Lies Our Mothers Told Us

In writing this post I’d like to extend my gratitude to Stuarthome2000, the thoughtful citizen of Perugia who has kindly given up his valuable time to provide all TJMK and PMF readers with factual and up to date information from the courtroom. There is a great deal of detail in his reports, detail that would probably not be found in newspapers who merely sum up the most dramatic events of the day, nor would they be found in one particular blog from a ‘reporter’ who claims to be objectively blogging about the case from his courtroom seat.

The Witnesses

I have written a quick rundown of the witnesses and their testimony from last weekend’s trial dates, more information and detail from Stuarthome2000’s fantastic posts on Friday and Saturday’s trial dates can be found at True Justice for Meredith Kercher

Friday the 27th March:
Saw testimony from Nara Capezzali the 69 year old widow who reported getting up to go to the bathroom on the night of the murder at around 11 or 11.30pm and hearing a chilling and disturbing scream coming from the cottage. A few minutes later she reported hearing the sounds of at least two people running in different directions. Ms Capezzali reported hearing the sound of footsteps on the metal stairs next to the parking facility outside her apartment; she also reported hearing footsteps on the pavement below and rustling in some nearby bushes. Ms Capezzali recalled being so disturbed by the scream that she was unable to sleep that night. She made herself some camomile tea before finally settling down in the early hours of the morning. Similarly, Maria Luisa Dramis reported hearing someone running up or down her street on the night of the murder at around 11 or 11.30pm. Antonella Morlacchia who lives in an apartment with a clear view of the cottage reported hearing a man and a woman arguing at around 10pm on the night of the murder.

The court also heard from Giampaolo Lombardi, the tow truck driver seen by alleged ‘super witness’ Hekuran Kokomani on the night of the murder. Lombardi testified as to having seen a dark coloured car parked in the driveway of the cottage that night, the prosecution alleges this is significant as the defendant Raffaele Sollecito drove a dark coloured Audi. The testimony of the witnesses Francesco Tavernese, Leonardo Fazio, and Antonio Galizzi were concerned with the character of Raffaele Sollecito, his time in the ONASI student centre in Perugia and his conduct in his hometown of Bari in Southern Italy. This testimony revealed that RS was shy and bashful, enjoyed kickboxing and was once arrested for possession of hashish, however drug searches in his halls of residence found nothing except for some pornography that ranged in taste from ‘normal’ to ‘extreme’.

The testimony of Leonardo Fazio, a friend of RS at the ONASI student centre corroborated the assertion that RS is shy and liked to visit the gym. Fazio also stated that he had seen RS and his co-defendant Amanda Knox in the days following the murder acting normally as if nothing had happened. This seems to both corroborate and refute testimony from Meredith’s English friends who remember Amanda and Raffaele acting ‘oddly’ at the police station after the body had been found, though it could be stated that Amanda and Raffaele behaved  like a ‘normal’ couple following the murder by kissing and petting outside the house and in the police station, going for a pizza, flirting with each other and making, for want of a better word, a ‘scene’ in a local lingerie shop, we could also conclude that AK and RS behaved anything other than normal following the murder by acting cold, distant and so strangely that it immediately roused the suspicion of people close to Meredith and investigating officers who quickly began covert surveillance of them.

Saturday the 28th March:
Saw impressive and potentially damning testimony from Antonio Curatolo the 53 year old homeless man who spends a lot of time in Piazza Grimana which has a good view of the gate leading to the cottage. His testimony was supposedly clear and concise; it appears that Curatolo is no fool and that he definitely knows what he saw. Curatolo claims he saw a man and a woman in Piazza Grimana at around 9.30 or 10pm on the night Meredith was murdered. When asked to describe the couple he pointed at Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. He stated that they may have left the Piazza at around 11-11.30pm but definitely returned before midnight. Curatolo stated that he saw RS looking towards the gate leading to the cottage where Meredith was killed. According to a report from Ann Wise, Curatolo also claims to have seen the couple talking animatedly. Curatolo’s testimony is crucial as it places Knox and Sollecito in the vicinity of the cottage on the night of the murder when they have both claimed to be at RS’s apartment. Amanda’s lawyer Luciano Ghirga made a statement to reporters alleging that Amanda was unhappy with Curatolo’s testimony he said: “Amanda was not happy with what Curatolo had to say, because she was not there that night”, funny then that she chose not to rise and refute the testimony of this key witness by addressing the court as she is legally entitled to do under Italian law.

Raffaele Sollecito however, did address the court in response to testimony from Fabrizio Giofreddi who claims to have seen Knox, Sollecito, the victim and he alleges, with 99% certainty, Rudy Guede leaving the cottage together on the 30th October 2007. Sollecito firmly stated to the court that this witness could not have seen the four together as he had never met Rudy Guede.

The court also heard from the hugely criticised and reportedly unreliable ‘super witness’ Hekuran Kokomani who claims to have driven up to Amanda and Raffaele who were lying in the road outside the cottage on the night of the murder. Kokomani claims to have had an altercation with RS and also claims that Amanda pulled out a large knife, raised it above her head and began cursing him in Italian, he then claims to have thrown some black olives and an old Nokia phone at Amanda before taking a picture of her and RS which he later deleted, he then claims to have bumped into Rudy Guede who told him that the knife in Amanda’s hand had been used to cut the cake at a ‘party’ in the cottage. Kokomani is currently being held on drugs charges after 8 grams of cocaine were found in his house. His testimony was reportedly all over the place and it probably didn’t impress the jury and it also seems that the witness may have been talking about the night of the 31st October 2007 and not the night of the murder. Antonio Aiello, Kokomani’s lawyer took the stand to state that Kokomani had contacted him with regard to what he had seen, Kokomani agreed that his tale could wait until the lawyer returned from his holiday. Upon his return Aiello agreed to accompany Kokomani to the police station to make his statement and admitted that even he did not really understand what Kokomani claims to have seen.

The witnesses summarised
So in short we have three witnesses that claim to have heard unusual sounds coming from the direction of the cottage on the night of the murder we also have three witnesses that report seeing the defendants or a car potentially belonging to one of them in the vicinity of the cottage that night, this is damaging as they both claim to have been at RS’s apartment all night. We also have a witness that claims to have seen RS, AK, RG and the victim together two days before Meredith was killed.  Both defendants deny ever meeting or socialising with Rudy Guede. This testimony seems to refute previous testimony from Meredith’s English friends who had never seen them together or heard her mention his name.

On a little side note I find it interesting that two witnesses stated that RS was sporty, one stated that he enjoyed kickboxing. If RS was fit and did kickboxing why then does he say he wasn’t strong enough to break down Meredith’s door when she didn’t respond? So either we have a regular gym goer and a kick boxer who couldn’t break down a door (despite another young man on the scene being able to do so) or we have yet another big fib from Raffaele.

But how reliable are these witnesses? It seems that their testimony is crucial to the prosecution’s case against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. Does their testimony tell us anything about what happened that night or have any implications for our understanding of the crime?

Eyewitness Testimony

The reliability of eyewitness testimony has long been debated amongst psychologists and the general consensus is that eyewitnesses, on the whole either believe they have seen more than they actually have or deny what they have seen is important or relevant. Some of the factors involved in determining the reliability of a witness include:

• Age (children are much less reliable than adults as witnesses)
• Mental competency
• Level of intoxication at the time of the ‘incident’
• Drug/alcohol dependency
• Eye sight/hearing or whether the ‘incident’ was obstructed from view
• Weapon focus
• Trauma
• Attention i.e. how much they were focusing on what they were doing at the time the ‘incident’ occurred.

What took them so long?

Good defence lawyers like Giulia Buongiorno sometimes make mincemeat out of witnesses and often attempt to do so because they know that psychology research has picked several gaping holes in the reliability of eyewitness testimony. One of the points that a good defence lawyer will use in an attempt to discredit the witness is the length of time it took for the witness to make a statement to the police with information that later forms the basis of their court testimony, it is important that the witness is interviewed according to correct procedure and that they are clear of all details related to the statement which may be relevant upon cross examination by defence lawyers.

Investigators must be careful not to lead the witness during the initial interview (and in court) as this can encourage false memory ‘reconstruction’ whereby details are altered or added to the original story through suggestion by the interviewer, these details may be false or misleading. Some witnesses are more ‘suggestible’ than others, especially if they have a great deal of respect for the police or are trying to please investigating officers. The interviewer must strike an appropriate balance between encouraging the witness to think back and remember as much detail as they can and pressing them on issues which the interviewer believes may be crucial to the investigation. It’s a very fine balance and unfortunately, interviewers often get it wrong.

During last Friday’s hearing, Buongiorno fiercely grilled the 69 year old widow Nara Capezzali as to why it had taken her 20 days to come forward with information about what she had heard that night. From her window Ms Capezzali saw the arrival of the police and the crime scene investigators and was told about the murder at a magazine kiosk in Piazza Grimana the next day. Buongiorno grilled Ms Capezzali so hard about not coming forward sooner and not mentioning that she had drank a cup of chamomile tea to settle her down in her original statement, that Ms Capezzali began to cry in court possibly through frustration or intimidation. Ms Capezzali reiterated that what she heard that night was reliable and true as it had upset her. This may have impacted upon the jury who could either perceive her as being too ‘old and scatty’ to be reliable or it, more likely may have evoked a certain degree of sympathy which may ensure her testimony is well remembered and considered by the jury.

During a trial as high profile and with as much information as this, the jury are literally bombarded with information, information they are expected to remember and consider over a long period of time. The trial began on the 16th January 2009 and is expected to continue until at least the autumn, it may even continue into 2010 and it is important for both the prosecution and the defence to make an equal impact upon the jury. Nara Capezzali’s tears are sure to be remembered, as is the laugher that Stuarthome2000 reported, resulting from a big presumption made by Giulia Buongiorno as to how homeless Curatolo could have possibly known it was 9.30pm when he saw Amanda and Raffaele in Piazza Grimana, his response? “Because the sign next to the piazza has a digital clock”, he also added “and I have a watch”. Buongiorno must have been furious with herself for making the ridiculous assumption that Curatolo could not or did not have the means to tell the time and I have no doubt that the resulting laughter from this presumptuous slip-up will play a small part in ensuring the jury remember the crucial testimony of Antonio Curatolo.

Witnesses Fabrizio Giofreddi and Antonella Morlacchia were both asked why it took so long for them to come forward with the information that formed the basis of their testimony. Giofreddi stated that he was not following the case and as such had no idea it would be relevant, fortunately he told his Spanish professor what he had seen who encouraged him to go to the police. Similarly, Antonella Morlacchia did not think what she had heard was relevant either but was also encouraged to go to the police upon talking to one of her friends who happened to be a journalist.

Supposed ‘super witness’ Hekuran Kokomani was reluctant to talk to police until he had consulted his lawyer Antonio Aiello who later accompanied him to the police station to make a statement. Since he has now been arrested for possession of cocaine it would be fairly safe to assume that Kokomani was reluctant to share what he had seen for reasons much different to the other witnesses.

Factors involved in a witness coming forward with information relevant to a serious crime investigation

There many factors involved when a witness debates whether or not to go to the police with information relevant to a criminal investigation, aside from a witness not realising the importance of the information because they have not been following the investigation in the papers or on the TV, some of these factors can include:

Fear of wasting police time, not being believed or that information is irrelevant
A lot has been made of ‘wasting police time’ and older people in particular are more likely to deny the importance of what they have seen, this may be because some older people perceive they would be wasting the time of the authorities by coming forward with details about what they have seen or heard, thinking their information is ‘irrelevant’ or ‘nothing’. As a result of this some (particularly older) witnesses like Nara Capezzali are reluctant to come forward and share with police what they have seen or heard possibly due to a belief that as they are old their memory will be deemed unreliable, often these older witnesses are sharp and observant, especially if they live alone and spend a great deal of time looking out of the window or ‘snooping’ through the curtains. Older witnesses are often good time keepers and have a reasonably good memory, unless they have a condition which influences their memory or mental state. Sadly they are the often ones least likely to come forward, sometimes through a fear of wasting police time or not being believed. They may also be nervous about giving testimony or frightened of retaliation for doing so.

Fear of the police
In the same way that some witnesses have a lot of respect for, or are overly keen to help the police some are quite literally terrified at the very thought of having anything to do with the police or helping with a criminal investigation. This could be because they are involved in criminal activity, take illegal drugs, have been in trouble with the police themselves or have had a negative experience with the police in the past for whatever reason. Hekuran Kokomani was in all likelihood reluctant to go to the police as the discovery of 8 grams of cocaine in his house indicates he was either a heavy user or a small time drug dealer. Bringing his lawyer to the police station also indicates that Kokomani had a certain level of paranoia about law enforcement officials and associated being at the police station with needing to have a lawyer present. Though his testimony was disjointed and bizarre, Kokomani originally reported seeing the breakdown truck and his cell phone was pinged in the vicinity on the nights of the 31st October and 1st November, despite this I believe the jury will have trouble believing his testimony as it quite frankly seems too unlikely and too disjointed to be true, it also sounds as if Kokomani has attempted to weave into his ‘story’ certain facts that later became apparent, such as the presence of the knife he claims he saw in the newspaper. As Kokomani waited until his lawyer returned before making his statement he could have read a lot about the case and may have inserted a few extra details in order that his story sound more ‘believable’.  It will be interesting to keep an eye on developments surrounding Kokomani’s drug use/possible dealing as his presence near the cottage on the night of the murder or the night of Halloween could be relevant to the case. Similarly, as a homeless man, Curatolo may have been wary of the police or had dealings with them in the past yet I believe his decision to testify “because it is a question of conscience” makes him a more reliable and honest witness.

