defense] pointed out that the main, if not only, evidence of the link among the three
[defendants] was to be found in witness Kokomani, who had stated, during the investigations, that
he had seen them together in the proximity of the house where the crime scene was placed, but
that witness, whose examination was a prerequisite for the choice of the shortened proceeding,
had been proven wrong during the hearing, erasing any certainty about the links among the
defendants.
[The defense] reiterated that the presence of a wound on [KERCHER’s] left hand, caused by
contact with a blade, and the fact that on the [left] arm there was no sign of grabbing showed that
also that hand was free, while the presence on the same hand of little black spots, without signs of
rubbing, showed that the sweatshirt was not worn by the girl at the time of the wounding and not
that it was pulled out later; nor did the presence of biological traces prove, besides the connection
between a subject and an object, also a connection between subjects [individuals], if it is true that
the same judge deemed later and aimed to the tampering of the crime scene, to which GUEDE has
been considered extraneous, Sollecito’s DNA trace on the victim’s bra.
[The defense] deemed, however, being incompatible with the will to kill the fact that GUEDE had
tried to pad the girl’s wounds with the towels found [at the crime scene].
[The defense] concluded reprimanding the challenged ruling about the part where, against the
principles stated by the Constitutional Court and by the legitimacy judges [the Supreme Court of
Cassation], [the ruling] did not specify and prove the causal effectiveness of the material or moral
activity attributed to GUEDE, mandatory requisite in order to justify conspiracy in a crime.
With the fourth point [the defense] claimed the violation of article 533, section 1 of the Penal
Procedural Code concerning reasonable doubt.
[The defense] on this topic pointed out that the GUP did not explain why, while being the one with
most interest in it, having left more traces than the others, [GUEDE] had not participated in the
alteration of the crime scene; nor why had he deemed as simulated a sexual violence he judged
having occurred, when it was more logical to accept the motive put forth by the defendant, that of
a murder resulting from a quarrel generated by the cash short and gone out of control because of
the probable massive use of drugs; nor, moreover, [the GUP] had considered that it was Rudi
alone to speak about the padding of wounds with the towels and to vainly ask the prosecutor to
test them [the towels] to search for his [GUEDE’s] biological traces and that such vain rescue
caused his leaving the house after the others, to whom had, hence, to be attributed the shuffling
on the gravel, reported by the defendant when he did not yet know Capezzali’s testimony; [the
defense also complained that the GUP] had not given any value to the defendant’s hand wounds,
noticed at the time of his arrest in Germany, wounds caused, according to the defendant, by the
aggressor immediately after he [GUEDE] had come out of the bathroom; [the defense also
complained that the GUP] had not evaluated the fact that the defendant had spoken, since the
first moment, about the theft of Meredith’s money, ruling, instead, that theft and [crime scene]
alteration were perpetrated after the flight and also that [the GUP had not considered] why traces
only coming from GUEDE and not from the other defendants had been found; [the defense also
complained that the GUP] considered the forgetfulness about flushing the toilet, in analogy with
another episode told by witness Bonassi, as an indication of Rudi’s drunkenness and not a
consequence of Meredith’s scream as he [GUEDE] had said and, for short, had not considered
equally worthy alternative hypotheses.
With the fifth point [the defense] sustained the nonexistence of the aggravating circumstance of
trivial causes, not having the fact finding judge given any justification about its existence.
With the sixth point [the defense] requested, all else failing [in via subordinata], the application of
the provisions for anomalous participation according to article 116 of the Penal Code.
Too this end [the defense] observed that it had not been proven that the defendant had agreed
with the criminal escalation resulting in the murder and that, actually, on the contrary, by rescuing
the victim, the defendant disassociated himself from the crime.
With the seventh point [the defense] complained, this too all else failing, the not granting of the
generic extenuating circumstances.
[The defense] argued that such extenuating circumstances had to be granted, given the lack of
previous offenses, in spite of his difficult past, given his young age, given the fact that he was not
the one to wield the weapon, given the fact that he immediately [sic] surrendered to the
authorities after his entry into Germany and having expressed this will, as shown by the chat with
his friend Benedetti Giacomo, well before his arrest, [the defense also claimed that] his escape
was not due to the need of securing impunity for himself, but a consequence of a “acute stress
disorder”.
Therefore [the defense] asked, as their main goal, for an acquittal because the defendant had not
committed the crime, alternatively also according to article 530 section 2 of the Penal Procedural
Code; all else failing, the granting of the extenuating circumstance provided by article 116 of the
Penal Code; as a last resort the granting of the generic extenuating circumstances prevailing on or
at least equivalent to the aggravating circumstances.
As a preparation to the appeal trial [in via preliminare] [the defense] asked for the renewal of
evidence acquisition [istruttoria dibattimentale] in order to admit into file two cd-roms containing
phone conversations between counselor Manuela Saccarelli and Mr.Egbaria Mohammad, already
questioned as person informed about facts during the investigations, [conversations] concerning
the evening spent with Rudi on November 1st 2007, to admit their transcriptions, to admit the
testimonies of counselor Saccarelli and of Mr.Egbaria, to order a court expertise aimed at verifying
the presence of an acute stress disorder in the defendant, so that his behavior after leaving
Meredith’s house can be evaluated.
With the added point, finally, [the defense] requested a laboratory test to search for GUEDE’s
biological traces on the towels found around KERCHER’s corpse, aimed at demonstrating the
absence of a will to kill.
REASONS FOR THE DECISION
What really happened in that apartment located on the first floor of 7 Via della Pergola in the time
period 21:00 and 24:00 of 1 November 2007, the timing, the means, the circumstances of the
brutal homicide could only have been revealed, at least in demonstrating a sense of compassion
towards the poor victim, by the accused; that instead have preferred to fill their statements, made
on various occasions, with lies, reticence, back-peddling, half-truths, insinuations, unlikely
perspectives, thinly veiled accusations against each other; and so without it, it is necessary to rely
on the elements that emerge from the court proceedings.
The Judge of the first level trial should be given credit for the meticulousness and logicaljurisprudential rigor with which he analyzed all the possible hypotheses, giving precedence to
those more in line with the findings emerging from the investigations, the testimonies, expert
assessments, and from the statements of the protagonists, providing – in the view of this Court – a
correct and well argued reading of the facts that emerged, that hold up against the equally wellargued critique put forward by Guede’s defense; which should be acknowledged for having left no
stone unturned in searching for a different reading of the facts, and for its participation, passion
and the meticulousness with which it honored its professional duty.
It should be noted that the author of the appealed sentence is a person of considerable
experience who is respected as a balanced and professionally qualified person: therefore, not
easily influenced by the enormous (“raging”) media pressure surrounding this case that was
provoked by the defense.
Before going into the details of the grounds for the appeal and the arguments put forward in the
course of the discussion, it seems opportune to dwell briefly on the profile of the protagonists of
the proceedings being examined, as emerged from the court proceedings.

