Scene Staged by Rudy?
[Rudi il simulatore?, pp. 44-49]
Scene Staged by Rudy?
What has been said hitherto about the presence of Rudy Guede in the house on Via Della Pergola and about the staging of the burglary (the breaking of the window, and the disorder created in Romanelli’s room as if there had been a search, appear to have been designed to create the appearance of a burglary) leads to the following question: could Rudy have been the creator of the mise-en-scène in Romanelli’s room?
This hypothesis presupposes that Rudy entered the house at Via Della Pergola 7 either with Meredith or because Meredith opened the door for him.
It appears to have been hinted at [ventilata] and almost suggested in the tape recording [intercettazaione ambientale] of 11-20-2007, in which Amanda has the following exchange with her father; speaking of Rudy, she says:
“Yes, I know, I know…I mean I hardly know him….I’ve never invited him to my house before.”
Her father: “Do you think Meredith did?”
Amanda: “I know that she knows him through Giacomo….so…”
Her father: “Is he one of the young men from downstairs?”
Amanda: “Yes, he was her boyfriend…..so…maybe he came in saying ‘I’m looking for Giacomo…can I come in?’ Or something like that.”
This Court holds that the hypothesis on which the staging of the burlgary was the work of Rudy, unique and sole attacker of Meredith, is not sustainable.
In the house, Rudy could indeed fear that one of the residents would arrive at any moment, and so lingering there would have been quite risky. And then, why ever would Rudy, coming off of a burglary in the Via Plinio nursery in Milan only a few days before, where he had been surpised by the director of the school, and also being — according to Raffaele Sollecito’s attorneys — the author of other burglaries in the law offices of Messrs. Brocchi and Palazzoli as well as in the home of Tramontano, have created the appearance of a burglary, thereby directing suspicion to someone who would have entered other people’s property furtively in order to steal, exactly as Rudy himself had done?
Furthermore, Rudy did not have accesss to the keys to the house at Via Della Pergola 7, and was not a regular visitor to [non aveva particolari rapporti di frequentazione con] the young women of the upper floor, where he had in fact never been, so that there was no reason that suspicion regarding the death of Meredith — toward whom he had never shown any interest — should have fallen upon him [in the first place] [non c’era motivo alcuno che i sospetti di quanto commesso su Meredith…si sarebbero potuti indirizzare nei suoi confronti].
That is [Di consequenza]: a burglar (who had actually been caught on other people’s property on a few days before with items that were not his, with the police being called) simulating a theft in order to deflect suspicion from himself seems absolutely implausible — all the more so when one considers that there was no particular reason that suspicion should have been directed toward him [to begin with].
In this regard, we may also invoke the circumstances discussed above regarding Rudy’s lack of any relation or encounter with Meredith in the preceding days: on Halloween night he had been with Spanish youths, and otherwise had been with and danced with a girl who, from the description given and recorded above, was surely not Meredith, and no one has reported seeing him together with Meredith; on November 1, Meredith spent the morning at home and the evenening with her English friends. Also with respect to this, then, Rudy should have felt at ease, so that no reason should have prompted him to stage a burglary.
Meanwhile it also appears difficult to suppose that Meredith, home alone at night (her return, as has been seen, did not take place before 9:00 pm), would have opened the door of the house to Rudy and let him in.
After all, she had had only casual encounters with Rudy, and only in the presence of others, never alone. She did not talk about Rudy; her English friends have denied knowing who he was, and that Meredith had ever spoken a word about him. Moreover, if Rudy had asked about Giacomo Silenzi or any other of the young men of the lower floor that he had some relation with, it would have been enough to let him know that no one was there, futher lessening the need to let Rudy in the house. And even assuming that Meredith had agreed to let Rudy in, because Rudy made use of the large bathroom (the one located next to the living room), and all the violence took place in Meredith’s bedroom (if suffices to consider that the latter was the room in which the victim’s body was found, along with torn and removed clothing and blood) without any sign of it having been initiated anywhere else, it is necessary to hypothesize that Meredith, home alone at night (past 9:00 pm) had let Rudy go to the bathroom and had returned to her own room. This hypothesis, too, is implausible: the main door was defective, and it would not have been sufficient to pull it in order to close it; consequently, Meredith would have had to have gone from her own room, to the living room, and from there to the main door to lock it as soon as Rudy, coming out of the bathroom, had called to tell her he was leaving. She might as well have waited in the living room — also in order to prevent Rudy from coming to her bedroom after exiting the bathroom and seeking to make some sort of “advance” upon her, a situation which (as we can more than easily infer from the facts on record [per più considerazioni che le emergenze consentono di evidenziare, lit. “by more considerations than the evidence manages to reveal”]) Meredith absolutely did not want to occur: Meredith was tired from the day before, when she had gotten back home around five in the morning; she assumed she had a class at the University at 10:00 am and needed to prepare for it, as well as to get some rest; a few days before, she had begun a relationship with Giacomo Silenzi, of whom she must have been fond, having been persuaded to water his marijuana plants despite the fact that this made her somewhat uneasy (see statement of Amy Frost), and of whom she had furthermore spoken to her English friends in Perugia; she was furthermore conscientious and had never brought men home (see statement of Romanelli, p. 11, hearing of 7-2-2009), thereby demonstrating an aversion to fleeting and superficial advances.