Bystander Effect
In areas that are quite densely populated it is common to see a kind of diffusion of responsibility in witness reporting. Some witnesses mistakenly believe that someone else must have heard what they heard or saw what they saw and will report it to the police instead. Some people do not go to the police under the mistaken belief that someone else already has or will! A tragic example of this is the murder of Kitty Genovese. It may well have been that someone else in the apartments above the cottage heard or saw something that night and didn’t come forward for this very reason.

Reliability of Witness Testimony

For the reasons listed above I believe it is unfair simply to criticise or discount the reliability of the witness testimony seen over the weekend solely on how long it took the witness to come forward with the information relevant to the investigation. However, the amount of time taken to come forward with this information could have had an effect on the ability of the witness to accurately recall specific details, as may the way they were interviewed and the questions they were asked when making the initial statement.

A number of the witnesses did not come forward until well after the crime had been committed yet some of them explained that they not feel their testimony was important or relevant to the case. These witnesses were encouraged by others who, upon hearing about what the witness had seen or heard promptly told them to go to the police, which they did. If the witnesses genuinely believed they had heard nothing or the defence claim they cannot possibly remember due to the passing of time, why then do several of the witnesses claim to have accurately remembered what they saw or heard up to a year after the murder was committed? This may in part be explained by the news of the murder spreading through Perugia which may have cemented in the witness’s minds the things they saw or heard on the days leading up to and the night of the murder. Some of these witnesses remembered enough to tell a friend what they had seen, why then should we discount them by assuming they cannot tell the court the same thing?

In a previous post I discussed how Knox and Sollecito’s claim to have been so stoned on the night of the murder they cannot remember what happened could affect their long term memory recall of the night in question; this could influence a witness in the same way. If a witness decided their testimony was not important or relevant they may cast it aside and this action may influence subsequent memory recall and be clouded over time. Similarly, a witness in their desire to help the police or be involved in the investigation may be open to suggestion or leading questions that could alter or obscure what they really saw on the night in question.

As Curatolo was homeless he may have spent a great deal of time ‘people watching’ or just watching the world go by, I’d be willing to bet that he has seen a thing or two around Perugia and has a good memory for people and places. He may or may not have been in trouble with the police but we could suggest that Curatolo has no particular allegiance with them either. Because of this he would be less likely to try and ‘please’ them with what they want him to have seen in favour of testifying to what he actually saw: Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito in Piazza Grimana looking towards the cottage where Meredith Kercher was murdered on the night of the 1st November 2007, when both defendants have claimed to be elsewhere.

Aside from Antonio Curatolo, one specific witness the court has seen so far which has stuck in my mind is Marc Quintovalle, the shop owner who testified as to having seen Amanda Knox in his shop early in the morning before the body of Meredith Kercher was discovered later that afternoon, this testimony is crucial as Knox claims to have been in bed with Sollecito at the time. Knox did not choose to stand and refute the testimony given by Mr Quintovalle. Quintovalle remembered Knox’s distinctive features and all but stated he found the defendant attractive to the court. I believe that his mild attraction to Knox and in particular her distinctive blue eyes coupled with the events that unfolded later that day cemented in his mind the brief meeting her had with her in his shop that morning.

Some Ideas and Conclusions

Though the witness testimony we have seen so far could in certain instances be unreliable and on its own should not form the basis for a case, it does help to put the events of the evening in some sort of context. It also helps with establishing the timeline of events that night and gives some sort of human ‘face’ to the evidence.

It has been noted that Amanda in particular has not stood and addressed the court as she is entitled to do in defence of testimony from various witnesses that place her outside RS’s apartment on the night of the murder, something a jury would expect her to do should she disagree with the testimony of the witness. As a result of this the jury may conclude that her reluctance to refute this testimony implies she does not dispute it’s reliability, which in turn implies she was not at the apartment with RS as she claims.

With regard to how long it took some of the witnesses to come forward I would agree that in most cases this may influence memory recall of the event, however the witness testimony we have seen so far (with the exception of Kokomani) has been received well, has showed continuity and has in certain cases refuted the defendants weak alibi as to their actions and whereabouts on the night in question.

It does matter when the witnesses decided to come forward and that will influence the reliability of their testimony, however at this important stage of the trial, the witnesses are not really contradicting themselves and bear in mind they are often being cross-examined by the ruthless and probably terrifying Buongiorno if and when they do, this is in stark contrast to Amanda and Raffaele who have contradicted themselves many times and will continue to do so until they start telling the truth.

The murder of British exchange student Meredith Kercher is amongst the most sadistically executed crimes I have ever come across. Despite loud protests from the defendants supporters who, by criticising the investigation and judicial process, seek to nullify the evidence put forward so far, this crime is and will remain a fascinating example of group violence.

Psychologists have been studying the behaviour of groups for decades and this has not been without its fair share of criticism. Early studies from eminent psychologists like Prof Philip Zimbardo have cemented ethical restrictions and guidelines on psychology research in the hope that any mistakes made by psychologists in the past will not be replicated at the expense of willing participants in the future. Unfortunately, a lot of current social, clinical and forensic psychology research on, particularly group behaviour, is based in part on instances of group violence where the ‘participant’ was anything other than willing.

When I first started reading about this case, even before I’d come across TJMK, PMF or Perugia Shock, before I knew anything concrete about the defendants post crime behaviour or had access to information that has now confirmed my suspicion, I remember my immediate thought being: more than one person was involved in this. I am and have always been of the opinion that this crime makes absolutely no sense as a single perpetrator offence; indeed one of the things that stumped me from the beginning was the lack of evidence of any kind of history of violence in any of the accused, this is in part explained by the evidence of a group dynamic which could have contributed to the level of violence in the house that night.

If we exclude the involvement of the defendants Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, the likelihood of seeing this level of violence as a first offence, especially coupled with the suggestion that Rudy Guede was originally there to steal, would all but evaporate.

Concerning Rudy Guede as a lone wolf killer

As I discussed in a previous post, the murder of Meredith Kercher can be classified as a sex related homicide. I spend a great deal of time reading literature relevant to these sorts of cases in order that I can better understand the types of people that commit violent sexual homicides and their reasons for doing so. According to a research article published in the American Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 82% of those who commit violent sexual homicides have a history of violent offences; many of them have already served time for sexual assault, GBH, armed robbery etc.

Guede had no history of violence in fact he had no record at all, not even for drug dealing as was previously thought. According to the same research article, murders committed by offenders with no history of violent behaviour are usually crimes of passion or the result of a mis/undiagnosed mental health problem. Guede did not know Meredith; Guede had no reason to go to the cottage alone, he was not in a relationship with her, in fact the two probably never even spoke and if they did the conversation probably wouldn’t have lasted more than ten seconds. Crime of passion? I think not.

Likewise with mental illness, the sorts of mental health problems that can lead to these kinds of spontaneous violent offences are often serious mental health conditions like schizophrenia and other delusional disorders; they are often debilitating and require ongoing medical treatment and assessment. Guede had friends and acquaintances and what appeared to be a fairly active social life in Perugia, if he had been delusional or ‘hearing voices’ I’m fairly sure it would have been noted by now and the defence teams for Amanda and Raffaele would have picked up on it in an instant. Similarly, if Guede had any kind of serious or debilitating mental health condition it would almost certainly have been a factor in the sentencing report and his competency to stand trial would have been called into question. This was not the case and the evidence available so far indicates that Guede was competent to stand trial and therefore it can be assumed he is able to understand right and wrong and with it, the implications of his actions that night. I see no evidence to suggest he is mentally ill.

Balance of probability

Though it is not completely unheard of for an individual with no history of violent behaviour to commit violent sexual homicide, these cases are nearly always crimes of passion or result from the actions of a person with serious untreated mental health problems, this is well supported by research in internationally renowned journals on forensic psychology and psychiatry.

Those who support the FOA and criticise the investigation are welcome to do so but continuing to assert supreme confidence in the lone wolf theory attempts to challenge pretty much every single piece of forensic literature on violent offenders there is. This has not been an easy task, which is why, rather than discussing case scenarios on these blogs, those who have ‘burdened’ themselves with the enormous task of challenging every bit of evidence against Amanda and Raffaele with the unparalleled arrogance and blatant assumption that: “everyone else is wrong  or lying and we are right, evidence doesn’t matter or doesn’t exist because we don’t want it to or because we don’t have an explanation for it, therefore it’s wrong, wrong, wrong and so are you!”

Oddly enough this strategy isn’t doing the defendants any favours, it might work online but it won’t work in the place that really matters: court. This is why these blogs have been confined to discussing the specific wording of the text message written by Amanda Knox to Patrick Lumumba on the night of the 1st of November 2007, which, despite being ever so slightly case relevant, does not change or alter the FACT that Amanda Knox falsely implicated Patrick Lumumba in the murder of Meredith Kercher for which he subsequently spent two weeks in jail and is now suing her for slander. Neither does endlessly discussing whether or not Amanda Knox was hit on the back of the head change or alter the FACT that there is DNA evidence linking her and Raffaele Sollecito to the crime scene, this is why both are on trial to determine their individual level of involvement in the murder of Meredith Kercher.

The lone wolf theory can be disbanded simply with a balance of probability. What are the chances of Rudy Guede, a young man with no history of violence, no criminal record and no recorded drug problem deciding to randomly go to the house of a girl he barely knew (or did not know at all) in order to sexually assault and kill her? What are the chances of him scaling a wall in order to break into the apartment when other points of entry would have been easier? What are the chances of him selecting that house to burgle if this was his primary motivation? What are the chances of him, independently and without consultation from the defendants or anyone else with access to this type of knowledge, knowing that Meredith Kercher would be home alone on the night of the 1st November 2007?

Then compare that with the chances of two young people being involved, both of whom knew Meredith. Amanda knew her well and lived with her. Amanda also had a key to the cottage that night and knew Meredith would be home alone. Amanda may have had a problem with anger and possibly projected this onto Meredith; she may have even hated her and there was tension between them. Then add to the equation Raffaele, a rich, spoiled kid with a major drug problem, an extensive knife collection and a penchant for violent Japanese manga comics. He lived just around the corner from Guede and could have known him or met him briefly, Amanda knew Rudy through the boys in the downstairs apartment. Even if we ignore the DNA evidence, the injuries sustained by the victim, the staging and the clean-up, the involvement of these two in addition to Guede makes a lot more sense and on a balance of probability is far more credible than any kind of lone wolf killer. Plus, the police investigating the murder had cottoned on to the odd behaviour of Amanda and Raffaele before they arrested or suspected anyone else’s involvement.

This circumstantial evidence, coupled with reliable DNA evidence which includes Raffaele’s DNA on a bra strap in a room he supposedly never entered, a knife found at Raffaele’s house, a place Meredith had never been, with Amanda’s DNA on the handle and the victims on the tip, coupled with the lies and the defendants complete lack of an alibi for their actions and whereabouts on the night of the murder really doesn’t bode well at all. How the three ended up in the room is interesting but essentially incidental, DNA evidence places all three at the scene.

Group Theory

At this point you may be wondering how Rudy’s lack of violent history is seemingly more important than Amanda and Raffaele’s, indeed you would be correct in the assumption that they are all just as unlikely candidates for a lone wolf killer as each other, but the point is, neither of them were lone wolf killers, there were in effect all part of a ‘gang’ and as such, their actions and behaviour would have been decidedly different.

There have only ever really been a handful of theories about who was present that night and the only one that suggests the crime was committed by Guede alone has already been discredited, even by Guede himself who is now claiming (whether we believe him or not) that he was not the only person in the house with Meredith that night. Guede was indisputably present in the cottage but has now claimed in his recent appeal that he was on the toilet at the time of the fatal knife wound resulting from an attack which began as the result of a row between Amanda and Meredith over stolen rent money.  At this point in time and with the evidence available so far, it is pretty clear that Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito and Rudy Guede were all present in the house that night and all took part in the sexual assault and murder of Meredith Kercher. This in itself suggests a gang attack which, according to current theory on group violence could explain how three people with no history of violence could attack and kill a young woman in such a brutal way and then refuse to say a single word to implicate the other during the investigation, probably in order to ensure that in keeping this pact of silence they would not implicate themselves.

Evidence suggesting group attack/behaviour and ‘team work’

Crime Reconstruction
The evidence available so far indicates that Meredith was attacked by three people. She had 47 separate injuries on her body when she died; some were consistent with being forcibly held by her arms, whilst someone taunted her with the blade of a knife. Reconstruction of the attack places Guede behind Meredith sexually assaulting her, Raffaele to the side restraining her and Amanda facing the victim with the knife. Guede’s DNA found inside the victim, bruises on the victims arms and the DNA found on the knife supports this reconstruction. The reconstruction of the crime scene implies each individual had a ‘role’ in the attack which is indicative of a group/pack mentality.

