The Forgotten Killer: Rudy Guede and the Murder of Meredith Kercher (Kindle Single) (5 page)

Since he had not planned to confront anyone, the offender would not have had a mask or disguise. Moreover, if he was acquainted with any of the residents, he knew he would be easy to identify. Even if he did not know any of the residents, one or more of them might have been able to identify him as a local denizen or a frequenter of the many bars and restaurants where college students hung out.

He therefore had no choice but to confront and neutralize whoever had come into the house as best he could. Whether he knew who the residents were or not, it is reasonable to conclude that he had figured out from footsteps and other sounds that it was an unaccompanied woman.

The crime scene and examination of the body show that Meredith Kercher put up a determined struggle with her attacker before succumbing to knife wounds. DNA traces of skin cells in her vagina indicate digital penetration. It is possible he also attempted penile rape but removed himself prior to ejaculation. We would suggest closely scrutinizing surrounding surfaces for semen stains or deposits.

Single-Offender Indicators

The large amount of blood and evidence of mayhem in Kercher’s bedroom compellingly indicate a single UNSUB. Had more than one offender been involved, Kercher would have been far more effectively controlled and blood spatter and pooling would have been contained. Had the wounds been inflicted while the victim was being held down by one or more other individuals, we would expect the wounds to be more precise and all of the stabbing variety, rather than the slashing, penetrating gash on the left side of her throat.

It is scientifically impossible for one offender to leave extensive DNA evidence and for others involved in the same assault to leave none.

From all physical and behavioral evidence, the most likely scenario would have the lone offender quickly rising from the toilet, pulling up his trousers, and going immediately to the woman and confronting her with his knife.

With reference to the element of surprise and victimology displayed at countless scenes of violence, we would expect the victim to plead with the UNSUB to take what he wants and leave her unhurt. This would be true whether the victim knows the UNSUB or not.

Given the crime-scene indicators, location of wounds and blood-spatter patterns, as well as experience with numerous other offenses of this nature, it is probable that the UNSUB entered the bedroom with his knife in hand, quickly grabbed the victim from behind, and held the knife up to her neck to keep her still. When she resisted and struggled, he stabbed her twice under the chin. As she desperately attempted to break free, the attack moved across the room. When he had finally overpowered her, it is likely he pushed her onto her knees and plunged the knife into the left side of her throat.

With the victim incapacitated, he was able to drag her to the center of the room, pull up her shirt, and rip off her bra with sufficient force to tear the seam. He then stripped off her jeans and underpants, placed a pillow under her buttocks to lift her pelvis, and got towels from the nearby smaller bathroom to wipe up some of the blood. There are no indicators of the sequence of these actions, though it is likely the jeans and underwear were removed before the placement of the pillow.

Given the evidence of Kercher’s fierce struggle, it is highly unlikely the UNSUB would have been able to perpetrate any sexual activity to her body until she was incapacitated and either dead or dying.

The sexual assault, therefore, becomes a crime of opportunity once the victim has been incapacitated, probably not realizing that her murder has become for the UNSUB a crime of necessity.

He attempted to clean himself from the sink and bidet in the bathroom.

In light of the unexpected turn of events, the UNSUB would know he needed to vacate the premises immediately and would therefore confine his burglary to resources immediately at hand: the contents of Kercher’s handbag and anything valuable in the room, including her two mobile phones.

We suspect that on his flight from the crime scene, the UNSUB realized that the phones would be easily traceable and had to be discarded.

Age

Age is one of the most difficult elements to predict, as life experience and emotional development do not necessarily correlate to numerical standards. The type of primary crime, the reasonably anticipated yield from the crime, the age of the victim, the evidence of sexual motivation through digital penetration, and the inefficiency of the wounds to Kercher’s neck and body all point to a young offender.

With the foregoing caution in mind, we would expect the UNSUB to be 20 to 25 years of age.

Race

There are no racial indicators per se, but reports of a dark-skinned or African male in the vicinity of the victim’s house before the crime and running from the direction of the house after the crime should be taken into investigative consideration.

Post-Offense Behavior

Although the UNSUB is criminally sophisticated regarding breaking and entering and burglary, it is likely that he has not previously committed homicide or any other type of serious violent crime. Therefore, we would expect him to be frightened for himself but still able to take actions on his own behalf.

He may try to establish an alibi, such as by visiting a friend or appearing in a public place where he knows he will be spotted and identified. It is likely he will then leave the area and wait to see if things “die down.” If he believes he may have been spotted or could otherwise be connected to the crime scene, he might attempt to leave the country and break all communications. In either case, he may commit another burglary—though not a robbery, in which he could be identified—to obtain money to support his flight.

Alternatively, if he remains in town, he might attend a public memorial service for the victim if he believes police may consider him a possible suspect. If he remains however, friends will note emotional changes and a greater dependence on alcohol and/or drugs.

Persons of Interest

By definition, all three of Kercher’s female flatmates, their boyfriends, and the men downstairs are persons of interest to this investigation, as are her close friends and anyone she was seen with on or immediately before the night of the crime. Additionally, the name of
Diya “Patrick” Lumumba
, proprietor of Le Chic bar and Knox’s part-time employer, appears in a text exchange on Knox’s cell phone.

All four of the downstairs tenants plus Mezzetti have solid alibis for the extended period in question, being nowhere close to the crime scene. Romanelli and Knox said they spent the night with their boyfriends, Marco Zaroli and Raffaele Sollecito, respectively.