Pulling together the threads of what we have said, it must be stated that:
– The breaking of the window and the disorder encountered in the room then occupied by Filomena Romanelli was the result of an act of staging designed to direct investigation and suspicion toward an indivudual who would have entered the house at Via Della Pergola 7 on the night of the murder by means of the window located in Romanelli’s room, after having broken the glass, with the aim of committing a burglary, as the disorder created inside the room would indicate.
– This artificial mise-en-scène cannot be attributed to the actions of Rudy Guede, who, on the contrary, entered the house by means of the door, without any forced entry, but with the consent of someone who had access to the house and to the key to the door.
– Whoever permitted Rudy Guede to enter the house that night was not Meredith, but someone else who also had access to the house and could freely come and go there.
The mise-en-scène of the broken window and illicit entry could therefore not have been produced but by someone who, having access to the house and the ability to freely come and go, sought to remove all suspicion from themselves and direct it toward a different person, an unknown criminal who would have entered the house by means of an act of violence (the breaking of the window).
Other than Meredith, those with access to keys to the apartment were Laura Mezzeti, who however had been outside of Perugia for several days, in Montefiascone with her relatives; Filomena Romanelli, who however was with her fiancé at the place of her friend Paola Grande and the latter’s boyfriend Luca Altieri, who was celebrating his birthday (cf. also statement of Dr. Chiacchiera on p. 150, hearing of 2-27-2009, and statements of Napoleoni, hearing of 2-27-2009, p. 232), and Amanda Knox.
For her part, Amanda Knox has reported spending the night with Raffaele Sollecito at his house, without ever leaving. This alibi, however, has not received any confirmation and, on the contrary, has been subject to various refutations indicating its falsity and leading one to conclude that Rudy Guede entered the house at Via Della Pergola 7 because he was let in by Amanda Knox, who in the absence of Romanelli and Mezzetti was the only person with the key to the main door to the house, and who was with Raffaele Sollecito.
As a result of this very circumstance (being the only one other than Meredith with the keys to the door), Amanda Knox needed to remove all suspicion from herself, and so, together with Raffaele Sollecito, who was present with her as will be explained in the sequel, organized the mise-en-scène of the broken window and of the disorder in Filomena Romanelli’s room with the aim of diverting the investigation and directing it toward someone who lacked the keys to the house and had to find another way of entering: breaking the glass and passing through the window.
Against the need for Amanda to undertake a staging, it is argued that the aim of sexual violence that the crime appeared to display (the victim was a young girl and the body was almost completely naked, in the victim’s bedroom) should have removed all suspicion from Amanda.
We do not find such an argument convincing, on account of the following considerations: Amanda lived with Meredith and had the key to the main door of the house in which she lived and in which he also stayed during that holiday period; Amanda was the only one, in the absence of Laura Mezzetti and Filomena Romanelli, who could have permitted entry into the house without forcing the door, and there were no signs of force present; she would thus have had to have thought that the investigators would be convinced that Meredith, having gone into the house, had inadvertently left the door open and thereby facilitated her murderer’s access. This hypothesis is doubly implausible since it would have been necessary to assume such forgetfulness on the part of Meredith, a forgetfulness particularly hard to imagine with a door that, due to a defect of the latch [chiusura a spinta], needed to be locked with a key; it would be furthermore neccessary to suppose that this situation – the door left open – would have been in effect just when someone with criminal motivations [animato da finalità delittuose] happened to be passing along Via Della Pergola, and, having decided to enter the house and gotten past the gate that looks out upon the walkway [vialetto], they had — coincidentally, one would have to say — found the door open. A doubly implausible hypothesis, as we have said, and thus the only option was to portray [individuare] another means of access, namely the broken window, to prevent questions about how the murderer could have gotten into the house without forcing the door and without a key from being asked of her; despite her being a woman, suspicions would necessarily have begun to conentrate on her, and hence the decision was made to undertake the staging that has been described.