Clean up and staging
The evidence suggests that the crime scene was staged; to suggest a burglary and a rape had taken place. Amanda and Raffaele have been charged with altering a crime scene. Rudy Guede was seen in town by a number of witnesses whilst the staging and extensive cleanup of the cottage was taking place. The clean up was good, but not good enough, DNA evidence implicating both defendants has been found. The clean up and staging suggests an element of team work. Similarly, the evidence suggests that Amanda and Raffaele cleaned up their own involvement which also implies they were willing to ‘frame’ Rudy as a sole perpetrator, which could also tell us something about the dynamic of the group and the perceived ‘importance’ of each individual within the ‘hierarchy’ of the group.

Silence pact
It appears that a silence pact is in place,  like a ‘what happened in the cottage stays in the cottage’ pact, it appears there is some sort of agreement between Amanda and Raffaele, either to avoid implicating themselves or some kind of joint solidarity. I find it interesting that Amanda voluntarily chose to go to the police station with Raffaele without needing to do so. Their behaviour following the discovery of the body was almost mirrored. Their continued behaviour reminds me of a pact, as does their refusal to speak about Guede.

Impact of group dynamic and implications for our understanding of the crime

Research has indicated that people fall into specific ‘roles’ within groups and are used to fulfilling different roles which are dependent on specific sets of circumstances and social surroundings. Some people are leaders and therefore more dominant, others prefer to blend into the background or provide support to the more dominant members of the ‘pack’.

Hierarchy is extremely important, without it society would struggle and groups would lack purpose and direction. Humans crave hierarchy; this is why we naturally assume different roles. Some naturally take charge and some naturally follow. This is true of all groups.

In any group you usually have a ‘leader’, this person is in charge of making decisions and suggestions and will look to members of the group for advice and support. Leaders are usually more dominant, more loud, more sociable and more outgoing in general. Followers are less dominant and tend to be more introverted.

Group violence and current theory

Research into group violence has indicated that violent attacks on one individual by two or more members of a ‘pack’ are much more brutal, especially in cases when the attack results in the death of the targeted victim. Attacks committed by two or more individuals on one targeted victim are significantly more likely to result in the victim’s death.

One theory which attempts to explain this is the idea of deindividuation and diffusion of responsibility.   According to Zimbardo, deindividuation is the tendency of people within groups to lose their individual identities and become anonymous members of the group, closely linked to this idea is diffusion of responsibility, which outlines the idea that an individual within a group can ‘diffuse’ their own personal level of responsibility onto that of the group, in order to avoid taking personal responsibility for actions which they perceive are the result of the group as a whole. Their actions, like with deindividuation, become that of the group and as such the line between right and wrong can become severely blurred. This process helps to explain why in most instances of group attacks resulting in the death of the victim, the attack itself is often prolonged, sadistic and extremely violent, even if the victim did very little to provoke the attack in the first place.

The murder of Meredith Kercher

The murder of Meredith Kercher is a classic example of group violence and group dynamics within violence. The evidence suggesting that the victim was held, sexually assaulted and taunted with the knife before being killed indicates a group dynamic. Each individual had their own role in the killing and in all likelihood ‘fell into’ the role as a natural extension of their own personality types. Amanda as a person is more dominant than the other two; she is more loud, more adventurous, sociable and competitive, she would in all likelihood have been the ‘leader’ of the group, the ‘puppet master’ if you like. She is at the centre of it all, as such the DNA evidence placing her in the role of knife wielder makes sense, especially with her physical build and make up. It would not make sense in terms of group dynamic and utilisation of group ‘skills’ and ‘attributes’ to have Amanda attempting to restrain Meredith, the men naturally fell into this ‘role’ knowing that they would be able to hold Meredith still. Rudy fell into his ‘role’ as the instigator of the sexual assault and appears to be the weakest ‘member’ of the group, evident by Amanda and Raffaele’s lack of loyalty and their willingness to implicate him for a crime in which they also had an active role. Add to this the theory which suggests that in instances of group violence, a certain amount of deindividuation and diffusion of responsibility leads to an increase in violence, this could explain how three people with no history of violence have either been convicted or are currently on trial for the brutal and sadistic sexual assault and murder of Meredith Kercher.

Of course we will probably never know exactly what happened to Meredith, but current theory about group dynamics in these sorts of violent attack can go a long way to explaining what happened, even when the persons responsible refuse to say a word.

The recent court testimony concerning Raffaele Sollecito’s computer activities (or lack thereof) between the hours of 9.10pm on the night of the murder right through to 5.30am the next morning, virtually annihilates his alibi of being at home in front of the computer whilst the murder was being committed. Further alibi bashing testimony is expected in the upcoming trial dates when the evidence that Raffaele didn’t pick up a call from his father that night will be presented to the court as will the evidence that Raffaele and his former girlfriend Amanda Knox simultaneously switched their phones off approximately one hour before the attack on Meredith which tragically culminated in her death.

The evidence and testimony so far has incontrovertibly shown that neither Amanda nor Raffaele have a consistent or credible alibi for their whereabouts and actions the night Meredith Kercher was murdered.

Playing Musical Chairs with the Alibi

Raffaele spoke to a reporter called Kate Mansey and claimed he had gone to a party with Amanda on the night of the murder. When the police questioned him with regard to certain inconsistencies in his alibi, with Amanda voluntarily accompanying him to the police station, Raffaele admitted he had ‘told a load of rubbish’ because he didn’t think about ‘inconsistencies’ in Amanda’s version of events, he then told police that Amanda had left his apartment to go to Le Chic and meet some friends whilst he had stayed at the apartment and watched a film whilst downloading another one to watch later, when Amanda (who was conveniently sat at the police station of her own free will) was confronted with the fact that Raffaele was no longer providing her with an alibi she broke down and ‘confessed’ to being at the cottage that night and told the police that she had covered her ears while her boss Patrick Lumumba had raped and killed Meredith. Amanda made a statement which implicated Lumumba and though this cannot be used in the trial due to no lawyer being present, a handwritten note to the police concerning this false accusation has been admitted as evidence. Amanda claims to have been put under pressure by the police by saying that she was hit, not given food or water and essentially implies she was ‘coerced’ into implicating Lumumba. This has not only been shown to be false but has also landed her a further slander charge alongside the one for making the false allegation against Lumumba in the first place. Amanda has since reverted back to her original story by claiming she was at the apartment all night with Raffaele, Raffaele has not confirmed this and as such Amanda has no real alibi. Both claim to have smoked so much marijuana they cannot remember exactly what happened that night, what they did or who was there. Raffaele has been clinging on to his computer/marijuana alibi for dear life and now half of it has melted away, all he is left with is the completely unbelievable insinuation that ‘he cannot remember what happened’ indeed Amanda seems to think this is also a credible alibi.

So here we have two young people, both of whom are known to Meredith, one with keys to the cottage where she was murdered. Both switched their phones off shortly before Meredith was killed and neither have a credible alibi for their actions and whereabouts that night. One claims to have spent the evening at home with the other, the other claims to have spent the evening alone at the computer, they both claim to have been so stoned they can’t remember anything at all, yet both equally ‘remember’ they slept until 10.30am the next morning. Computer evidence has shown one has lied about his activities that night and has also shown that at least one of them played a music file at 5.30am so one or both are lying about sleeping through to 10.30am.

Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito (aside from Guede who admitted involvement) are in all likelihood the only two people in Perugia that night who, despite repeated interviews, pre-trial hearings and expensive lawyers , still have no credible or consistent alibi for their actions and whereabouts the night Meredith was killed. This, coupled with DNA evidence and witness statements confirms what Claudia Matteini described as ‘strong indications of guilt’. The only card Amanda and Raffaele have left to play is their ‘word’

Exactly why a jury would believe anything these two have to say is beyond me

At this point in time it seems fairly likely that Amanda and Raffaele are lying, not just about what they did that night but also by claiming they can’t remember because they smoked too much marijuana. This is not credible for a number of reasons:

Firstly, marijuana is not widely accepted as a drug that can completely annihilate specific parts of an evening whilst leaving other ‘memories’ intact. In short there is no real evidence to suggest that marijuana can have this effect. Raffaele Sollecito was a heavy pot smoker and it’s likely that Amanda was too, as such the chances of either of them ‘forgetting’ an entire evening, especially considering their previous level of exposure and resistance to the drug, are basically zero. It therefore follows that as the probability of this happening to one of them is low, the chances of it happening to both are even lower. Secondly we also have evidence that a cleanup took place. If Amanda and Raffaele were so stoned they passed out, how can we explain the DNA evidence at the crime scene and the evidence of a clean up? It would not have been possible to have cleaned the apartment (and it was a pretty good job too) if they were that stoned.

Basically it’s a lie and one that has irreparably damaged the credibility of the defendants. Not only that but according to recent research about perpetrators who feign amnesia, it could also be extremely damaging to the defendants overall memory recall which will be vital in order to avoid being ripped to shreds in cross examination if and when they take the stand.

Feigning Amnesia

I’ve recently been thinking about perpetrator amnesia and those who attempt to use it as an alibi particularly in murder cases.

Amnesia takes many forms but is essentially memory loss. It can be permanent or temporary and can be caused by any number of things from brain damage to witnessing or experiencing a severely traumatic event.

An article published in the International Journal of Law and Psychiatry called ‘Claims of Crime-Related Amnesia  in Forensic Patients’ highlights the differences in theory amongst those attempting to explain the reasons why perpetrators claim amnesia when accused of serious crime and whether these claims have any basis in reality.

According to the authors there are three basic theories as to why offenders claim amnesia when confronted with accusations of a serious crime:

The first outlines the idea that the nature of most serious crime and in particular very violent homicides is very stressful for the offender and argues that these types of offences provoke “strong and emotional reactions” which arguably undermines the memory of the actual crime.

The second argues that in a lot of cases, offenders who claim amnesia have often been extremely intoxicated at the time of committing the crime, this theory suggests that the ability of the offender to encode specific memories about the event is impaired due to intoxication. The researchers also noted a correlation between alcoholism and offenders who claim amnesia.

The third theory outlines the idea that most cases of crime-related amnesia are a form of malingering and that offenders who claim amnesia are in fact feigning a memory deficit to escape or reduce responsibility for their actions.

I am not a fan of reductionist theories that attempt to simplify complex subjects such as this and as such I am inclined to believe that instances of crime-related amnesia are a combination of the above. One theory I am very interested in pursuing with regard to understanding this case further is the idea that offenders who appear to be feigning amnesia  in order to escape punishment may actually be attempting to come up with a plausible rationale for the crime without actually having to discuss crime details that may distress or upset them, as a result of this offenders will often claim they do not remember what happened, both to avoid punishment and so they do not have to ‘reconstruct’ memories of the crime. Memory recall is a tricky area and it has been proven that time elapse and suggestion have a very strong effect on memory recall, lawyers for example are not allowed to ask leading questions in court as memories can occasionally be ‘reconstructed’ as a result of suggestion.

I am of the belief that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are feigning amnesia in order to avoid punishment for their actions and to avoid discussing specific crime details that may be causing them stress or discomfort.

Further research has been conducted into the effects of feigning amnesia on ongoing memory recall. This research suggests that offenders who feign amnesia are more likely to have decreased memory recall over time, further suggesting that offenders who claim to ‘forget’ actually do partially forget. The problem with this is that their original statements and ‘memories’ have already been recorded for use during trial, what can sometimes happen is an offender has spent such a long time pretending not to remember that they experience dissociative amnesia, especially if the crime was traumatic or very violent. In these instances, specific details become hazy and inconsistencies appear which then often results in the defendant being ripped to shreds when they eventually take the stand.

Amanda and Raffaele have already demonstrated an amazing ability to twist details in to newer and ‘improved’ versions of what happened that night, this coupled with their disassociation from the crime and each other has certainly done its fair share of damage already. The inconsistencies in Amanda and Raffaele’s stories have in part come about simply because they have attempted to ‘block out’ and ‘shut away’ any memories of that evening.

Amanda and Raffaele are having (and will continue to have) serious problems with their memory recall for the following reasons:

• A great deal of time has passed between the murder and the trial
• They have repeatedly lied about their actions and whereabouts on the night and can no longer remember what they said, who they said it to and why they said it.
• They have both claimed amnesia which is shown to have an effect on subsequent memory recall of the crime itself.
• They have both in all likelihood been involved in an extremely violent murder and sexual assault, according to current theory this could have been traumatic enough to severely impair memory recall of the event and as such they are completely resisting all attempts by the prosecution to talk about what actually happened that night (it will take a great many years of therapy and counselling to get this out of them)
• They were both intoxicated on the night in question which may have had a moderate effect on memory encoding and subsequent memory recall.

As a result of this Amanda and Raffaele will have serious problems if and when they take the stand, I wager that this will the point when someone will crack or slip up, especially if and when Mignini chooses to cross examine them. They won’t stand a chance.

Some ideas and conclusions

Crime related amnesia is a fairly common occurrence in the criminal justice system and there have been a great number of theories attempting to understand why it is so often used as an ‘excuse’ by offenders accused of serious crime.

Psychologists believe it may be in part an attempt to disassociate from the crime both in the attempt to avoid punishment and as an attempt to avoid reconstructing memories of a particularly violent crime which may distress the offender.

I believe that the fact Amanda and Raffaele are using amnesia as a defence strongly indicates they were present in the cottage that night and played an active role in a disturbing and highly sadistic crime which they are now disassociating themselves from. Amanda and Raffaele have experienced problems with memory recall and have been unable to provide a credible or reliable alibi which seems to indicate that they do not in fact have one.