Who was Meredith
Meredith Susanna Cara KERCHER would have been 22 years old on 28 December in the year she
was murdered. She was born in London and there she lived, in the Couldson area; she was
studying for a degree in European Studies; she arrived in Perugia in September 2007, having
signed up for the Erasmus program in order to complete the degree course to read Italian and
Latin. In the photographs published on the Internet she seems to be a girl who is full of life, at
home in a provincial city that gave her more freedom of movement compared to the large
metropolis from where she came and where she was experiencing the beginnings of a sentimental
romance with an Italian boy, Giacomo Silenzi, the only person of the male sex who, according to
Romanelli and Mezzetti, had had access to her bedroom.
Those who knew her (the English girlfriends; the girls who shared the apartment, the boys from
the flat below), describe her as a discrete girl, serious, reserved, attached to her home life : a
family person (Romanelli says that she was never separated from her mobile phone – one of those
found by Alessandro Biscarini in the garden of his house and handed over to the Police by his
mother – because she was concerned for her mother’s health, with whom she was continuously in
contact); all which, without being puritanical, at times indulging herself in minor transgressions
(the odd drink, puff of a joint shared with others, some sexual relations with Giacomo Silenzi, as
stated by him); different, however, from her flatmate Amanda Knox, who was more brazen and
extrovert, less respectful of rules, sexually uninhibited (Meredith reported to her friends Robin
Butterworth and Amy Frost of the embarrassment she felt when seeing condoms and a vibrator in
clear view in her flatmate’s beauty case in the bathroom); the same two friends mentioned above
also reported on the embarrassment of the girl [Meredith], who evidently did not know how to
say no, when the boys from the floor below (including Silenzi) had left her the keys to their
apartment, with the job of watering, every so often, the cannabis plants; in short she was a girl full
of zest for life, looking to expand her horizons, but measured and sensible, certainly not in search
of easy adventures and also somewhat rigid on the topic of sentimental relationships (see the
discussion on fidelity, with Romanelli and Mezzetti).

Who is Rudy
Rudi Hermann Guede was born in Agou, Ivory Coast, 26 December 1986. At the age of 6 he came
to Italy with his father (it seems his mother disappeared immediately after his birth: witness
Gabriele Mancini), with whom he settled for a while in Perugia; once his father, with whom it
emerges he had a difficult relationship, had to return to the Ivory Coast and having only an aunt
living in Lecco as his only point of reference, the social services, who had already been called to
take care of him, entrusted his care with various families in Umbria, the last one being the Caporali
family, owners of the “Liomatic” company, that sponsored a basketball team in which he
sometimes played; once he reached the age of eighteen and was no longer under the protection
of social services, he started his drifting and disorganized lifestyle, showing an aversion to every
type of commitment and responsibility: He would disappear and then reappear in Perugia, leaving
comfortable positions of work, found for him by people willing to help him (though always
showing to these people the better side of his character) or he would get himself dismissed, he
would abandon his friends, only to reappear in moments of need.
He is prone to excess: many of his friends and acquaintances report having seen him drunk or
heard that he had made use of drugs (see in particular, Vykintas Rakauaskas, Rebecca Savoy,
Benedek Avital, Stefano Bonassi, Abukar Mohamed Barrow, Zafer Salim); he is not new to unlawful
behavior (27 October 2007, as already mentioned, he is taken by surprise in a nursery school in
Milan, where he had found shelter, in possession, amongst other things, of a computer found to
have been stolen from a lawyer’s office in Perugia); it emerges that he is a competent internet
user and frequenter of Internet Cafés (his friends Mancini and Benedetti were contacted by him
via Internet programs), demonstrated by the fact that while communicating with his friend
Giacomo Benedetti via Skype from an Internet Café, at the same time he was following the latest
news on the investigation, always over the Internet, through a Mediaset broadcasting channel; in
the end he showed himself to be very capable and not at all inexperienced in creating alibis for
himself and in modifying his “truths” bit by bit as the media published updates on the
developments of the investigation.
At this point, we must first say that the Court does not agree with the assumption of the GUP,
which moreover can be demonstrated, about the use in this case of the recordings of the Skype
conversations between the accused and Benedetti.
Apart from the fact that these conversations were fully authorized by the recipient Benedetti and
were fully and justly utilized by the defense to demonstrate Guede’s intention to return to Italy
and hand himself over to the police, it is sufficient to note that the conversations on the computer
via Skype are not, at least at this moment (and even more so at the time that they occurred) open
to interception, being encrypted calls using complex encryption algorithms, such that no judicial
authorization could have allowed their interception and capture; secondly they occurred in the
presence of the police of SCO, who not only were able to listen in but also to intervene indirectly,
suggesting to Benedetti the questions to be asked of the defendant on the means in which he
would return to Italy and the place to meet.
In any case, “the audio recording of the discussion, occurring between those present or through
transmission tools, by a person that participates, is documentary evidence that is fully utilizable
even if carried out on suggestion or on behalf of the judicial police, being, in any case, a recording
carried out by the participant of the conversation, unfamiliar with the investigative equipment
used and entirely legitimate to be used as evidence in the trial” (Cass, Section 6, 24 February – 22
April 2009, N. 16986).
On the questions of the trial raised by the defense, the Court has already ruled, rejecting it, in the
decision of 18 November 2009…
Indeed, except for the compatibility of the requests put forward at the trial ; having chosen the
fast track procedure, especially in the Appeal phase, the acquisition of the documents supporting
the request to call Mohammad Egbaria to the stand to testify, who had alleged having seen the
defendant on the night of 1st November 2007 and the testimony of the aforementioned witness,
concerning facts neither decisive nor directly connected with the crime under examination, in fact,
even if the circumstance is true, it adds to or takes away nothing from the credibility of the version
of facts provided by the defendant, taking into account also the contrasting and opposing
statements made by other witnesses (second Cass., Section 6, 10 November 2005, n. 45240, the
integration of evidence on appeal, although not excluded absolutely, can be permitted, of the
court’s own motion, only for documents indispensable to the acquisition with the aim of deciding
and relating to the procedural capacity of the defendant or the same conditions of the crime of
the punishment, excluding that it can appeal in order to deal with the evidentiary weaknesses or
to obtain proof against the accused)… The request for expert assessment to verify the existence of
biological traces on the towels that the defendant claims to have utilized in an attempt to stop the
blood that was pouring out of the victim’s throat has not been accepted, not only because it is not
a decisive piece of evidence, but above all because it is not useful, as emerges from records of the
scientific police who had not found biological traces on that towel because it was completely
soaked in blood, which did not permit the collection of DNA and one of them, indeed was affected
by mould.
Also irrelevant the request for expert assessment of the defendant to verify that he suffered from
an acute stress disorder, that would have justified his fleeing the scene and the failure to assist the
victim, a disorder noted only in this phase and as to the existence of which, moreover, the Court
has serious doubts which will be explained in the following.
