In attempting to unpack the artificially complex series of events that led to Meredith Kercher’s tragic death, a key but often overlooked factor is Rudy Guede’s account of how he came to be in Ms. Kercher’s flat at 7 Via della Pergola on the evening of 1 November 2007, namely that he had a date with her and she had admitted him to the house. Curiously, this explanation corresponds exactly to the original police theory of how the murder was committed.
On 4 November, only two days after the discovery of the murder, the Perugia police officer in charge of the investigation, Marco Chiacchiera, told British journalists on the record that his working hypothesis was that Kercher had been killed by a man she had met at a Halloween party on the evening of 31 October, whom she had invited to come to her house on the following evening. According to reports in the British press, Chiacchiera theorised that that man had come to Kercher’s place of residence on the evening of 1 November and had been admitted by her. Subsequently, the “houseguest” had coerced her into sexual activity, perhaps by threatening her with a knife, and had then killed her when she threatened to report him to the police.
It may be presumed that Chiacchiera’s hypothesis was not constructed out of thin air, but was based on witness testimony that Kercher attended a Halloween party in a public venue and had been seen talking to a number of men, one of whom was possibly the murderer.
The close correspondence between Chiacchiera’s theory and Guede’s account given to the German police (and maintained by him ever since) has two possible explanations:
1. While Guede was on the run in Germany, and before he was arrested by the German police, he read about Chiacchiera’s hypothesis when it was published in the British press, and decided to incorporate it into a cover story that he was constructing in the expectation that he would eventually be captured.
2. Guede’s story is true to the extent that he did have a date with Kercher, she did admit him to her place of residence, and they did have some sort of low-level sexual contact. The other elements of the story he told the German police: that Kercher had accused Knox of stealing her rent money, and that the murder was committed by some mysterious man who had gained entry by some unexplained means, are obviously falsehoods designed to exculpate himself from the murder of Kercher and the theft of the 300 euro that was found to be missing from her purse.
The first of the above explanations would be consistent with the theory that Guede broke in through the window of flat mate Romanelli’s room for the purpose of stealing the rent money that he knew the four women were holding, was surprised when Kercher returned at about 21:00, and killed her in a panic.
The second explanation would be consistent with the police theory that the break-in to Romanelli’s room had been staged by the murderer in order to give the impression that the murder had been committed by a complete stranger rather than by a person known to Kercher, whom she had admitted to the house.
It is noteworthy that the Massei judgment (the initial conviction of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito) did canvas the possibility that Guede had staged the break-in, but dismissed the hypothesis on the grounds that Guede would not have wanted to draw attention to himself by staging a break-in that imitated his own modus operandi for committing other burglaries.
The weakness with Massei’s argument is its implicit assumption that at the time of the murder of Kercher, Guede had a modus operandi as a burglar that was known to the Perugia police. However, so far as I know, there is no hard evidence that the police had any such knowledge; his only offences known to Italian law enforcement at that time were his trespassing on the grounds of a nursery school in Milan and his possession of goods stolen from an office in Perugia.
It should be noted that there was no evidence of Guede having forced his way into the nursery school, and that the proprietor of the school suspected that he had gained entry by obtaining a key from one of her female employees, whom he might have met in a bar.
That suspicion on the part of the proprietor indicates that her impression of Guede, whom she encountered only under the unfavourable circumstance of finding him trespassing on her property, was that of a man who was attractive enough to women to be able to persuade them to do surreptitious things. If that was her impression, it lends support to the theory that Guede could have persuaded Kercher to admit him into her house and then convinced her to engage in some sort of sexual contact with him.
While this hypothesis may be rejected by those who insist Meredith Kercher was pure as the driven snow, it actually humanizes her in a way which is both true to life and supremely tragic. It is well-known that Rudy Guede had struck up an acquaintanceship with several of the male residents of 7 Via della Pergola – why not one of the females as well?
Please click below to view Michael Mills’ previous posts on the Knox-Sollecito murder case:
Rudy Guede Lifts the Weight off Amanda Knox’s Chest (and Puts It Back on Again)
Foxy Knoxy Is a Political Soccer Ball
How Politics Knock on Amanda Knox!
Under Pressure: A. Knox and R. Sollecito Find Meredith Kercher’s Body
How and Why Rudy Guede Was a Lone Wolf Assailant in the Murder of Meredith Kercher
Michael Mills is a retired Australian Public Servant. He is 66 years old, has a keen interest in history and current affairs, and posts regularly on online history forums. Like many, he was appalled by the recent re-conviction of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, and after substantial intensive research, he has developed the theory of the case that he sets forth in this series of posts.