They were at the cottage that night and they in all likelihood participated in the murder of Meredith Kercher.

This is the fourth part in a series of posts concerned with examining possible motives for the murder of Meredith Kercher. These posts are a collection of ideas and theories based in part from my own reflections on this case and from ideas and scenarios that have been put forward by others. In the previous post I outlined the idea of theft as a possible motive for what happened that night. Though there is a great deal of evidence to suggest a theft did take place, it seems unlikely that this would be the sole cause of the violent attack which tragically culminated in Meredith’s death.

In the first two posts I discussed the idea that the murder fits into the category of a sex related homicide, I also discussed current theory about classification of violence and the part it may play in helping us to understand this unique and complex crime. I do not currently believe that theft is a viable motive for what appears to be a complex and sadistic sex related homicide. There is however, another theory that could help explain how this tragedy came about and the violence with which it was executed: Anger.

Anger and some of its causes

Anger is an emotional state that encompasses anything from moderate irritation to full blown rage. The physical effects of anger include: increased heart rate, blood pressure and adrenaline. Anger usually comes about for some of the following (real or perceived) reasons: Feelings of being wronged or humiliated, feelings of resentment, mistreatment, frustration, losing face or being made to feel helpless, lack of control, having ones personal space invaded, injustice, feeling trapped or isolated and jealousy.

Everyone is different and therefore feels and responds to anger in different ways, some people are easy to anger or lose their temper, this is usually associated with a short sharp burst of aggression as a result of frustration at the real or perceived source of irritation which quickly subsides upon venting. Other people let these feelings of frustration and resentment build up over a long period of time, this can sometimes be because they feel it is inappropriate to or don’t know how to express the way they feel, given enough time this can result in an explosion of rage, akin to a balloon slowly filling up with air which eventually pops. It can take a long time for these balloons to ‘pop’, sometimes even years. Some of the latter may avoid getting angry at the person/thing that is the route of the real or perceived problem, usually because the source of anger/frustration is a loved one, partner or family member and they do not want to upset them or cause them pain by expressing the way they feel directly, this can lead to what’s known as displaced anger

Displaced anger
A psychologist once described displaced anger as ‘anger without a home’. Displaced anger occurs when an individual cannot confront the real source of their anger and as such the anger never really goes away but instead comes out in other ways or is projected onto something or more often than not someone else, anything which is safer or more convenient than confronting the source or cause of the anger. Displaced anger often leads to hostility or affront which in turn can lead to individuals being ostracised or ignored, leading to further resentment and anger.

Evidence to suggest anger as a possible motive

There is some evidence available about the crime scene and the nature of the attack which suggests that anger may have played a role in what happened that night:

Offence Classification and Crime Scene
As I outlined in a previous post, the murder of Meredith Kercher fits into the category of a sex related homicide and specifically, one with a rape and/or sodomy motivation, these types of homicide are usually extremely sadistic with victims often suffering a violent sexual assault and equally violent death, usually from manual strangulation, asphyxiation and/or multiple stab wounds to the throat, chest and abdomen. Meredith had 47 separate injuries on her body when she died; as well as the three knife wounds to her neck, one of them deep and fatal, Meredith also had defensive knife wounds on her hands and face as well as injuries consistent with being forcibly held or restrained and manually strangled as well as a broken Hyoid bone in her neck. The evidence indicates she was taunted with the blade of a knife whilst being held and sexually assaulted. God knows how long this went on for, how frightened she must have been and how bravely she fought for her life. Whoever killed Meredith took pleasure in and deliberately ensured her suffering. Similarly, the knife wound itself is reported to be very deep and very nasty, it could be suggested that the final blow represented a release of some kind this, coupled with the idea that the victim was tortured and humiliated before death, suggests the emotion driving the person wielding the knife could well have been anger manifested through any number of emotions.

DNA evidence has implicated Amanda Knox

As the DNA evidence so far indicates that Amanda may have wielded the knife and struck the final blow I will be concentrating on Amanda in my consideration of the potential sources of her anger and how they may relate to her interaction with the victim and what happened that night, within the framework of this theory.

I think it’s important to consider Amanda almost as if she were two separate people as from descriptions of her character by the people who know her best, it sounds as if the Amanda we are seeing is a very different Amanda to the idealistic young lady that left the US for an adventure in Perugia.

Why was Amanda angry?

In Perugia
There has been a great deal of speculation about the relationship between Amanda and Meredith and whether it could have directly contributed to the events of that tragic evening in November 2007. There are quite a few people who believe Amanda had a deep-rooted hatred of Meredith and may have killed her for that reason. I for one believe Amanda may have disliked Meredith after a while, maybe even despised her towards the time Meredith was killed, but as with most aspects of this case, attempting to understand why usually creates more questions than it answers.

Discussion about the relationship between the two young women has been varied, some maintain it was bordering on mutual hatred, others claim the two were fairly firm friends. Having reviewed what has been written so far I’m currently leaning in the direction that the relationship was at best, strained. Testimony from Meredith’s friends has indicated that she sometimes complained about small things like Amanda not doing her share of the cleaning, not flushing the toilet, bringing home strange men and deliberately leaving her condoms and vibrator on full display inside a clear plastic cosmetics bag in the bathroom she and Meredith shared. It has also been stated that the two were close initially but then drifted apart as they found their feet amongst different social circles in Perugia. Then we have the testimony that indicates a possible ‘rivalry’ over Giacomo Silenzi with Amanda supposedly giving Meredith ‘permission’ to date him. These things, though small could have over time led to a certain amount of animosity between the two, with Meredith too prudent to approach the issue directly and Amanda possibly oblivious to the way her housemate was feeling.

It would be a shame to have to go into the whole ‘good girls do bad girls don’t’ thing, which isn’t the issue here, however I do believe that Meredith and Amanda were very, very different people with Meredith seemingly the more mature and sensible of the two, I also believe that Meredith tried to talk to Amanda in a firm but friendly way, in an extract from her diary Amanda says “she gave me advice and protected me when I found myself in difficult situations”. Though Amanda’s has a track record of not telling the truth or fabricating it to suit her individual needs, I believe there are elements of truth in her diary and this could be a recollection of sorts possibly of a time that she and Meredith talked openly about things that were bothering her. I believe that despite trying to get along with her housemate, over time Meredith said things and acted in a way that aroused Amanda’s hostility towards her, though Meredith would have seen these things as perfectly reasonable and not in the least offensive, Amanda may have taken them to heart especially if it appeared Meredith was getting on better with Laura and Filomena in terms of tidiness around the house. Amanda may have perceived them to have been ‘ganging up on her’ by telling her what to do with regard to the cleaning rota and other household affairs, in her testimony Filomena said: “At first they got on very well…then things began to take a different road and there was a bit of tension over the cleaning rotas…I know Amanda missed her turn a couple of times, she didn’t always respect them.” Amanda was in Italy for the year of fun and freedom she had been waiting for, she probably resented a cleaning rota and may even have perceived it as boring, restrictive and a barrier to the relaxed, chilled-out and exciting adventure she had envisaged living in the house would be.

An interesting point to consider when looking at the relationship between Amanda and Meredith is the idea that they were both in Perugia for very different reasons. In his excellent post on TJMK, Stuarthome2000 outlines the differences between Meredith’s accredited ERASMUS exchange program and the kind of year Amanda had planned which was arguably just an unsupervised year of relaxed language classes and partying. Amanda was not on an accredited program and the level of supervision she would have received was minimal in comparison to Meredith who would have had people checking up on her attendance, behaviour and progress throughout her time in Perugia. According to the article, the University of Washington doesn’t have a study abroad program in Perugia so precisely why Amanda decided to take time out from her studies to pursue an expensive and arguably less than beneficial trip half way across the ocean is anybody’s guess. As Meredith was on an accredited program she would have had access to people that could assist her with any problems she was having especially at home, had Amanda been on this kind of program as well, tensions around the house especially with regard to bringing home men and possibly doing drugs would have been diffused quickly and efficiently. As Amanda was essentially in Perugia on her own with no supervision or anyone to report back to she was essentially free to do whatever she liked, this may have made things difficult as nobody was present that could speak to or reprimand her, this must have been very frustrating for Meredith who it seems was in Perugia to get on with her studies and she certainly didn’t need the hassle of a problematic housemate. With Meredith possibly being being shy herself, she probably didn’t feel comfortable discussing the issues with Amanda directly. On a similar note it could be argued that Amanda was expecting to arrive in Perugia and meet other people that wanted to party in the same way she did, the vast majority of the students there would probably have been on accredited programs and wanted to take their studies seriously and it may have been frustrating to meet people like Meredith whose main reason for being in Perugia was to study and not to party.

I find Amanda’s blog dated 2nd September 2007 very interesting, especially when she discusses seeing the cottage for the first time and her excitement at being offered one of the rooms. She says of Filomena: “not to mention, she owns two guitars and wants to play with me. not to mention the view is amazing. not to mention i have a terrace that looks over the perugian city/countryside. not to mention she wants me to teach erh yoga. not to mention they both smoke like chimneys.” It seems that Amanda had an idea about what her time in Perugia was going to be like, full of wild parties, smoking, drinking and lots of fun, from her blog it seems Meredith wasn’t present or was just about to move in and Amanda seems very excited at the chance to spend time with the girls she refers to as “awesome. really sweet, really down to earth, funny as hell”. I often wonder how Amanda felt when she first met Meredith and how the dynamic in the house changed as a result.

In the blog dated 15th October Amanda mentions Le Chic and that she has three days off a week to do what she likes. Amanda doesn’t mention Meredith or Filomena; in fact she makes very few references to anyone specific, preferring to say she has “plenty of friends here”. In my internet trawl over the last few days I have found it hard to find any specific reference to any of Amanda’s friends in Perugia other than the boys downstairs and her boyfriend Raffaele. As Laura and Filomena worked and presumably had their own social circles and there was tension between Amanda and Meredith, with Meredith preferring to spend her time with her own friends, it does appear that Amanda had very few (if any) close friends in Perugia and even fewer who were women. I think Amanda was quite lonely in Perugia and expected to make a lot more friends than she actually did. I read somewhere that a couple of female students found Amanda to be standoffish upon first meeting her and initiating conversation, rather than making conversation with them Amanda walked up to the nearest group of boys and started flirting, one of the girls that was interviewed said she didn’t really like Amanda and didn’t get a very good first impression.

Amanda does make reference to Laura in her blog and the handyman she started dating. According to testimony from one of Meredith’s friends Amy Frost, Meredith thought Amanda idolised her housemate Laura and had her ear pierced five times to emulate her. Though this may have been the case it may also be possible that Amanda, being free to do what she liked in Perugia decided to get her ears pierced when nobody could tell her not to. Getting multiple piercings’ in a short space of time is often a sign of rebellion in younger people, especially if they have been brought up in an environment where these sorts of things were not allowed. It seems clear to me that Amanda was rebelling in Perugia, smoking a lot, drinking a lot, getting her ears pierced five times in a couple of weeks and having sex with random men. It seems like Amanda’s primary motivation for going to Italy was to escape the life she had in the US, the people that kept an eye on her and the things this represented to her. I also think Amanda had very few people with whom to talk about things that were bothering her or how she felt.

From what has been revealed about Amanda’s character in Perugia, the sorts of things she said and the way people responded to her it does seem that she was slightly unapproachable, even hostile. Many psychologists believe that displaced anger is the cause of hostility as the individual cannot express how they feel in a way that is focused and appropriate to the situation, the anger may be displaced or projected onto someone else, it may lead to the person being defensive and giving off a bad first impression. Feelings of isolation and rejection as a result of the behaviour of the individual can lead to further anger, further repression of anger and later the appearance of hostility.

In order to understand this I feel it is most important to consider the potential source of Amanda’s anger and to do that we must go back to before her time in Perugia and try to understand why, what or who she was angry with.

Before Perugia

Thanks to the interesting new article from Barbie Nadeau, my ideas about Amanda’s childhood are now slightly clearer and things are starting to make more sense. I do and always have believed that Amanda is a very angry young woman who simply has no idea how to deal/cope with or understand the way she feels about important events in her life, what she wants to do or where she wants to be.

Childhood Events

I really want to avoid the whole ‘blame the parents’ mantra, simply because it is a massive cliché, unfair and often completely off target, yet we cannot ignore certain important events in Amanda’s childhood that came about directly through choices made by Amanda’s parents.

Amanda’s parents Curt and Edda divorced when she was just two years old, according to the article written by Nadeau: “On more than one occasion Edda had to go to court to collect child support from Curt”, then when Amanda was around ten years old her mother Edda married Chris Mellas who was ten years younger.

The effects of divorce on children vary and as Amanda was very young when her parents divorced it seems unlikely that she would have been massively affected by it when it actually happened, what may be more difficult to establish is how Amanda felt about this growing up, if Curt and Edda argued about child support payments it may be the case that Curt had limited access to both Amanda and her younger sister Deanna when they were growing up, it does sound like her father was present in Amanda’s life as he said in an interview he moved only five blocks away. Curt probably encouraged her competitiveness, both academically and on the soccer field; it was here that she earned her nickname ‘Foxy Knoxy’, her sister Deanna says, “She got that nickname when she was 11 because she was intense. She was a defender; she’d crouch and come out of nowhere to stop people”. Suggestions of Amanda’s intense competitiveness interest me, I really don’t think she liked or was used to ‘losing’ at anything.