Taking into consideration now the main reason for the appeal; concerning the non-existance of a
sexual attack, the jury maintains that the arguments in favour of the plea, though precise and
suggestive, are not convincing and not enough to affect the argument in support of the contrary
hypothesis;
From the evidence submitted some indisputable facts emerge: 1) the defendant was present at
the scene of the crime, as emerges from his own statements, before, during and after the
homicide; 2) on the body of poor Meredith there were found traces of sexual intercourse with
GUEDE (see the results of the tests on the vaginal swab, which allowed, via the genetic markers of
the y-haplotype, the identification of the defendant in the biological material found), intercourse
that finished with the mere penetration of his penis or of his fingers, seeing as no traces of sperm
were found; 3) on the bra of the girl and on the sleeve of the sweatshirt, from that worn that
evening; it was found other biological material that is identified as belonging to GUEDE; 4) on the
body of the victim, as revealed by the civil parties, 43 cuts that, even excluding those caused by
the fall of the body onto the floor, are considerable and caused by violent actions upon her and
made by pointed and sharp knives or with strong pressure of the hands and limbs (for example,
the bruising found on the mouth, the nose and the area of the submandibular and on the thighs),
certainly incompatible with the theory of the thief who, caught by surprise while stealing, had
wanted to eliminate an inconvenient witness.
It should be noted, however, that medical forensics, through the work of the consultants and
experts, were not able to determine the existence or otherwise of sexual violence, on the basis of
the observation that a high number of women who are victims of sexual abuse (classified in the
order of 75% by Professor Aprile) do not show lesions of a traumatic nature, while, on the contrary
they can be found following consensual sexual relations; but it is also true that the consultants and
experts have provided significant data and observations, though leaving them for the
interpretation of the judges.
The first judge noted that according to the first analysis, Lalli-Epicopo, the purple marks of bruising
present on the internal side of the labia minora of the victim could be explained by the absence of
vaginal lubrification* symptomatic of sexual activity in the absence of the preparation and
availability of the woman, that can be attributed therefore either to, hurried intercourse,
completed or attempted, or [penetration] against the wish of the individual.
The consultants nominated by the Public Minister observed that “in absence of vaginal lubrication,
the introduction of the penis or even only of the fingers is capable of making such bruises due to
the pressure employed and/or due to the rubbing”.
The consultants Bacci-Liniero-Marchionni nominated later by the Public Minister also leaned
towards penetration of a violent nature; and again the expert Professor Aprile, in the pre-trial
investigation, stated the sexual activity was about the same time as the lethal event, and a crime
of a sexual nature. ..
According to the expert Professor Umani Ronchi, there was then an escalation of violence against
the victim, proved by the small wound on the cheek, which would not have made sense if it had
been made after the deep knife wound on the neck, which was lethal, while it would have made
sense if it had been hypothesized that it was made to reduce her resistance.
Furthermore, leading to the same conclusion are the bruises found on the victim’s thighs, a clear
sign of an application of pressure on them; the discovery of the DNA and the Y chromosome
traced to GUEDE on the left sleeve cuff of the victim’s sweater, biological matter in the form of
flakes of epithelial cells, which are produced by consistent pressure of the hand on an object and
therefore to be interpreted as the act of restraining Meredith’s arm.
The defense discussed the possibility of contamination of the exhibits, in the sense that the
genetic profile of the defendant could have been transported on an object (the victim’s sweatshirt
and bra) by an operator or by others present in the apartment on Via della Pergola; it was also
suggested that the biological traces attributed to the defendant on some of the objects could have
originated from his sweat.
Inspector Battistelli of the Postal Police* who intervened in the late morning of 2 November,
stated that he had blocked access to all those present after Meredith’s door had been opened and
had observed the presence of copious traces of blood and the body of the victim that protruded
from under the blanket.
Doctor Stefanoni, in the course of a long and detailed testimony during the preliminary hearing,
was careful to make clear that all the procedures had been respected by the personnel of the
Scientific Police who had taken samples, with a change of gloves for every collection of material
considered significant, change of shoe covers and controlled routes between zones of the house,
use of disposable tweezers and of small plastic bags in which to place the exhibits, of suits and
masks, as seen from the photos produced, specifying that the contamination could occur only with
material carried from outside and not from that which was already present inside; she also
excluded contamination from the laboratory, with the analysis following the conditions of article
360 cpp, in which the consultants of the parties were permitted to participate, who did not raise
objections; she added that the transfer of DNA is not at all easy, requiring contact of a large
quantity of contaminated material and, in any case, fresh and not dry; nor did the movement of
some objects compared to the first inspection (part of a bra with the clasps, mattress, pillow, door
of the cupboard) cause the transfer of genetic material already present in the apartment.
Regarding the sweat, Doctor Stefanoni explained that sweat does not contain cells, and that it
[transfer] can only happen through the transfer of cells of a hand, for example, that squeezes the
object.
Paradoxically, to the doubt suggested by the defense a response was provided, certainly not
inspired by scientific criteria, but by good sense, by GUEDE, in the conversation, while under
surveillance on 13 March 2008, in the Perugia Capanne prison, with Giacomo Benedetti when,
speaking of the knife found in Sollecito’s house (the one with the traces of Amanda’s DNA on the
handle and Meredith’s DNA on the blade), he said, referring to the hypothesis that the trace was
made from sweat : “Meredith has never been in that house… if it was sweat… it doesn’t remain
there for 3 days on the knife”.
But, in the opinion of the Court, what most convinces us that there was sexual violence is the
unreliability of the reconstruction of the facts provided by the defendant and confirmed in the
hearings, during spontaneous statements, statements however, from which the reference to the
unlikely ringing of the bell that announced the entrance of Amanda Knox in the house
disappeared, in other words of a person in possession of the keys to the house.
The battered body of Meredith, marked in several places by pointed and sharp weapons (probably
two, given the different width found in the wounds), provides a different reading of the situation.
In particular, the version that there was consensual sexual intercourse with the victim was found
to be entirely unbelievable.
It emerges from the court documents that of the three personal meetings that the defendant
claimed to have had with the victim prior to the homicide, only one has been proven: the one a
week before the homicide, in the basement of 7 Via della Pergola in the apartment of the boys
from the Marche region in which Amanda and Meredith were also present, where Guede showed
an interest in Amanda, which he spoke of, without however showing any interest towards
Meredith (witness Stefano Bonassi). With regards to the meeting at “Domus” [discotheque] on the
night of Halloween, in which he claimed to have exchanged a few words and a kiss (he clarified it
was on the cheek when testifying; furthermore the meeting was organized a few days before the
homicide, in the house of some Spanish friends, with whom the English girl had no connection),
none of his friends and none of Meredith’s friends (in particular Amy Frost, who was with her all
night) saw the two speaking together or even being anywhere near each other. Regarding the
meeting at the local [bar] the “Shamrock”, on the day of the rugby World Cup final between
England and South Africa, played in Paris on 20 October 2007 and won by South Africa, which was
transmitted in TV in the aforementioned local [bar], she met during the course of it the defendant
who apparently made fun of Meredith for the defeat of her team, none of the friends who he
frequented most at that time, Alex Crudo and Philip Michael Maly, also present at the
transmission of the match, had noted Guede talking with Kercher, who they did not even know,
indeed it was the defendant himself that reminded them, after the homicide, that that girl was
present that day in that bar.