Although both women were in proximate distance to the house, an extensive investigation into their backgrounds, plus those of Zaroli and Sollecito, reveals no behavioral indicators toward violence or any identifiable animus against the victim. Moreover, any suggestion of sexual depravity by a woman is not born out by the crime scene itself, which clearly indicates a single UNSUB, with the shoe prints and the homicide itself pointing to a male. Furthermore, sexual depravity leading to murder does not suddenly arise from nowhere; there is always an emotional and behavioral buildup over a period of several years or longer. It is inconceivable that either Romanelli or Knox could have killed their flatmate, much less in so brutal a fashion.

It is often pointed out that “ordinary” people do commit violent crimes for the first time. This is true, but never without a motive. There is no motive in the present case other than the one previously detailed.

The text messages between Knox and Lumumba originate with Lumumba informing her that business was slow that night, so she did not have to come in to work. Knox’s reply, an Italian translation of “Okay. See you later. Good night!” has been construed to mean that she had planned to rendezvous with him that evening. Anyone with an understanding of American usage would realize that “See you later” was equivalent to “Goodbye.” Lumumba also has a solid alibi for his whereabouts at Le Chic
during the entire relevant period. He and Knox, Sollecito, Romanelli, and Zaroli have no background, behavioral indicators, or motive to suggest robbery and murder.

Interrogation Considerations

If a suspect is identified, investigators should expect no remorse or admission of guilt because, as previously noted, he will have justified the homicide in his mind. The most likely effective interrogation technique would be to “use” the evidence at the crime scene itself as a stressor—i.e., the great amount of blood and significant DNA deposits. If he is told that investigators know that the victim’s blood can be traced to his hands or clothing, he will have to come up with some logical “reason.”

The indication of struggle strongly suggests that the UNSUB will have some wounds, cuts, or scraps on his body. This would be particularly true for his hands and wrists. If such wounds are noted, they can be used to prompt a confession.

A DNA match would confirm his presence at the scene and would be impossible to explain away. In that instance, the suspect will admit his presence but come up with a scenario in which others were present and he was either another victim or came in on a scene in progress or just after the “actual” perpetrators left. He will most likely then explain his DNA at the scene by saying that Kercher and he were engaged in consensual sex or that he was trying to save her life, such as by applying the bloody towels. He should then be confronted with the fact that all the crime-scene DNA came from a single source: him.

Conclusion

The crime scene of most violent offenses requires a special kind of literacy from the investigator. It requires detachment and judgment unclouded by emotions. But with too much detachment, investigators risk insensitivity to the minute, crucial details within the scene. Investigators need to be crime-scene diagnosticians. They must understand the dynamics of human behavior displayed at the scene.

To properly understand a particular crime of violence and construct a reasonable theory of the case, an investigator should be able to “connect the dots” between Points A and Z. In other words, how did the offender transition from his normal emotional state to that of intent to kill or do serious bodily harm?

With respect to felony murder, this is generally a simple intellectual journey. An armed robber holds up a liquor store, the man behind the counter resists or makes a move to call the police; the robber
decides
to shoot him on the spur of the moment.

With respect to serial sexual predators, the idea of assault—of manipulation, domination, and control—is always in mind, so intention is mitigated only by such practical factors as opportunity and obtaining a victim of preference.

The theory that someone personally close to Meredith Kercher, such as one of her flatmates and/or their boyfriends, could have stabbed her to death does not hold up to logical scrutiny. Even leaving aside forensic findings, there is no previously documented or reasonably conceivable scenario under which either Romanelli or Knox suddenly and capriciously could go against every behavioral indicator in her personality, transform into a homicidal sexual predator, and entice another individual to go along with her.

Therefore, our recommendation is to focus on an athletic male in his 20s with agility and upper-body strength, but since chronological age and behavioral age do not always match up, we would not rule out an individual who appears to be in his 30s, either. He lives in and frequents the general area of the crime scene, in circumstances that would motivate him to steal. This individual will have a history of petty crimes and breaking and entering with similar M.O., during the commission of which he carries a knife. He is probably known, at least casually, to one or more of the male residents of the house, and possibly the female residents as well.

This individual acted alone and will likely live alone and not be in a lasting relationship. He will indulge in alcohol and illicit substances, and may be expected to overindulge following the homicide. He will probably have attempted to establish an alibi for the time of the murder. He may have committed another burglary following the murder if he intended to leave town. Alternatively, he might be expected to attend a memorial service for the victim or otherwise show his concern for her if he believes police consider him a possible suspect.

If and when such a suspect is developed, DNA testing should quickly confirm or rule out his involvement.

********************

On November 16, 2007, forensic police in Rome matched a fingerprint found at the crime scene to
Rudy Guede
, a 21-year-old native of Ivory Coast who had lived in
Perugia since the age of 5. (All immigrants to Italy are fingerprinted and included in a national database.)

He matched the profile in all material respects, including a record of breaking and entering while carrying a knife and alcohol and substance abuse. He played basketball on a nearby court with the downstairs male residents and was an occasional visitor.

Late on the night of the crime, he was seen dancing in a local nightclub. The next day, he left town. Regulars used to seeing him nightly at the local clubs, discos, and bars noted his absence.

Investigators entered his flat within walking distance of the crime scene and took DNA samples from his toothbrush. These matched samples collected from Kercher’s body and on paper in the toilet of the larger bathroom. He owned a pair of Nike athletic shoes matching the pattern and size of the bloody footprints.

An international warrant was issued for Guede’s arrest and extradition. On November 20, 2007, he was arrested for riding without a ticket on an intercity train near Mainz, Germany. Once German authorities identified him, he was extradited back to Italy.