Relationship with her father
It seems Amanda takes after her father, whereas her mother Edda is frequently crying and very emotional in interviews her father, though he appears heartbroken and devastated is almost emotionless in his calmness and gives away very little about how he is feeling inside. According to her family, Amanda was a tomboy and didn’t like to wear make-up (in fact I have seen very few photos of Amanda with make-up on), Amanda preferred rock-climbing and other sports. Amanda has also suggested that she was picked on at school with other girls thinking she was a lesbian, in all likelihood I doubt her peers even really thought she was gay, but they were simply trying to understand how a pretty girl did not enjoy make-up, boys, dressing up and other more traditionally female things, despite this, these sorts of comments and accusations were probably quite hurtful especially during puberty and adolescence. It seems she was a classic tomboy and tomboys nearly always identify best with their fathers. It does seem that Amanda identified better with men on the whole, though she has some female friends it does seem she spent a lot of time socialising with men both in Seattle and in Perugia, possibly finding them less threatening. When her father was recently in court Amanda appeared more relaxed and happy, the last two appearances (with her step-father Chris Mellas present in place of Curt) have been noticeably different, with Amanda now appearing more nervous and distressed. Though she said on her MySpace profile page that her hero was her mother it seems Amanda was just as close to her father and misses his comforting presence in the courtroom greatly.

Relationship with her mother, sister and stepfather
Amanda refers to her mother as her hero (on her mirrored MySpace page) and it does seem that the two are close, her mother has been very vocal in support of her daughter’s innocence. I find the following line from Amanda’s short story ‘The Model’ very interesting and believe it sheds light on the dynamic of the house Amanda grew up in after her mother remarried and possibly even her thoughts on the news that Chris would be her new father:

“We’re going to Dad’s new place, said unflinchingly, though a hard part in my chest recoiled in on itself, tying all the tissue and tendons of my chest into a knot.
“Who the hell do you think you are, Mom?” Aislin stood up her skin blotched red at her temples. She clenched her fists and tears began in her eyes. “You think everything’s about you, don’t you? You are such an idiot!”
“idiot or not, I’m your mother, in case you forgot, and I’m telling you to get some clothes and get your butt back down here so we can leave….
…I can’t believe we’re doing this,” she said as she reached the bottom step. She bowed her head and lowered her voice. Murmured, “You’re such a bitch.”

Such anger in these words and surprisingly realistic despite the fact that the rest of the story is disjointed and hard to read. I believe Amanda was very angry when her mother married Chris; after all she had probably gotten used to it just being her Edda and Deanna and probably didn’t like the idea that someone would be ‘replacing’ her father. I also noticed possible competitiveness regarding male attention between Amanda and her sister Deanna. In an interview with the family conducted by The Times, Deanna dismisses the idea that Amanda was a man-eater by saying: “That’s ridiculous. Amanda didn’t have her first boyfriend until university, when she was 19. She’s kind of a late bloomer. We talked about guys because I had a serious boyfriend way before she had one. I’d feed her advice.” Telling indeed. It sounds like Amanda grew up with quite a lot of hassle hanging over her head; her father was not around all the time, she had a pretty hefty reputation to uphold at a strict Jesuit school, she got used to living with her mother and then her step father Chris came along. In her controversial rape-story Baby Brother Amanda wrote the following line: “I don’t want to go home. My mom’s all full up with my brother and they don’t talk to me anymore. They just go to bed. Dad and her used to fight to read me stories…” Isolation, jealousy and rejection, it’s all there, in her own words. Chris is, to put it mildly, a bit of a douche, even if we put aside the outrageous way he has conducted himself online, he still doesn’t sound like the ideal father figure for someone like Amanda, neither does it seem the two get on well at all. He refers to Amanda and Deanna as ‘shitheads’ on his MySpace profile and, according to Nadeau, boasts of getting drunk with one of his stepdaughters. In a translated section of Knox prison diary she says “Obviously, Chris is getting on my nerves because he’s an asshole and so I had to go away.” She also says “I don’t plan on staying to hear that I’m an obtuse retard.”

In the Times interview the family explain the one time Amanda was violent, she broke the nose of a boy who had been picking on her sister Deanna, yet in the same breath Deanna states: “My sister can’t kill a spider. When I’d find a spider in my room I’d tell her ‘Kill it,’ but she would get a glass and take it outside”. Of course her family are the best people to attest to what sort of person Amanda is, yet I find it hard to understand how breaking a boy’s nose, in anger or retaliation is even comparable to killing a spider. I believe that as the DNA evidence indicates Amanda’s presence in the cottage that night and even her holding the knife that killed Meredith, that she was capable of violence. The story about the broken nose is significant; firstly it shows that she is capable of ‘correcting’ a perceived injustice with violence, secondly it indicates that a perceived injustice or sense of frustration may trigger some kind of emotional/anger response in Amanda, hence we could theorise that Meredith angered Amanda or was the subject of her displaced anger. Amanda herself says: “I don’t vent my frustrations on the people I love the most”.

I believe Amanda had been bottling up how she felt about her family for a number of years and probably wanted to escape to Italy in order to be free of the restrictions she faced living near home. It could be argued that this was the worst place for her, as unresolved anger in youth and a complete lack of supervision in a foreign country are unlikely to be a good match.

Where did Meredith fit in?

It’s likely that Amanda was jealous of Meredith, her looks and abilities and may have been overshadowed by her at times. If Amanda was a late bloomer, the novelty of being found attractive by men probably hadn’t worn off when she arrived in Perugia which could explain her sexual escapades. I believe that Meredith represented a lot of things that Amanda came to resent, maybe even loathe. It also seems that Meredith was a very girly girl, the sort that Amanda had found it hard to get on with at school. Meredith was very popular and made friends very easily and she had begun a relationship with Giacomo, one of the boys downstairs who Amanda also confessed to liking. Meredith was also sensible, smart and good with money, was very tidy around the house and possibly nagged Amanda to do more. It does sound as if Meredith had a hard time talking to Amanda about issues that were bothering her and her feelings about these issues may have come out in other ways, she may have looked at Amanda disapprovingly, ignored her or made a sly comment that irked her. Amanda may have thought her prissy, boring or ‘up-herself’ in some way and it does sound like their relationship deteriorated quite quickly.

I believe that Amanda brought quite a bit of displaced anger with her to Perugia in the hope that she could forget or bury the past by having a good time. I believe this anger eventually seeped out and was projected onto Meredith, seemingly for no logical reason whatsoever. I also believe that Amanda had few friends in Perugia and probably only confided in her boyfriend Raffaele who it seems was slightly troubled himself, would he have been the best person to give her advice and comfort, this drug abusing loner who collected knives and whose mother had committed suicide? It seems as if the person Amanda turned to for comfort was the only person who could have made the situation unequivocally worse, especially if Raffaele was infatuated with Knox , he may well have been capable to saying or doing anything to garner her approval or to ‘diffuse’ the situation.

Displaced anger could have lead to the idea of humiliating Meredith, playing a trick on her or even a drug fuelled argument that got out of hand. I still believe it is important to consider the evidence that this was premeditated but this kind of displaced anger could lead to any number of scenarios resulting in this level of violence.

With the recent appeal against the conviction and resulting 30 year sentence handed down to Rudy Guede by judge Micheli for his part in the sexual assault and murder of Meredith Kercher, it seems fitting to discuss another possible motive for the murder, theft.

In his appeal, lawyers for Guede claim their client was on the toilet when the fatal knife wound was administered by, he professes the defendant Amanda Knox in an apparent row over stolen rent money. Guede claims he attempted to help Meredith by using a towel to apply pressure to her wounds, but instead of calling an ambulance, he became frightened and ran away. Aside from confirming the obvious cowardice or lack of consideration for seeking immediate medical attention for the victim he claims he so chivalrously tried to ‘help’, Guede sheds no further light on what happened that night but instead attempts to point the finger of blame at the defendant Amanda Knox, perhaps in the wake of a recent drop in public opinion and support in favour of her innocence.

This is the third part in a series of posts concerned with examining possible motives for the murder of Meredith Kercher. These posts are a collection of ideas and theories based in part from my own reflections on this case and from ideas and scenarios that have been put forward by others. In the previous post I outlined some current theories on classification of violence and, though this post was quite theoretical in nature I hope I was successful in demonstrating that the confusion in typology of violence may suggest that there was in all likelihood a number of individual motives for what happened that night.

Classification of violence is an important factor to consider when attempting to understand the individual dynamic of this hugely complex and many layered crime, the attack on Meredith was extremely violent and sadistic and as such can be classified as a sex related homicide which, according to current classification, fits into a rape/sodomy motivation category and though the evidence so far supports the idea, it is also important to consider the evidence that suggests a further motive, theft.

Evidence to support the idea that a theft took place

There is no denying that a theft took place as some of Meredith’s personal possessions were, and to this day remain missing. The evidence for theft:

Cash machine records show that Meredith had withdrawn approx €300 to pay for her rent which was due at the start of the month but the landlord never received the money; neither did Filomena who sub-letted rooms to both Amanda and Meredith. Two debit/credit cards were missing from Meredith’s purse, one from Abbey National and the other from Nationwide, these have not been located. Two cell/mobile phones were taken from Meredith and tossed in the nearby garden of Elisabetta Lana; it was the discovery of one phone and shortly after, the other that led to the dispatch of the postal police who later discovered Meredith’s body.

With the above points in mind we can conclude that a theft of some kind did take place. However, we cannot conclude that this was the motive for the murder, nor can we necessarily say that the initial motivation of the perpetrator was burglary.

The Burglary

Evidence put forward so far indicates that the crime scene was staged to make it appear to police as if a burglary had been the motive for the presence of the perpetrator/s in the house that night. The burglary theory is not credible for a number of reasons:

Firstly, Filomena’s window, the supposed route of entry was significantly higher off the ground than other more easily accessible points of entry into the house. Entry from other points would have been significantly easier and less visible to potential witnesses; in fact some have even gone as far as suggesting that entry through this window would be impossible. Similarly, fragments of glass found on top of piles of scattered clothes indicates that the window was broken from the inside with a large rock that was found on the floor of Filomena’s bedroom.  Secondly, valuable items such as laptops, Meredith’s iPod as well as valuable jewellery, designer handbags and sunglasses belonging to Filomena were not taken from the house. As I discussed in a previous post the primary motivation of a burglary is to grab as much valuable stuff as quickly and easily as possible and without being caught.

Concerning the specific items taken from Meredith – Cash and cards
One thing I find pertiularly odd is the choice of items taken from Meredith, especially the cash and cards. People do not normally keep that kind of money just lying around the house, as such I doubt many burglars expect to find or even go looking for cash. If I was a burglar who found €300 lying about in a drawer as I was tossing a place I‘d probably think ‘bonus’ and carry on looting. Same with the debit cards, why would a burglar take these incredibly personal items which, not only are useless without the pin numbers but are easily traceable and totally unique to the victim? If found, there would be no denying that they had come from the cottage and seeing as they have no monetary value and these days you can’t even use them online without special passwords for security, it seems totally illogical that any ‘genuine’ burglar would take them, especially when you consider that the house contained a wealth of small, valuable and less traceable items such as jewellery an iPod and designer sunglasses, these items would be easy to carry and probably easy to sell. The fact that cash and cards were taken from Meredith implies that the person/s responsible wanted a) to lead the investigators in the belief that robbery was the motive and/or b) needed immediate access to cash, I firmly believe that due to the timing i.e. beginning of the month (rent time), whoever took the cash, already knew it was in the house and where to find it. This in itself discounts a lone wolf like Guede, who would not have had access to this information or known where to look for the cash. Seeing as Guede’s Facebook photos show him posing with a famous fashion designer, I can imagine he’d know the value of the designer handbags and sunglasses and, were he actually a lone burglar he may have taken those as well as the iPod which he’s already ‘confessed’ to being a fan of. It is also fairly reasonable to assume that Meredith and Amanda may have spoken about the rent money as they both would have owed the same amount to Filomena, is it too much of a stretch to imagine that Meredith may have mentioned she had withdrawn the money and was going to pay Filomena when she returned after the holiday weekend?

Concerning the specific items taken from Meredith – Cell/mobile phones
In a similar way to the cash/cards, a burglar would probably not be looking for cell/mobile phones when stealing from a property. If we consider the cost/benefit model, the primary motivation of burglary is to steal valuables to sell (benefit) whilst weighing up the likelihood of being caught (cost), as such a burglar would not choose to steal from a house that did not appear empty, hence the products you can buy to simulate lights coming on and off etc that give the impression someone is home. Cell/mobile phones are meant to be carried around in bags/pockets and as such, a burglar breaking into an empty property would not be expecting to find items that the owner of the property would be carrying around with them elsewhere. I’m not suggesting that a burglar would not steal these items if they were discovered, just that the likelihood of a potential burglar expecting to find them is low, as such the type of items stolen from Meredith is suspicious as they are all personal items that she would have been carrying around whilst the burglar was rummaging around looking for items to sell. With regard to the phones, a far more sinister likelihood, supported by the confession from Rudy Guede that he did not attempt to seek medical help for Meredith upon realising the severity of her injuries (and therefore we can assume he had a reason for not wanting her to recover and identify him), is that the perpetrator/s prevented Meredith from seeking medical attention by removing from her the only method with which to do so, her cell/mobile phones. Upon realising they would be easily traceable (just look at the apparent phone paranoia with the joint switch off at 8.40pm) the perpetrator/s decided the best place for the phones was in the garden of a nearby neighbour where they could not be traced to the perpetrator/s individual location. If we consider a lone burglar, with no prior relationship to the victim, the discarding of the phones makes absolutely no sense. If you were a burglar, why would you throw away half of the stuff you had just ‘worked so hard’ to steal?, that would be like flushing half of your wages for the night down the toilet. This could further imply that the person who took the phones knew Meredith personally and did not want it to be traced back to them especially if they knew the police would soon be poking around for information about who had killed her, it may also be possible that whoever took the phones intended to keep them, maybe someone without a phone (Guede) but ‘bailed out’, realising that they would be extremely incriminating if found.