In addition, none of the boys from the Marche region, who had also made salacious comments
about Amanda on the occasion of one of the two visits that Guede had made to their home (it was
the defendant himself who said to his friend Benedetti in the Skype conversation to have only
been twice in the house of the Marche boys: page 42 of the transcripts) had noticed Guede show
any interest in Meredith, reporting instead his interest for Knox; not even his friends Crudo and
Maly, that he frequented continuously, had ever heard him speak of an interest towards the girl;
furthermore Philp Maly also contradicted Rudi’s version that stated when they met in the centre
of Perugia he had confided to him [Maly], that on that that same evening of 1st November he
[Rudi] had an appointment with a girl.
But also from the version provided by Meredith’s friends it emerged that none of them had ever
heard her mention any interest for Guede, who none of them knew, and nor had she confided in
them of having an appointment with a boy on the evening of 1st November.
Robyn Carmel Butterworth, in whose house the victim ate her last meal on the evening of 1st
November 2007, said in her statements made to the British police on 4th November 2007 (see
translation in the court documents), that if Meredith had had the intention of having sex with
someone, she would have told her about it.
Nor had Sophie Purton, the last of the English friends to have seen Meredith alive that evening,
leaving her at 20:55 ten minutes away from the house on Via della Pergola (see entry of assistant
of P.S. Mauro Barbadori), ever heard of any appointment that the girl had arranged: they were
both tired, due to the late night the day before and had decided to go home to their respective
homes to rest.
The hypothesis, proposed by the defense, who suggested the girl did not confide everything to her
friends, referencing the fact that she apparently did not mention to them her use of cannabis,
does not seem plausible, with her having on the contrary confided in them something far more
serious, such as the embarrassing task of watering the cannabis plants of the boys on the floor
below (statements of Amy Frost at Bergamo Police Station dated 8 February 2008), as well as the
sexual relations with Silenzi (witness Purton, 3 November).
In light of this, the hypothesis appears entirely improbable that Kercher, whose reserved character
was well known within her circle of friends and acquaintances, so much so as to appear aloof to
Giorgio Cocciaretto, from the same region as the inhabitants of the basement flat, as was well
known her inflexibility on the subject of sentimental relationships (Romanelli and Mezzetti stated
on 7th May 2008 to have heard her say that she would never betray anybody), could have opened
the door to Guede, appearing there without any apparent reason and, not long later, sharing
intimate moments and having sexual relations with him, interrupted due to a lack of condoms.
It is therefore more reasonable to conclude that the defendant’s entrance into the girls’
apartment on Via della Pergola was with the help of Amanda Knox.
The arguments in favor of this hypothesis are: 1) the fact that the two knew each other (other
than the various witness statements, Amanda also admits it during a conversation with her father,
which was overheard when under surveillance on 20th November 2007 at the Capanne prison in
Perugia); 2) the fact that there were no signs of a break-in through the front door; 3) the fact that,
as we will see later, the breaking of the glass in Romanelli’s bedroom was a mise-en-scène
[staged]; 4) the fact that both Knox and Sollecito were present at the scene of the crime, not only
because, after his intial reticence Guede himself admits it, though providing vague references to
the latter [Sollecito], who he probably must have seen with Amanda given the intense love story
between the two, but on which it seems he had not focused his attention; but also due to the
objective evidence obtained during the course of the investigation.
In looking closer, where one replaces the figure of Patrick Diya Lumbumba, in Amanda’s
slanderous reconstruction of events given to the police on 6th November, with the figure of
Guede, that version however later shown to be false, would make sense (meeting at the
basketball court in Piazza Grimana, where it just so happens the defendant was a frequent visitor,
where he also confirms to have been that evening, probably after having made sure that his
friends from the Marche region were not at home which was followed by entrance into the
apartment when only Kercher was home alone, by both of them [Guede and Knox] and Sollecito,
with an unclear recollection of the presence of the latter [Sollecito]).
It is not known, not having heard the interested person [Knox], why Amanda indicated Diya
instead of Guede, but it is likely that she could have done it because the latter, unlike the former,
could have disproved her declared non-participation in the sexual violence and the following
homicide, indicating however, a person of colour, in case somebody might have seen her going in
the direction of the house or leaving it.
With regards to the staging of the burglary in Romanelli’s room and the complete undressing of
the victim, the GUP agrees in essence with the version put forward by the defendant that it
happened after he and the other two had left the apartment.
However, the defense observed that it would not have made sense to remove the victim’s bra at
some later point in time; to make it appear that there had been a sexual assault, while it would
have made sense to make it appear there had been a sexual assault that led to murder, so as to
hide the perpetration of a theft, related to Guede’s statements that he had heard Kercher
complaining of missing money, for which she was primarily accusing her flatmate Knox.
This reconstruction is not convincing, because, apart from the two mobile phones, taken most
probably by Knox and Sollecito, probably to avoid causing concern amongst the flatmates on
hearing Meredith’s mobile phones ringing without an answer from inside her bedroom, there is no
proof that money or anything else was stolen from Meredith’s bedroom, not being able to
consider the statement of the defendant, who apparently became aware of the theft by
overhearing it, a circumstance that is obviously not possible to verify, given that Kercher had, yes,
complained to the English friends of Amanda’s behavior, because of her untidiness (for example
she reproached her for not cleaning the bathroom), of her tendency to be half-naked [in the flat],
but she had never accused her of stealing something from her, taking into account also of the fact
that if it is true what the flatmates stated, that Meredith usually paid the rent in cash, there was
no proof that she had already withdrawn the necessary amount.
Except that, still, the intent could have been to make it seem more like a sexual assault committed
by an unknown person who had entered through the window or to make it seem that Meredith
was open to the idea of group sex that concluded tragically. Furthermore, it seems more likely to
this Court that the bra was removed from the victim during an escalation of violence enabling
Guede to give vent to his sexual instincts on her, given that, based on the statements made by Dr.
Stefanoni, the clasps present on the piece of clothing [bra], on which the genetic profile of
Sollecito was found, were found to be twisted, showing that force had been applied to remove
them, while the edge of the garment [bra] seemed to have a clean cut, suggesting that it was cut
by a knife, during the frenzy of the sexual assault, made difficult by the victim’s resistance, who
according to close relatives was not at all the petite girl unable to react that one would believe,
having played sports and even taken a course in kick-boxing according to her sister, which explains
the presence of blood on the strap of her bra as coming from the smallest wound made while the
victim’s resistance was being overcome; to which we can add, according to the medical
consultants nominated by Knox’s defense, the round spots of blood found on the front side of her
thorax and arriving there through respiration after the lethal cut proving that the garment had
already been removed, as it would not make sense, on the other hand, that it had been removed
in the following phase during the clean-up of the traces.
Therefore it was the refusal and unexpected resistance of the victim, overwhelmed but not
subdued, by minds already altered by the admitted (by Amanda) consumption of drugs in the
throes of excitement, which triggered the murderous rage.
Furthermore, that the entry of the defendant could not have been through the window of
Romanelli’s bedroom, whose glass was found to be broken by a stone, appeared immediately
obvious to the investigators for the evident difficulty of the climb (the window was at a height of
about three metres above the ground, with there being an easier entry into the apartment below
where, among other things, nobody was at home that evening), so it can be safely concluded that
it was staged, so obvious that Romanelli herself, interviewed by the Public Minister on 3 rd
December 2007, stated “… then, well, while we were there we began to realize bit by bit that the
burglary had been staged, also because glass from the window could be clearly seen on top of the
clothes; it’s strange because whoever opens the window causes the pieces of glass to fall on the
floor and then there would be the clothes on top of them, but instead the glass was everywhere,
all over the place… on top of the clothes”.