All in all, the fact that only Meredith’s possessions were taken (and personal ones at that) is highly suspicious, add that to the evidence suggesting the burglary was staged and we have ourselves one very shady motive indeed.

Aggravated burglary and burglary related homicide

Incidents of aggravated burglary i.e. where the offender carries a weapon are rare, even rarer are the occasions where the burglar will actually employ the weapon. As burglary by its very nature is motivated by the desire to steal valuables whilst the owner is absent, the motivation to seriously harm the owner of the property is usually non-existent. Incidences of violent burglars are reported but usually they only strike out in self defence especially if violently confronted in retaliation for the break-in. Even rarer are incidents of burglary related homicide with the owner as the victim, more often than not if a death occurs as a result of a burglary its usually the burglar and not the owner that is killed. Burglary is generally considered to be a non violent crime and though very distressing to those whose personal possessions have been taken it very rarely culminates in such extreme violence and in these cases, the burglar is nearly always provoked.

Though incidents where burglars lash out when confronted do happen, it’s usually only when they feel threatened. Meredith’s friends have suggested she was cautious, like plenty of young women who study in a foreign country and would not have opened the door to strangers at night, therefore the likelihood of her actually meeting and confronting a burglar with a weapon, the propensity for violence and provoking a violent attack, rather than just making a run for the door or hiding under the bed are very slim. In short, Meredith would have been unlikely to have confronted a burglar and even if it had been Guede rummaging around the house alone she would have screamed or probably made a run for it.

Something in the house put her ‘at ease’ before the attack, somebody familiar was there that night.

The injuries Meredith sustained were consistent with a very violent sexual assault, being forcibly restrained, taunted with a knife and eventually stabbed in the neck. Despite the fact that the murder of Meredith Kercher appears to be a sex related homicide, even if we consider that robbery could have been a the motive, the nature of the attack and the level of violence is not consistent with research or theory about classification of violence in these sorts of offences, neither were the injuries caused by one person.

Implications for our understanding of the motive

The evidence put forward so far seems to suggest that burglary was not a primary motive for the murder of Meredith Kercher, but theft could still be considered. Amanda and Raffaele have been charged with the theft (amongst a list of other things) of Meredith’s personal possessions but asserting that the acquisition of these items was motive enough to kill? I’m not so sure.

DNA evidence has convicted Rudy Guede and implicated Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, we could therefore suggest that the evidence supporting the presence of all three negates the need for the ‘break-in’ through the window, why then did they stage the crime scene to insinuate a robbery had taken place? Amanda had a key and according to judge Micheli, most likely let Rudy in through the front door. What I struggle to understand is why Amanda would even need to involve Guede if she and Raffaele were just planning on stealing Meredith’s money. In the email Amanda sent to her friends and family 2 days after the murder she mentions in great detail what Meredith was doing the ‘last time she saw her alive’, despite the idea that it appears the couple were watching Meredith that afternoon it also seems to suggest that for a number of hours Amanda and Raffaele were alone in the house as Meredith had gone to her friend’s house, was it possible that they stole the money from Meredith then and spent the afternoon getting baked at Meredith’s expense? As Rudy’s recent appeal (if we believe what he has to say) suggests that Amanda and Meredith argued about stolen money and says nothing about him actually seeing her take the money,  it could be suggested that the money may have been taken in the afternoon after Meredith had left for her friend’s house.

It is feasible that Amanda, Rudy and Raffaele were at the cottage to buy/sell/do drugs that afternoon and upon returning home, Meredith became angry when she found her rent money missing and guessed what it may have been spent on. It does seem unlikely that this level of violence would be used in these circumstances though it is consistent with diffusion of responsibility and as I discussed in my previous post, fits with a classification of hostile violence.

Why would they need the money?

Amanda and Raffaele, alongside murder and other charges related to the incident, have also been charged with stealing Meredith’s money/cards/phones. Despite this, some people have rejected the idea that they are capable or would want to steal as they have been painted as fairly wealthy kids, despite the fact that even rich people steal (Winona Ryder is a good example); the following ideas may shed some light:

Amanda
The FOA have suggested that Amanda would have no motive to steal as she had over $4000 in the bank at the time of the murder. Though this seems like a large amount of money it may well have been all she had in the world. The FOA like to tell everyone that Amanda had to work several jobs to save up and pay for her trip to Perugia, which, though shows dedication and hard work, also indicates that Amanda’s parents didn’t really have the sort of money that would allow her a jet-set lifestyle half way across the world and in any case they may have helped out a bit but wanted her to learn her first big lesson about money by saving up for it herself. It has been reported that Amanda was middle-class and not particularly rich. In any case, just because her parents have practically bankrupted themselves fighting these accusations and orchestrating a PR campaign doesn’t mean they had/have money to burn, every parent wants their child to go out into the world and do things their own way and it sounds like this was the lesson Amanda was learning (why else would she have needed to work several jobs). $4000, though it sounds like a lot of money is actually very little when living abroad. $4000 currently equates to just over €3000, if we take the exchange rate at the time as being slightly better, Amanda paying roughly €300 rent a month, would probably have just covered the years rent with her savings. Why do you think she had to get a job at Le Chic paying roughly €50 a week plus tips? When we factor in food, flights home for Christmas, alcohol and the (seemingly) copious amounts of weed she smoked it seems reasonable that Amanda could have been running short of money. Amanda had just lost her bar job at Le Chic and been ‘relegated’ to handing out flyers instead, with this potential source of income drying up I can imagine Amanda was concerned about her finances, especially if she owed/needed money for drugs. It is also interesting that Amanda was carrying €215 in cash when she was arrested, it would be interesting to know if bank statements showed Amanda had withdrawn this money on the day of the murder or the subsequent day and if she had withdrawn €300 to pay her rent, or stolen this amount from Meredith, where the extra €85 had been spent.

Raffaele
Raffaele reportedly had just €40 in his bank account when Meredith was killed and seeing as how his father was a rich doctor who provided him with a nice apartment, car and probably kept him financially sound while he studied it seems odd that he would be this broke.

Some ideas and conclusions

Though the evidence suggests that theft may have played a role in what happened that night, there is no conclusive evidence to suggest that theft was the primary motive for the attack on Meredith, it is however clear that the burglary was staged. It is possible that the violent attack came about as a result of a confrontation over the missing money, which is consistent with a possible classification of hostile violence.

I am however, still attempting to understand, if this was just about money, where Rudy Guede fits in as he was not charged with theft. Also where does the evidence that the murder may have been premeditated fit in with this theory? Why were the phones switched off at the same time? Why did they take the knife? What the hell was planned?

The fact that extremely personal and traceable items belonging to Meredith were taken is highly suspicious, as is the evidence suggesting that the defendants Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were short of cash at this time, Rudy’s ‘confession’ that Amanda killed Meredith, like most of his stories is probably fantasy but with some basis in truth.

Even with this mind, it still seems implausible that something this depraved and violent could result from the theft of just €300.

This is the second part of a series of posts concerned with examining possible motives for the murder of Meredith Kercher. These posts are a collection of ideas and theories based in part from my own reflections on this case and from ideas and scenarios that have been put forward by others.

In the previous post I outlined some current theories on classification of sexual homicide. I believe the murder of Meredith Kercher can be classified as a sexual homicide due to the level of violence, evidence of sexual assault and the way the body was found. One of the motives for committing a violent sexual assault and murder is the intention of humiliating or dominating the victim though the motives for this aren’t always clear.

I have recently begun to examine the possibility that the attack was premeditated as the evidence put forward to far seems to suggest this as a possibility. This is a very complex and intriguing case for many reasons and though a lot of evidence has been released into the public domain it could be argued that, due to the lack of cooperation from the defendants Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito and the only convicted member of the group so far, Rudy Guede, we are no closer to understanding the motive for the violent and depraved attack on Meredith which culminated in her tragic death.

Rationale for examining the motive:

It could be argued that examining possible motives at this stage and without the complicity of the defendants is speculating ahead of the evidence, however, as the evidence indicates that both Amanda Knox and Raffaele were present that night it seems logical to attempt to understand the possible motive for the murder of Meredith Kercher and where they fit in.

I have in certain places been heavily criticised for openly expressing my own personal perceptions about the defendant’s guilt or innocence as there are many people following this case that still believe Rudy Guede was a lone wolf killer, the evidence however, speaks for itself and I for one am not afraid to state that I believe Judge Micheli had more than enough evidence put in front of him to send both defendants to trial for their part in the sexual assault and murder of Meredith Kercher. Because of this it seems necessary to understand the possible motive in order to put this massive body of evidence into some sort of context for the jury, if this results in a conviction or an acquittal, so be it.

As for my own personal views of guilt or innocence? What does it matter? I’m not on the jury

The sexual assault and murder of Meredith Kercher was extremely violent as such it may be possible to learn more about the motive by considering classifications of violence and how this individual crime fits with current theory.

Classifications of Violence

Hostile and Instrumental Motivation
Some theories have attempted to classify violence according to the underlying motivation of the aggressor; one of these theories makes a clear distinction between a hostile and an instrumental motivation. In incidences of hostile violence the primary motivation is to inflict harm or injury, this is often linked with emotions such as anger and fear.  In instances of instrumental violence the actions of the aggressor may cause harm but harm is not the primary motivation, these types of attack are usually motivated by other objectives, offenders’ committing instrumental acts of violence are usually acting to maximize their benefits (usually a financial reward) and minimize the potential costs of their actions (getting caught), as such the level of violence is usually much lower.

Cornell et al (1996) conducted a study called ‘Psychopathy of instrumental and reactive violent offenders’ the coding guidelines used in this study have been published and identify several important factors to consider when attempting to classify an act of violence as hostile or instrumental:

–  Planning – degree of premeditation or preparation for aggression
–  Goal-directedness – degree to which aggression is motivated by some external gain
–  Provocation – degree of provocation, frustration or threat from victim
–  Arousal – degree of anger experienced by aggressor
–  Severity of violence – degree of injury to victim
–  Relationship to victim – closeness of relationship between victim and aggressor
–  Intoxication – intoxication on drugs or alcohol during incident
–  Psychosis – presence of psychotic symptoms during incident

Instrumental Violence
According to the researchers, planning and goal directedness are key characteristics of instrumental violence.  They also state that instrumental violence usually involves little or no provocation from the victim of the attack. These types of aggressor are motivated by goals and not emotions. They also make the following assertion:

“Sadistic aggression is a special form of instrumental aggression in which the objective is some form of pleasure (e.g., power or sexual gratification) that stems from the infliction of pain or attainment of dominance over the other person. Instrumental aggression is initiated as a means to an end rather than as an act of retaliation or self-defence.”

The researchers noted a correlation between the presence of certain characteristics of instrumental violence and level of intoxication of the aggressor, they suggested that offenders who plan to commit a crime to achieve a specific objective, especially robbery or rape may consume alcohol or drugs to make the process easier to cope with, level of emotional arousal during the attack is often low as the violence is secondary to the primary motivation.

Hostile Violence
According to the researchers, reaction to provocation and arousal are key elements of hostile violence. Hostile violence is usually the result of provocation or interpersonal conflict such as an argument or disagreement, therefore victims of hostile violence often know the aggressor. Level of violence is often high.

The researchers outline that timeframe is important when considering hostile violence. An aggressor can take a long time to act on the perceived conflict (which arouses hostility) but the aggressor is always responding to an interpersonal conflict when committing hostile violence.

Implications for our understanding of the motive

One of the reasons this crime fascinates me is that is defies a lot of what I understand about these types of violent offences and current theory and classifications for them. This particular attack seems to fit into both categories quite well. We could consider that the evidence of premeditation and the possibility that the ‘goal’ of the attack was to humiliate or degrade Meredith, possibly to ‘teach her a lesson’, allows us to place this violent attack into the instrumental category but on the other hand the fact that the victim was known to the defendants and the attack was extremely violent could lead us to conclude that the murder was an act of hostile violence.

Possible scenarios and classification

Instrumental Violence?

Scenario one: They went to the cottage armed with a knife, with the sole intention of causing Meredith pain, suffering and humiliation, a sexual assault was the tool with which to achieve this objective, they may or may not have intended to kill her. They planned to implicate Guede and clean up their own involvement.

Scenario two: They went to the cottage to do drugs, they took the knife with them for cooking knowing the ones at the cottage were blunt, they intended to steal money from Meredith and reacted violently when confronted.

Scenario three: They planned a ‘practical joke’ to scare Meredith on Halloween but she was busy with her friends in town, they waited until the following night and went to the cottage with the intention of playing the ‘practical joke’, the level of violence escalated and it got totally out of hand. Drugs may or may not have been involved.

The above scenarios all seem to be a possibility at this stage (and there are many more). An important factor to consider if we are to conclude that the murder of Meredith Kercher was an example of instrumental violence is that the crime is suggestive of both instrumental and hostile violence as the victim was known to the defendants and to Amanda, very well. Also it has been suggested that Amanda and Meredith had grown apart over little household matters such as Amanda not flushing the toilet, leaving a vibrator in the bathroom and not cleaning up after herself. It has also been suggested that Amanda may have been intensely competitive and was jealous or angry with Meredith for being what she may have perceived as ‘little miss perfect’, if the violence that night was related to Amanda’s feelings about Meredith then the motivation for the attack would be hostile and not instrumental.

Some Ideas and Conclusions

No theory is without its limitations and this is no exception. So how can a violent crime be both instrumental and hostile? Surely it is one or the other? Well we must also consider the likelihood that three people were involved, three people who may have had different motivations for taking part in an attack on Meredith (pre meditated or not), this could provide insight into individual motivations and explain the dynamic of violence. Individual motivations could include:

Amanda – Anger, jealousy, rage, scorn, a desire to get even, ‘teach her a lesson’ or theft.

Raffaele – Curiosity, desire to protect and uphold the honour of his girlfriend, dislike of Meredith for perceived wrong-doing to Amanda, sexual urges, anger, rage or theft.

Rudy – Sexual frustration, excitement, anger, a desire to feel included and accepted or theft.

With this in mind, and especially if the act was premeditated it is possible to see how individual ideas and perceptions about Meredith, the plan and the events unfolding could lead to the confusion we have seen in the typology of violence.

On the one hand we have an initial attack and a sexual assault which seems to indicate an instrumental classification but on the other hand we have a very high level of violence culminating in a very violent death which is more typical of a hostile classification.

It could therefore be argued that the confusion about typology in this case is due to individual motivations and ideas about the events of that evening, this could be the result of the presence of three individuals with three different motivations for taking part.

I would like to take a few posts to consider possible scenarios concerning the motive for the murder of Meredith Kercher. In my previous post I discussed the possibility that the attack on Meredith was premeditated, though I am currently unsure of exactly what was planned or why. The evidence implicating Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito is considerable but it only paints a part of the picture. Due to the wealth of information available, a great deal of interesting discussion on the possible motive has already taken place. As yet no definitive motive for the murder has been established.

Establishing the motive for a crime (especially a violent sexual homicide) can be difficult and though it is not essential for obtaining a guilty or not guilty verdict, understanding the motive for this type of violent crime can aid in the detection and apprehension of the perpetrator/s and, should charges be brought, help to put the crime in to some kind of perspective for a jury.

The body of Meredith Kercher was discovered on the floor of her bedroom on the 2nd November 2007, her throat had been cut. She was found concealed by a duvet; her underwear had been removed including her bra which appeared to have been cut or torn off this was found lying at her feet. Her top had been pulled up around her neck.

In the 106 page report by Judge Micheli he outlines the evidence that indicates Meredith was still wearing her bra when she was killed. Due to blood pattern analysis and imprints left at the crime scene and on the body the evidence supports the idea that Meredith led on one shoulder with her bra on but was later found on her back, her bra had been removed possibly to lead investigators to believe she had been raped. This is important because DNA found inside the victim implicates Rudy Guede who has already been sentenced to 30 years in prison for his role in the murder. The evidence implies the rape was staged and also that an extensive cleanup operation took place to remove traces of the defendants Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, this cleanup operation did not remove all traces of their possible involvement however and plenty of evidence supporting Guede’s involvement was left at the scene for investigators to find. This could further imply that the motivation behind the clean-up was to lead investigators to focus on the sexual element of the attack, i.e. the sexual assault in the hope that Guede alone would be implicated. Whoever staged the rape was aware that a sexual assault had taken place. This has implicated Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.

Rape or sexual assault is nearly always about power or domination, though individual fantasies do play a part, humiliation and domination of the victim is often the primary objective. There is no doubt that Meredith was humiliated and as the evidence indicates she was forcibly held a certain amount of domination could be suggested, but whether this was the motive for the attack cannot be established as a given. In some cases of violent sexual homicide (dependant upon the classification or type of offence), it can be hard to establish a motive at all but research and theory about these types of crime could shed light on the possible motive for what happened to Meredith that night.

Can the murder of Meredith Kercher be classified as a sex related homicide and what do we learn about the motive as a result?

The following pieces of evidence suggest that this could be classified as a sex related homicide:

The body of the victim was found partially clothed.
The victim was sexually assaulted.
Pre-mortem injuries consistent with being forcibly held or restrained.
Particularly violent death.

Now that this has been suggested as a possible scenario, current research and theory on sexual homicide may shed some light on the type of attack and maybe possible motive for the murder of Meredith Kercher:

Theory and Categorisation of Sex Related Homicide
There are several theories about motive in sexual homicide cases. One of the more reductionist theories suggests there are just two types of sexual homicide: the ‘sadistic, or lust murderer’ and ‘rape or displaced anger murderer’, however further sexual homicide theory suggests there may be more. Vernon J Geberth is a veteran police investigator, widely respected for his in depth analysis and understanding of crime scene investigation (and his book ‘Practical Homicide Investigation’), he believes that sex related homicides fall into four distinct categories: ‘Interpersonal violence oriented disputes and assaults’, ‘Rape and/or sodomy oriented assault’, ‘deviant oriented assault commonly referred to as a lust murder or psychotic killing’ and ‘the serial murder’. These have been listed in statistical likelihood of occurrence.

Geberth believes that the most common cause of sex related homicides is: interpersonal violence this has been defined by the Violence Prevention Alliance as:

“Violence between individuals, and is subdivided into family and intimate partner violence and community violence. The former category includes child maltreatment; intimate partner violence; and elder abuse, while the latter is broken down into acquaintance and stranger violence and includes youth violence; assault by strangers; violence related to property crimes; and violence in workplaces and other institutions.”

Geberth suggests that the motive in this category is primarily anger, rage, hate, jealousy or revenge.

There is also a collective category which refers to violence committed by larger groups of people and though I have suggested that diffusion of responsibility and the gang or pack mentality could have resulted in the death of Meredith Kercher, it could be suggested that three is not a large enough group for this offence to fall into the collective category. The evidence suggests that the defendants may have had an individual role that night which leads me to believe: The attack on Meredith Kercher falls into the category of interpersonal violence.

Though there is strong evidence to suggest that there was some kind of sexual element to the crime, what makes this crime interesting and unique is that it does not absolutely fit into any particular category, some are not applicable, but one fits rather well:

Which category is the murder of Meredith Kercher likely to fall into?
In cases of violent sexual homicide where evidence that the victim has been forcibly held, sexually assaulted and the death was particularly violent (as in this case) investigators like Geberth will often conclude a rape and/or sodomy motivation. These types of sexual homicide are quite rare but are nearly always brutal and often very depraved. Psychological theory indicates that the attacker/s will often attempt to humiliate the victim and injuries are often consistent with manual strangulation, knife wounds to the neck, abdomen and genital areas. Often with killings in this category, injuries are consistent with what’s known as ‘over-kill’ i.e. the amount of force and violence used was more than is necessary to debilitate or kill the victim, this is particularly evident when considering violent crime that has been committed by those with a psychopathic personality disorder. Psychopaths are hard to stimulate and as such, investigators are more likely to see ‘over-kill’ when investigating violent crimes committed by this demographic population. Injuries are often consistent with a forcible attempt to prevent or stop the victim screaming this can lead to strangulation, asphyxiation or knife wounds to the throat or neck. Evidence of sexual assault or rape is nearly always present.

If we take the idea that the motive for the attack was to humiliate or dominate Meredith we can also argue that a rape scenario was likely as this is usually the motivation behind these attacks as well as establishing power or control over a victim that the perpetrator/s may feel they lack in other elements of their life. Though it has not been confirmed that the victim was raped she was sexually assaulted and therefore humiliated, the nature of the wounds indicates a very violent attack that is consistent with the above scenario.

Though I spent the last post discussing the idea that the attack was pre-meditated, these types of attack can be either pre-meditated or spontaneous. In these types of attack, dependent upon individual circumstances the victim may be intentionally or accidentally killed. If the victim is killed it may be because they screamed, struggled, attempted to escape or could identify the attacker.

Rape and Sexual Assault
Rape and sexual assault is nearly always about power, domination, reassurance or humiliation, it’s not about sex. Whoever did this to Meredith wanted to control her, make her submissive, humiliate, punish, degrade and frighten her. The nature of the attack is extremely brutal and depraved, though this could be explained by the presence of all three who may, to a certain extent have ‘egged’ each other on, there was almost certainly a dominant person in the room, this person was likely to be the one who inflicted the fatal knife wound. Furthermore, evidence of taunting in the form of minor cuts around the throat and defensive knife wounds on the victim’s hands, whilst the victim was forcibly restrained implies that the person wielding the knife may have sadistic tendencies. Remember that this was a first offence:  Because of the nature of the wounds and the lack of evidence of previous violent behaviour or deviance, whoever inflicted the injuries on Meredith Kercher is violent, extremely dangerous and likely to reoffend.

DNA evidence on the suspected murder weapon has implicated Amanda Knox

What does this tell us about the possible motive for the murder?

The idea that the murder fits into a rape/sodomy sexual homicide category supports the idea that the murder of Meredith Kercher could have been predominantly about power, humiliation, degradation and domination. Why the defendants would want to do this will probably remain a mystery but theory indicates that the types of people who commit these offences may do so for all sorts of reasons, they may be angry, feel scorned and want revenge they may even be jealous.

Research about these types of crimes has suggested that the perpetrator/s often feels like they have lost some sort of control in their own lives which may result in anger, because of this, a desire for power reassurance may give way to some violent sexual or sadistic fantasies that may or may not manifest themselves in a desire to punish or degrade a victim.

But women don’t take part in/organise rape or sexual assault, do they?

Contrary to popular belief, women do take part in sexual assault and rape. Look at Karla Homolka, the pretty Canadian who married serial murderer and rapist Paul Bernardo. Karla was asked by her husband what she would think if he told her he was a rapist, she replied she thought it would be ‘cool’ she assisted him in the rape and murder of several young women. Similarly, 18 year old Claire Marsh was jailed in 2001 for taking part in a sadistic gang rape of a women by a canal, in Singapore, a 16 year old girl plotted the rape of a 13 year old ‘rival’ as revenge for being belittled and a 22 year old had her friend brutally raped as punishment for stealing her boyfriend, similarly a 19 year old had her friend gang raped for sleeping with her boyfriend. With this in mind it could be feasible that Amanda took part in or organised a sexual assault to humiliate, punish or frighten Meredith, this could be for any number of reasons, maybe she was jealous or felt scorned by her in some way, maybe she was high and acted on impulse. Maybe it was a fantasy of Raffaele’s and she willingly played along. We will probably never know.

Some ideas and conclusions

The murder of Meredith Kercher was sexual in nature, this is evident from clues left at the crime scene and DNA evidence implying a sexual assault took place. Though we cannot be sure exactly what happened or why, theory and research on violent sexual homicide has indicated that a possible motivation for the attack was humiliation and domination.

A victim can be humiliated or dominated in a number of ways, but rape or sexual assault is fairly common in these cases. An attack of this kind does not have to be planned and can in some instances be spontaneous but we must consider that a knife was taken to the house when other knives at the cottage with which to threaten Meredith could have been used. This implies an element of premediation which is disturbing.

The way in which Meredith was attacked and killed was extremely brutal and though the crime scene was methodically cleaned (implying a detachment following the murder that is also disturbing) the murder appears to have been frenzied and angry. The possible scenario of domination and humiliation is a likely motive for the murder of Meredith Kercher and if this is the case it implies a level of sadism that is extremely indicative of some psychological problem.

A few days ago I received an email asking me why I thought the murder of Meredith Kercher was not premeditated. Some of you may know that I’ve so far been leaning in the direction that the murder was not planned, but the more I have read the more I’ve started leaning in the other direction. As such I’ve recently spent a great deal of time thinking about this aspect of the case, not least because understanding how the murder came about is crucial to fitting together what still remains a very complex puzzle.  The issue of whether the killing was premeditated is important for two reasons (amongst others); firstly in establishing the motive for the murder and secondly, if the defendants are found guilty and the jury is convinced that they acted with the sole intention of murdering Meredith Kercher that night, this will probably be reflected in the sentencing and influence future parole applications.

I’ve been successfully fighting the idea that the murder was premeditated for quite some time, usually with the psychological mantra ‘but they have no history of violent behaviour’, this case has and continues to surprise me regularly, not least because it defies so much of what I know about violent sexual crimes and the sorts of people that commit them.

When I first started reading about the case in detail I thought it sounded like another drug experience gone bad, with a big row thrown in and a resulting gang attack that ended tragically, but the more I have read the more I have begun to realise that things are certainly not what they seem and several troubling factors have lead me to believe that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito probably had something planned for Meredith that night. The prosecution have claimed that Meredith was murdered during a drug-fuelled sex game, referencing violent Japanese manga comics, bloodlust, extreme thrill seeking and vampires as a possible motive. I’m not sure how many people believe the prosecutions theory about what happened that night, Judge Micheli himself has dubbed it ‘fantasy’.