The only possible explanation of the apparent staging can be an attempt to divert suspicion away
from Amanda, who had the keys to the apartment and who, in the absence of the other two
flatmates, was the only one who could have freely entered into that house, providing access also
to Sollecito and Guede and it is likely, based on the statements made by the latter, that the staging
was carried out at a later time, during a later entry into the house, after the murder; a staging
carried out by whoever had a real interest in distancing all suspicion away from themselves (Knox
and Sollecito), certainly not by Guede, who could not have entered into that house just as he
pleased and who had never entered there before that night (see Skype conversation with
Benedetti of 19th November 2007, page 88: “when I was with Meredith it was the first time that I
had stepped into that house”).
Also the alibi, initially provided by the defendant in the conversation with his friend Giacomo
Benedetti, to have left the scene of the crime for just enough time needed for it to happen,
namely the entrance into the bathroom to fulfill an unexpected need to defecate, appears
unlikely.
Although it was not possible to extract DNA from the feces due to the presence of bacteria, traces
of Guede’s biological profile were detected in the fragments of toilet paper that were found in the
toilet bowl: but this only proves that the defendant did indeed go to the bathroom, feeling, as he
had stated, constipated due to having eaten a kebab, and one can also presume that it was due to
this emergency that he was accompanied and brought into the house.
As for the rest [of his version], it is noticeable that the iPod that Guede claimed to have been
carrying has never been found (and for the big fan of music that he claims to be, it is difficult to
believe that he got rid of it, as it certainly was not in any way incriminating, unlike the Nike shoes,
which he indeed stated to have thrown out).
In addition, the version according to which, on hearing Meredith’s scream, he rushed out of the
bathroom without even flushing, is however contradicted by the fact that he had enough time to
clean himself, as shown by the toilet paper that was found.
On the next part of his story, about the murderer that later took on a vague resemblance of
Sollecito (he does not name him, but provides a compatible description, also with reference to the
Napapijri jacket and of the syllable “af” that he heard the victim utter after the stabbing) that
turns against him injuring his hand with the knife and, in reaction, leaves him with the muchrepeated phrase “black man found…”, the GUP has dedicated a lot of time in demonstrating how
unlikely it is, based on the fact that the aggressor, armed with the knife, had abandoned the scene
in the face of minimal resistance, leaving at the scene an inconvenient witness, trusting in the fact
that not only would he not have been believed, but that he would have been considered the real
murderer simply due to the color of his skin!
It is disappointing that this surreal hypothesis was, up to a point, supported by the defense when
during the debate it brought up the figure of Tom Robinson, the black protagonist in the novel “To
Kill a Mockingbird”, who was unjustly accused and convicted for sexual assault, as if the fact that
that person being tried was black could have had some influence on the current trial and that,
however, could have influenced and caused a distorted reading of the many serious and
undisputable evidence against the defendant: it is obviously not so, it being the judge who is called
to interpret the facts and not the influences of the media.
With regards to the hand injury that the defendant claims to have received in the scuffle with the
aggressor, it was confirmed to exist in the photograph taken of his hand by the German police
(however, difficult to see); it was however revealed by his friends Crudo and Maly, with whom,
according to his version, he met on the same evening as the murder and, according to the
statements of those two, on the evening of 2nd November, they had not at all noticed the injury,
that should have been fresh and not bandaged.
Nor does it seem a significant demonstration of his rush to leave the bathroom the fact that the
defendant omitted to flush, with this being consistent behavior to that verified a few days earlier
in the house of the marchigiani (witness Benassi), which can be an indication, if not of a habit, of
the fact that GUEDE could have been in an altered state dur to the ingestion of alcohol or drugs,
akin to that of the previous episode.
There is nothing to prove that Kercher could have been right-handed, as hypothesized by the
defense, with it being obvious that almost everybody would defend themselves with both hands
when being attacked by a sharp weapon, as long as one of the hands was not being restrained.
It is on this point that it should be remembered that the medical examination prepared by the GIP
discovered bruised abrasions on the front of the legs, compatible with the action of being held
down (page 39 of the expert’s report).
The absence of bruising on the left wrist does not appear to be significant, with the sweatshirt
having acted as a protective layer and so it can be hypothesized that the pressure was exerted on
the cloth, instead of on the arm, or the restraint used was not strong enough to affect the arm.
Furthermore, with reasoning that is easy to agree with, the first judge refuted the hypothesis that
the victim was not wearing her sweatshirt (found covered in blood) at the moment she was
wounded, as there would have been streaks of blood and evidence of smudging on the left hand
of the girl; instead it was revealed that apart from the presence of some streaks which were visible
in the photographs, the blood present on that hand and the clearly visible stains of blood on the
arm in question were produced later, when the sweatshirt had already been removed, due to
contact with the blood that flowed heavily from the main wound.
As for the fact that the traces of the defendant’s genetic profile on the sweatshirt were
quantitatively inferior to that found on the purse, which was interpreted by the defense as
showing a lighter touch and almost insignificant compared to the contact with the other object,
this argument is not convincing.
Given that, as reminded by Dr. Stefanoni, the DNA traces are left only if an object is held with a
certain amount of pressure, it seems logical to reason that the flaking epithelial cells, deposited by
an energetic grip with the hands, can be more voluminous on a rigid object compared to a softer
object, like with the sweatshirt, without taking into account [text missing?], the habit, the fact that
Guede could have found himself in a state of inebriation, due to ingesting alcohol or drugs, similar
to the previous time.
To summarise, in the half-truths that evolved over time coming from the mouth of the accused,
his account was often filled with surreal lies, lying even on minute details (for example, in the
interrogation by the Public Minister he denies being known by the nickname of the baron, and yet
in the Skype conversation with his friend Benedetti, page 83 transc., he had explained that the
basketball friends called him the baron for his likeness to the player Barron Davis), resulting in a
version that is completely incompatible with the reality of facts perceived and heard.
For this reason, and not for any other reason, his reconstruction of events cannot be accepted.
With this the second reason for the appeal has been partially answered, concerning the
defendant’s lack of intention to murder.
The poor battered body of Meredith exemplifies the most obvious refutation: one person could
not have made all those wounds and cuts on various parts of the body, otherwise one would have
to suppose that, … while holding a knife and trying to overcome her resistance, there could also be
signs of being held down, as inferred from the bruises on the mouth and nose and the
subconjunctival hemorrhaging found and the signs of strangulation, inferred from the bruises
found on the neck, and the likely use of two knives deduced in light of the different thickness of
the wounds to the throat and, as correctly observed by the GUP, traces of Guede’s genetic profile
were found on the cuff of the victim’s sweatshirt, an obvious sign of a confrontation, such that the
left hand, unlike the right hand that was apparently more free, shown to have only a small and
insignificant wound, that was described by the medical consultant, suggesting that she defended
herself mainly with her right hand, which, as testified by Doctor Stefanoni, the presence of blood
as found on the cuffs of the sweatshirt, can cause those traces to become diluted.
While it is not necessary to examine the position of Knox and Sollecito, who are being judged
separately, the multiple attacker nature of the murder aggravated by the sexual assault forces us
to at least spend some considering them.
We have already discussed the evidence of their presence in the apartment on the evening of 1 st
November 2007, revealed by the DNA traces of Sollecito on the bra clasp of the victim, of the
traces found on the knife in Sollecito’s house where the victim had never been (witness Romanelli)
considered compatible with the wounds by the expert witnesses, at least with the deepest one,
and having traces of Knox on the handle and Kercher on the blade; supported by the presence of
Amanda’s lamp in Meredith’s room (statements of Romanelli and Mezzetti of 7 th May 2008); by
their lies, including Sollecito’s to Inspector Battistelli to have called the Carabinieri, which instead
was found to have been made after the arrival of the Postal Police; from the break in mobile
telephone usage of the two, revealed by the logs, between approximately 21:00 of 1 st November
until the morning of the next day; from the footprint compatible with Sollecito on the bathmat
(Consultants Boemia-Rinaldi); the footprints of the two revealed by Luminol; from the discovery of
diluted blood stains present on the wash basin and on the bidet containing the genetic material of,
other than the victim, also of Knox (see testimony of Stefanoni); from the phrase “I was there”
that Amanda let slip out in her intercepted conversation with her parents while in the Capanne
prison in Perugia; from the statements (in the third session of questioning by the Public Minister)
of Rudi Guede, where he brings Amanda into the scene of the crime for the first time providing
more precise details on the wielder of the knife.
Another element indicating it was a murder carried out by multiple attackers is from Nara
Capezzali’s testimony, who, refuting the story of the defendant that he stayed behind longer than
the others in an attempt to staunch the victim’s wounds with towels, stated that, though not
knowing the exact time, on hearing the “harrowing” scream of a woman, which caused her
considerable distress, so much so that for a while she could not get back to sleep, after a brief
period she heard footsteps of people running, some going towards steps leading to via del Melo
and via del Pinturicchio and others going towards via del Bulagaio, without after that hearing any
noise in the following moments in which she remained awake; and it is without doubt that she is
to be believed, considering the distressing effect of a person screaming would have in the silence
of the night, on a person that was in a state of slumber.
The one who went running towards the iron staircase was Guede (the defendant himself admitted
to it in the questioning of 26th March 2008), a fact confirmed by the testimony of Alessandra
Formica that stated that her boyfriend, while they were coming down the stairs of Sant’Antonio
car park, was violently bumped into by a person of colour that was running quickly towards via
Pinturicchio. This testimony, including the reference to the presence of a pick-up truck in via della
Pergola, allowed her to connect the event which concurs with the testimony of Giampolo
Lombardi, driver of the pick-up truck, as being soon after 23:00.
On this point, a phrase that Guede let slip when trying to explain to his friend Benedetti his
reasons for fleeing Meredith’s house, though claiming to have not been involved in the murder,
seems significant: “I feared that they would have given the blame only to me”. (Page 16 transcript
of conversation via Skype).
Almost at the same time, Sollecito and Knox were seen by Antonio Curatolo in Piazza Grimana,
most certainly coming from the direction of via della Pergola, while they repeatedly looked back
down in the direction of via della Pergola where, with all probability, they returned once they
disappeared from the view of the witness [Curatolo], as soon as it had been ascertained that
Meredith’s scream had not caused alarm, nor caught the attention of the neighbours or passersby, nor caused the intervention of law enforcement, with the intention of getting rid of as much as
possible their traces and distancing suspicion away from the only person that could have entered
the house that evening with the keys, through the mise-en-scène [staging] of the burglary.
The defense contends that there is no proof the defendant held the knife considered to be the
murder weapon and that, consequently, there is no proof that he is a voluntary accomplice in the
murder.
Premeditation is not contested, nor are there elements to sustain that the trio already had
intentions to commit crimes before entering the house; certainly the introduction into the
property of a knife, later found in Sollecito’s house, and not being part of the cutlery set available
to the flatmates, as stated by Mezzetti and Romanelli, seems somewhat disturbing, but nothing
enables one to conclude that it was carried with the purpose of carrying out an illegal and
perverse plan, that only minds accustomed to crime and without scruples could conceive; on the
other hand, one only need think of Sollecito’s obsession, amply disseminated by the media, to
always go out with a knife in his pocket.
If there was no premeditation and if, in line with the prosecution’s hypothesis, the homicide was
the final act in an escalation of violence, then Guede participated fully, not only for being the
author of the sexual assault, but also for having held down the left hand of the victim while she
was given the fatal wounds.
Indeed, after the failed attempts to physically hold her by her neck, evidence of which was found
by the medical examiner, then the knife came out in an attempt to overcome the victim’s
resistance which was used with increasingly harmful effect, the defendant must have realized that,
at least in terms of the malicious intent, of how the final outcome of the violence used would turn
out; not to mention that he who is involved in a violent act against a person cannot be unaware of
the moment that excessive force is used, especially if carried out by more than one person and
using weapons, in murder; taking into account the fact that Meredith, who knew the defendants,
if allowed to live, could have been a prosecuting witness for the sexual assault she suffered.
In light of the above, the third reason for the appeal is rejected, relating to the non-participation in
the crime.
On this point, the defense’s assumption does not seem reasonable, that Rudi did not act in
participation with the other two co-defendants, whether for the considerations described above,
or for the fact that as said, the prosecution’s theory did not contemplate premeditation and a pre-
arrangement, leaving space for the idea that the criminal intent evolved only after the three
entered into the apartment and realized that Meredith was at home alone.
After all, it is proven that Amanda knew Rudi, as was quietly admitted by the latter and it is of no
importance whether or not the defendant knew Sollecito, with it being understood that it was
Amanda and not Meredith to facilitate his entrance into the apartment on via della Pergola; the
unreliability of the witness Kokomani, who testified to have seen them all together, with it being
unsure if it was the evening of 31st October or 1st November, who made fanciful statements that
were rightly discredited by the first judge, is certainly not enough to reduce the likelihood of this
fact.
With regards to Guede’s claim to have staunched the wounds with towels, an action that
nevertheless took place after the lethal attack, it certainly cannot be used to infer the absence of a
will to kill.
Whilst it may be that it was only he, without any help from the others, that tried to stop the
copious loss of blood from Meredith’s neck (as said, it was not possible to determine the presence
of biological material on the three towels covered in blood), it is also true that, according to
Capezzali’s testimony, this must have occurred immediately [after the attack], given that the same
witness shortly after the scream heard the sound of many footsteps on the lane in front of her
house, going in the opposite direction, and while she remained awake, she did not hear any other
noises of footsteps afterwards: and the defendant did indeed leave the house running, heading up
the metal staircase in a hurry and bumping into the boyfriend of the witness Formica as he fled;
that the scream, so powerful that it penetrated through the closed windows of Capezzali’s house
about seventy metres away from the house on via della Pergola, would have drawn the attention
of the neighbours and could have facilitated the discovery of the crime.