It’s a bit of a shame that the prosecution went in for the most fanciful tale possible as it has now led some people following the case (including myself) to believe that seriously considering any of the ideas put forward by the prosecution is both farcical and pointless. Some people have been quick to criticise Mignini for spinning his fantastical tale without really considering why he came to the conclusions he did, after all he wouldn’t want to deliberately risk making a fool of himself again, something in that house disturbed him, something was terribly amiss and with the evidence he had in front of him and an apparent lack of motive, he did the best he could with what he had. Even with this in mind I’ll be the first to admit that the prosecution’s theory about what happened that night is an overdramatic reconstruction of events but there is quite a bit of evidence that suggests something was planned (even if it wasn’t necessarily murder).

I only began seriously considering the idea of premeditation just a few days ago and I must say I was alarmed at the things that seemed to slot into place when I began looking at the case in a different way, it’s easy to get bogged down with crime/psychology theory without actually considering how the individual parts fit together, this is such a unique and important crime for so many reasons and some of the evidence suggestive of premeditation includes:

Communications

The Phones
Part of the reason I began reconsidering my perspective on premeditated murder was in part due to the email sent to me a few days ago that listed mobile phone activity as one of the ‘red flags’ for premeditation. I’d heard a lot about the phone activity but didn’t realise quite how much the phone evidence actually supports the idea that the attack on Meredith was in some way premeditated. The PMF ‘Primary Comprehensive Timeline’ really helped me out with this bit.

Evidence seems to indicate that the defendants Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito switched their mobile phones off at the same time on the evening of the 1st November 2007 at around 8.40pm. Though it is not unusual for people to switch off their mobile phones it does seem odd that AK and RS would do so at the same time and so early on in the evening, especially if we consider they may have been expecting a phone call from a parent/friend at some point. Raffaele’s dad tried to call him on the landline in his apartment at around 8.40pm but it was not picked up or returned that night. If RS was in his apartment the whole time (as he has claimed) why did he not pick up the call? If they were ‘busy’, why not call him back afterwards? Probably because RS wasn’t at his apartment that night, he was somewhere else and his mobile phone was switched off.

From what I have read it seems Amanda, like any young woman of her age far away from home, was a fairly regular user of her mobile phone and records have indicated she often used her phone late into the night. Police noted that she sent a text message along the lines of “ok, see you later” to her boss Patrick Lumumba (as a response to him telling her not to bother coming into work that night) not long before the phones were switched off. Incidentally Patrick’s phone was recorded in the vicinity of the cottage at around 8.38pm. The evidence seems to indicate that the mobile phones were not switched back on until very early (around dawn) on the morning of the 2nd November 2007.

Strangely, Amanda allegedly sent a flurry of text messages to Meredith on Halloween asking to meet up and whether she had a costume etc, this seems a bit odd as testimony from Meredith’s friends indicates the two weren’t really very good friends, Amanda had her own company (RS) and would have known Meredith was out with her own friends and drinking alcohol, why was she so intent on meeting up with her that night? Did they have something planned for Halloween instead (when Meredith was tipsy and probably easier to control or manipulate) or does the flurry of text messages now seem more ominous because of what happened later?

I’m no expert on mobile phones (some excellent discussion has already taken place over at PMF) but the evidence suggests a break in the pattern of regular mobile phone use that night. It could be suggested that AK and RS wanted some privacy, maybe while they were eating or having sex but I find it hard to believe that one would need to switch a mobile phone off in order to obtain that kind of privacy, surely the ‘silent’ function would do? Turning both mobile phones off at the same time seems a bit like putting up a ‘do not disturb’ sign. It could be possible that whoever suggested switching off the phones knew something about mobile phone signal and triangulation, someone who knows all about computer science perhaps?

One commenter on the site sent me the following link which seems like a very useful guide, though it’s a US Dept Commerce document, I can imagine the Italians have a similar phone infrastructure to that in the US so similar principles to mobile phone forensics could be applied. It’s called ‘Guidelines on Cell Phone Forensics’ you can find it here

The Email
In a previous post I discussed the email Amanda sent to 23 of her family and friends 2 days after the murder and shortly before she was arrested. In it Amanda has a virtually perfect recall of everything that happened in the afternoon before the murder took place, shortly before the body was found and what happened afterwards. Amanda is very vague about what she was doing the actual night of the murder. Though this is suspicious it is not evidence of premeditation, the way she discusses in very precise detail Meredith’s movements and actions on the afternoon of the 1st November 2007 (and that Raffaele was present in the cottage during this time) indicates a fixation on Meredith at this point in time that, considering what happened later that evening is eerily worrying. Were Amanda and Raffaele watching Meredith that afternoon? Amanda mentions Meredith said “bye and left for the day” , Raffaele himself has also said “Meredith was there but she left in a hurry about 4 pm without saying where she was going”, why would they want to know where she was going? Why does it even matter? Did they ask her? Did they want to know what time she would be back? Did Meredith tell them? Were they waiting for her when she got back? Or does the content of the email describing Meredith’s precise actions and movements (like the flurry of text messages sent on Halloween) seem more significant because of what happened later?

The Presence of Rudy Guede

For a long time I’ve been wondering exactly where Rudy Guede fits in with what happened that night. Why was he there? Both defendants have denied any kind of friendship or prior relationship with him and despite the recent break in at the house, the evidence we have so far seems to indicate that the lone wolf theory is not credible, Kermit’s excellent powerpoint presentation on the recent break-in at 7 Via Della Pergola outlines why this recent break in does not lend any credibility to the lone wolf theory, you can download it here.

Rudy Guede has been found guilty and is currently serving a 30 year sentence for his part in the murder and sexual assault of Meredith Kercher, DNA (amongst other) evidence has placed Knox and Sollecito inside the cottage on the night of the murder and even the murder weapon in Knox’s hand. Testimony has indicated that Knox may have met Guede through the boys downstairs who were growing marijuana. Is it possible the two became acquaintances, even friends? People who knew Amanda have doubted this but would those people, who, it seems did not socialise much with Knox, be the best people to attest with whom she spent her time? The evidence strongly suggests that Amanda Knox knew Rudy Guede prior to the murder of Meredith Kercher, what else could explain his presence in the house that night? Why else would Amanda, being the only person in Perugia with a key, let Rudy into the house otherwise? He certainly didn’t climb through Filomena’s window that’s for sure! Raffaele probably only met Guede through Amanda, maybe he was their dealer, maybe he was just a friend or maybe even another of Amanda’s flings. Rudy Guede had no reason to be at the cottage that night, other than to deliver drugs and/or take part in the sexual assault and murder of Meredith Kercher. The presence of Rudy Guede in itself could suggest some kind of premeditated attack.

There are even more odd coincidences about Guede’s presence that could suggest a planned attack. I like a few others believe that parts of Rudy’s version of events, despite being dismissed as “a highly improbable fantasy” by Judge Micheli, may actually be based in truth (things such as times, locations and people, though the version itself is absolute rubbish). Rudy Guede claims he had a date with Meredith that night, this has since been established as false but, according to Guede he arrived at the cottage at 8.38pm, two minutes before AK and RS’s mobile phones were switched off, early reports on the case alleged that CCTV footage showed Knox entering her house at 8.43pm, alone. In fact if you look at the 8.30-9.15pm timeslot on the PMF’s ‘Primary Timeline’, there seems to be an awful lot going on. Guede claims Meredith arrived just after him at around 8.46pm, she didn’t in fact arrive home until 9.15pm upon which the victim allegedly started a phone call with her mother around 9.30pm. The fact that the phones were switched off at around 8.40pm, Rudy claims to have arrived at the house at 8.38pm and Amanda may have been caught on CCTV at 8.43pm could indicate that this was an arranged meeting time. According to the defendants they did not know Rudy Guede, according to Meredith Kercher’s friends they do not remember her meeting Guede and imply she certainly wouldn’t have invited him over for consensual sex, so what was he doing there? Dealing?

Drugs
My views on the drug angle of this case have been majorly skewed by the idea that the murder could have been premeditated. I originally thought that drug induced violence could have been the cause of the escalation that led to Meredith’s murder but now I’m not so sure, I’m fairly sure the drugs were there but maybe in a different capacity, like an aperitif . Rudy Guede could have been at the cottage to deal drugs, in fact this could have been one of his roles that night, the only thing that is stumping me is, if they decided they did want to do a couple of fat lines of coke and dance about like idiots, why didn’t they do it at Raffaele’s place? Or in town? It does sound like drugs are rife in Perugia and now that I’m considering the case in more detail than before it seems odd that they would have chosen to do drugs at the cottage in plain view of Meredith if they had not planned to see Meredith that evening.

Was Rudy a Pawn?
The person that emailed me also pointed out that considering what may have happened that night there seemed to be a prior relationship between Amanda and Rudy with a kind of trust that would have taken quite a while to build up. Though in principle I agree I also think it’s likely that Rudy could have been attracted to Amanda, maybe even had sex with her and could have been more likely to trust her as a result, this kind of trust could have built up pretty quickly and I’m fairly sure that Amanda could have had Rudy under her thumb in no time at all, just look how quickly her relationship with Raffaele intensified. It seems that Rudy fancied Meredith and, if he and Amanda were friends or acquaintances, knowing they lived in the same house, Rudy may have confided in Amanda in the hope that she might be able to get him a date. Is it possible that Amanda used Guede to form part of a kind of sick ‘punishment’ for Meredith? Why else would Rudy have shown up at the house that night? Why would Amanda have wanted to ‘include’ him? If Amanda invited Rudy to the cottage that night, considering what happened it’s fair to say that something must have been planned.

Clean-Up
It seems that any friendship or trust that had been built up between Amanda and Rudy quickly evaporated when they were faced with a bloody crime scene, Amanda and Raffaele may have convinced Rudy to go out into town to be seen by witnesses or he may have taken off of his own accord, either way the cleanup operation commenced later that evening along with the staging of the rape. The couple planned to leave only traces of Guede’s involvement intact, including the un-flushed faeces in the toilet and the bloody handprint; this could indicate they planned to incriminate him all along. The clean-up operation must have required a strong, clear mind, imagine trying to remember where you had put your hands, everything you had touched as well as everything the victim and the other people with you had touched. Cleaning up your own involvement but making sure to leave evidence behind to implicate someone else is not any easy job, especially when a lot of the evidence needing to be erased is invisible or so small you need very good eyes (or a bright lamp) to see it. It took a very precise mind to alter that crime scene, one that was detached, calm and organised. I’m fairly sure this could not be the result of improvisation, this could further support the idea that the murder may have been premeditated.

The Knife

The suspected murder weapon is a 13.4 inch kitchen knife, it reportedly has the victims DNA on the tip of the blade and Amanda’s on the handle. It was found hidden in Raffaele’s apartment and (the prosecution believe) it had been thoroughly bleached. This knife belonged to Raffaele and lived in the drawer in his apartment. It was probably used for cooking. Testimony from others living with Meredith and Amanda has stated that it was not a knife from 7 Via Della Pergola. Why then, was it taken to the cottage, reportedly used to kill Meredith Kercher, taken back to Raffaele’s apartment, thoroughly bleached and hidden?

For quite some time I thought the reports that a small piece of mushroom had been found lodged in Meredith’s throat (even though her friends stated her last meal contained no mushroom) were significant as this implied that the knife may have been used for chopping mushrooms on the night of the murder. I also thought that if the knives at the cottage were blunt, it may have been possible that Amanda and Raffaele took a knife with them knowing it would be impossible to cook with what was at the cottage. Without knowing the standard of the knives at the cottage it would be impossible to say whether this is a likely scenario or not. On the other hand, who needs a sharp knife to chop mushrooms? A fork could probably do the job! Another reason I doubted the knife was taken with the intention of murdering Meredith was its appearance. Raffaele collected knives; I’m not sure what kind though I can imagine he probably had a favourite. It seemed likely to me that had he planned to use a knife with which to kill he would have chosen one that had a special kind of significance for him (especially if we are to believe all of this vampire, orgy, execution stuff), something ornate, gilded perhaps, but it’s not, it’s your bog standard, run-of-the-mill, ordinary, boring kitchen knife. Why this one? Why not something special? This has stumped me for some time and indeed it was the main reason I doubted that the murder of Meredith Kercher was premeditated, yet when I began to take out these small points I had clung onto in the hope that this was not all an elaborate game, I began to realise that the knife could have been chosen for the fact that it was so ordinary, it would blend nicely with the others in the drawer and the fact that it came from another apartment they may have thought it would never be found.

Some Ideas and Conclusions

These are a couple of the ideas I have had in relation to the murder possibly being premeditated and they do seem to make more sense than a petty argument gone wrong. There is still a chance that the murder was not planned, I don’t really want to go into the possible motives here but a planned rape seems fairly credible, but then we’re back to that knife again….

I seem to have done a bit of a u-turn recently from thinking the murder was spontaneous and drug fuelled to thinking they may have sat there, strummed the guitar and planned what they wanted to do to Meredith all afternoon, maybe the wheels were in motion long before Halloween.

I think it’s likely that I didn’t want to consider the murder was just a very sick game and maybe even wanted to cling onto the hope that they intended to let her get out alive. Now I’m not so sure. Maybe it was all just a game.

And that’s the worst thing of all