If this is true, it seems completely out of place to appeal to “acute stress disorder” as reason to
justify the defendant’s sudden flight, with Meredith dying.
In fact apart from his statements which attribute his fleeing, not to a state of confusion and of an
altered state of mind, but due to having heard suspicious noises coming from the floor below, it is
exactly his subsequent actions that refute [the possibility it was] an unexpected onset of a mental
disorder.
Indeed nothing would have stopped the defendant, who knew that Meredith was still alive when
he fled from that house, to have made a phone call, perhaps anonymously from a public
telephone box, if not to “113” then at least to “118”, to call for the intervention of the emergency
ambulance services.
Instead, according to his statements, his concern after having passed by his house to clean himself
up (that he was covered in blood is proven by his hand print that was left on the pillow next to the
victim’s body), was to create for himself an alibi, to get himself seen by his friends Alex Crudo and
Philip Maly, who nevertheless state having seen him only the next evening; there is, however, the
testimony of Martin Carolina Espinilla that testified having seen him at [the discotheque] Domus
on the night between the 1st and 2nd November, in the company of people she did not know;
testimony which confirms the defendant’s intention to get himself noticed in a place distant from
via della Pergola.
On the night between 2nd and 3rd November 2007, Guede was seen at Domus by Rebecca Savoy
and Benedik Avital and on that occasion, Giulia Davis states that in the moment that a minute’s
silence was requested to commemorate the death of the English girl, she was dancing with the
defendant.
Then, according to the statements of Alex Crudo, there was nothing strange in his friend’s
behaviour.
Alarmed by the initial rumours of the investigation, Rudi left Perugia on 3 rd November; on 4th
November it emerges that he was accused by news sources in Munich of using the false name of
Kevin Wade.
[Here there is a short sentence that the optical character reader has produced gibberish, the
readable part follows]
No evidence of an alteration of his mental state, absence of emotions, [gibberish], also during the
one minute’s silence to commemorate Meredith’s death.
Rightly the first judge did not consider relevant the example envisaged in the discussions [of the
trial], of Dr. Richard Kimble, played by Harrison Ford in the film “The Fugitive”, since that
character, finding himself before his wife’s dead body, felt the obligation to inform the police
force, something which Guede thought best not to do, as would any person who wants to
demonstrate they were not involved in the crime, even at the risk of not being believed, calling
upon the emergency medical services to help a person seriously wounded. Neither was the
behaviour of Knox and Sollecito any different in the police station on the day of the tragic incident,
according to the statements of the victim’s friends.
It remains apparently inexplicable why the defendant, though having immediately indicated, in
fairly general terms the aggressor armed with the knife, did not immediately name Knox and state
his connection with the aggressor; not only that, but once called upon to speak in open court to
repeat finally what he had stated regarding the people present at the tragic event, he availed
himself, as documented by the Prosecuting General, of the right to remain silent.
One can obviously agree with the defense that the right to remain silent is guaranteed to the
defendant as part of the trial proceedings; one agrees less when the defendant, as in the case in
question, is called upon to be a guaranteed witness, having to report on facts committed by third
parties, given his declared non-involvement to both the sexual assault and the homicide, even if
formally, exercising that right cannot be faulted, as it would have been suicidal on behalf of the
interested party to bring into the proceedings the statements previously made by the defendant.
The only rational answer is that Guede remained silent as long as he could, because in view of the
profound connection of the events, to accuse Amanda and Raffaele would have exposed him more
than likely to counter-accusations on their part.
In light of this, in addition, also the sixth reason must be rejected, proposed as an alternative,
concerning the non-application of the so-called anomalous participation, in which article 116 c.p.
therein explains.
Guede participated actively in all phases of the criminal events: protagonist of the sexual assault,
as we have seen he contributed to the direct violence in weakening the victim’s resistance, up to
the final tragic moments, even when the sharp weapons were brought out.
Even if the other two co-defendants made no mention of the towels used, it is not likely, in light of
the timeline provided by Capezzali, that the defendant went back and forwards to the bathroom
by himself, to fetch the towels with which he could staunch Meredith’s wounds; but even if this
were true, it does not in any way prove his non-involvement in the most serious aspect of the
crime.
Indeed as the General Prosecutor in the hearing revealed, there would have been a dispute if the
defendant, on seeing that events were going beyond his expectations, had in some way
interrupted the escalation of events, either by stopping the accomplices or leaving the scene of
the crime, and not when the attack had already produced the easily foreseeable result.
Because, indeed, for “concorso anomolo”[1] to apply requires that the outcome was not intended,
not including “dolo alternativo”[2] or “dolo eventuale”[3], becoming otherwise the responsibility
for which article 110 of the Penal Code applies: it is, in addition, necessary that the more serious
outcome is not the consequence of exceptional factors, having occurred, merely incidentally and
not caused by the basic criminal conduct, unforeseen by the perpetrator (see Supreme Court,
Section 1, 24th October-17th November 2006, no. 37940); in theory it is also necessary, for
responsibility for the crime to be shared in which article 116 of the penal code, that the agent has
not foreseen and accepted in concrete the risk of the alternative outcome that is brought about by
the accomplice of the less serious crime (most recently, Supreme Court, Section 5, 8 th July – 9th
September 2009, no. 39339; Supreme Court, Section 2, 13 th-18th May 2009, no. 20885; Supreme
Court SS.UU, 18th December 2008 – 9th January 2009, no. 337, that revised the “concorso
ordinario” in place of that so-called “anomolo”, though without certain proof regarding the
effective animus nocendi (will to harm), in the case of accomplices that had accepted the risk that
the serious wounds planned could go too far resulting in murder).
Equally unfounded, in the view of this Court, was the fourth reason, concerning the violation of
the principle of guilt beyond any reasonable doubt, to which article 533, first paragraph of the
Penal Code refers.
Some points, such as the uncertainty of the defendant’s departure from the apartment after the
others, the impossibility of determining whether the defendant was the only one to try and
staunch the wounds of the victim with towels, the link between the wounds to the defendant’s
hand and the action of the attacker armed with a knife, and the failure to flush the toilet as being
caused by Meredith’s “excruciating” scream rather than a simple oversight, have already been
addressed in examining the other grounds for appeal, which we referred to in our earlier
deliberations.
As for the lack of an explanation for why Guede did not return like the others to the scene of the
crime to remove his traces, despite having more reason to do so, having left more traces than the
others, this court notes that actually the first judge has already provided an explanation, pointing
out that while the defendant had no connection with that house, it was instead of primary interest
to those that had such a connection, Knox, who lived there and her partner Sollecito, to suppress
any possible indication that could direct the investigators towards them, staging the breaking of
the window and the attempted burglary to imply an entrance to the scene by an unknown
murderer by other than the main door, and with the elimination, for them in an unfortunate way,
of the mobile phones that, ringing hopelessly, could have attracted the attention of the other
flatmates or of other people, before they would have had time to construct their alibi.
It didn’t take much, in fact, to deduce that the first investigations would have centred on the
residents of the house and its regular visitors, as indeed occurred, with the help of the unexpected
event (discovery of the mobile phones).
It should be added that the defendant, according to what he stated, did not own a mobile phone,
and the co-accused, who fled in a different direction, did not have any way of informing Guede of
their intention to return to the scene.
In addition, while the return of Knox and her boyfriend to the scene where the crime had been
committed a little while earlier, would not have aroused any suspicion, nor would it have caused
any eye-witnesses to view it as suspicious, this would not have been the case if Rudi had been
seen returning to that house; it would have been a lot more convenient to be seen by his
acquaintances to build an alibi, either not suspecting or underestimating the fact that the
fingerprint, left on the pillow, could lead to him: and this is not a contrived theory, but only a
logical and reasonable deduction.
Regarding the argument concerning the missing money, reported by the defendant from the
outset, to support the hypothesis of the theft followed by murder, in addition to what has already
been said regarding its improbability, it’s enough to add that the murder of Meredith seems to be
entirely out of proportion with the discovery and dispute about the missing money, first because
Amanda could easily have directed suspicion toward the other flatmates, secondly because
Meredith, though often critical of her laid-back behaviour, was a friend of Amanda, they socialized
together often, they had friends in common and there was no reason that, facing such
accusations, or rather such suspicion, she would have, together with her accomplice, restrained
her friend and abused her body, that is easily visible in the colour photographs produced by the
General Prosecutor; abuses that seem better explained by a moment of madness and out-ofcontrol sexual impulses.
The explanations of the G.U.P seem to be correct regarding the staging and the removal of traces
(but not all) by the co-accused at a later time, which is compatible, not only logically (they would
have had to stage a burglary that had already occurred), but through the testimony of Capezzali
and the statements of Guede himself, who had stated that when he left that house, no window
was broken and the house was in order.
Regarding the fifth reason, relating to the lack of aggravating circumstances due to trivial reasons,
if one agrees with the defense that the first judge did not provide any specific reasoning, it
emerges however that he concluded their existence in the explanation of the verdict, by reference
to the “disturbing seriousness” of the actions compared to the aim.
Given that this aggravating circumstance is compatible with the so-called impulsive intent [dolo
d’impeto], which was hypothesized in this case (see most recently, Supreme Court, Section 1, 28th
May – 16th June 2009, number 24894), we find that the murder and even the multiple sufferings
caused to the victim before that, appear to be entirely out of proportion with a need to satisfy a
sexual impulse, which was not in any way encouraged by the victim.
However, in the opinion of the Court, the last ground for appeal, advanced in the alternative,
relating to denial of the mitigating circumstances, is well-founded.
The Court took note of the arguments in support of the denial by the first judge: seriousness of the
conduct, not mitigated by the eventual late change of heart demonstrated by the use of the
towels (on his own or with the others), actions that occurred after the crime by the accused (with
dishonesty and lying in the versions of facts provided), rejection of the possibility of being
redeemed by people close to him; elements in which the Prosecutor General complained of his
unwillingness to specify details in the case against the others accused, as shown in the Court
records, demonstrated by the choice of preferring to not respond to questions requested by the
Prosecution.
He also took into account arguments in his favour, put forward by the defense; the lack of
previous convictions (no longer sufficient after the introduction of the 3rd paragraph of article 62
bis, introduced with statute no. 125 in 2008), the fact that it was not him that held the knife that
inflicted the mortal wound on the victim, the voluntary return to Italy after fleeing to Germany, his
young age, the “acute stress disorder” that would justify his lack of aid to the victim and the
subsequent escape abroad.
Taking into account such elements, the Court holds such mitigating circumstances can be
accepted. It observes, indeed, that his life spent so far drifting, has not compromised in an
irreparable way the defendant’s personality, considering also his young age and despite the
difficulties endured, that have marked his infancy, with a severe and frequently absent father and
a mother that abandoned him forever from the moment of his birth.
It must also be mentioned that, due in part to the positive influence of his friend Giacomo
Benedetti, Guede expressed right from the first contacts his intention to return to Italy to hand
himself over to the police and, once arrested in Germany, without hesitation he gave his consent
to be handed over to the Italian authorities.
In addition, he was the only one of the defendants to apologize to Meredith’s family, even if
referring only to his lack of help to her [in her dying moments], as was recognized by the lawyers
of the girl’s relatives who participated as civil parties.
Then, apart from the attempt to staunch the flow of blood from the wound and the proof that it
was not he that held the knife that was compatible with the worst of the lesions, it should also be
remembered that Guede was the only one, even if in a somewhat fanciful reconstruction of
events, to indicate the perpetrators.
Taking into account the elements and the circumstances of the crime and, above all else, of the
unspeakable suffering inflicted on the victim, the panel holds that it must deliver a judgment in
which the mitigating and aggravating circumstances are considered of equal value.
As a result of the aforementioned judgment of equivalence, the sentence applicable becomes that
covered in article 575 of the Penal Code.
In conclusion, the panel holds that the standard sentence on which to apply the reduction of one
third for the process chosen, must still be in relation to the undeniable seriousness of the crime,
being the maximum foreseen of 24 years.
For the rest of it, the appealed sentence is confirmed in full. There is no margin for modifying the
civil rulings, since there was no appeal on this point.
Finally, the defendant is ordered to reimburse the costs sustained in this phase by the civil parties,
which are to be paid as stipulated in the original sentence.
For This Reason [P.Q.M.]
The Corte di Assise di Appello of Perugia pursuant to articles 443, 605, 599 of the Penal Code with
partial reform of the sentence delivered on 28th October 2008 by the Judge of the preliminary
hearing [GUP] at the Tribunal of Perugia against Rudi Hermann GUEDE, appealed by him, with the
generic mitigating circumstances being equivalent to the contested aggravating circumstances,
REDUCES
the punishment of the appellant to 16 years of imprisonment.
CONFIRMS
the rest of the appealed judgment.
CONDEMNS
the appellant to payment of the expenses of the civil party Adalia Tattanelli that comes to €1,500
in total not including Italian and European taxes and reimbursed in lump sum as per law, of those
of the civil parties John Leslie Kercher, Arline Carol Mary Kercher, John Ashley Kercher, Lyle
Kercher, who settles for a total of € 8,000 not including Italian and European taxes and paid in
lump sump as per law, as well as those of the civil party Stephanie Arline Lara Kercher that comes
to a toal of € 5,000 not including Italian and European taxes and reimbursed in lump sum as per
law.
Indicates the term of 90 days for the submission of the motivation of the verdict.
Perugia, 22nd December 2009.
[1] A simple description of “Concorso Anomalo” would be to describe it as applying to a situation
where one of the perpetrators of a crime commits an act more serious than what was desired, and
that was not the intention of the accomplices.
[2] “Dolo alternativo” applies to a crime where the perpetrator foresees that it is certain or
possible that there will be one of two outcomes, but is not sure which one it will be. E.g. shooting
somebody could kill or could injure.
[3] “Dolo eventuale” applies to a crime where the perpetrator is well aware that the outcome that
occurs could have happened. E.g. If shooting somebody the perpetrator knows that he may kill.