Mining Lies For Implicit Truth
I do think that this need addressing and confronting (and not for the first time....).
You are implying here (I believe) that one should either believe Guede or disbelieve him - and that to "choose" to believe some of what he says, while at the same time "choosing" to disbelieve other parts of his version of events, is intellectually dishonest.
But that's simply not what is happening in this instance. What some - including me - have tried to do is examine Guede's motivation for constructing the various elements of his version of events. By attempting to do so, it becomes more possible (though obviously not infallible) to hypothesise when Guede is telling the truth (i.e. where it suits him best to do so) and where he is lying (again, where it suits him best to do so).
So let's take the two elements of Guede's version that are mentioned here: the "consensual sex" element and the "scream at 9.20-9.30" element. I would argue strongly that the first of these is likely to be a lie: it should be abundantly clear to any normal-thinking person that Guede has to claim the sex was consensual (given that he cannot deny the presence of his DNA in the victim's vagina), for to do otherwise is to admit to a criminal offence there and then. And taken together with what we think we know of the victim's character, and the other evidence and testimony in the case, it's highly likely that this element was a lie that was told for Guede's own self-interest.
Now, on to the "scream at 9.20-9.30" element. As I and others have discussed here many times before (perhaps you missed it?), it's reasonable (in my opinion) to suppose that Guede was concerned at the time when he made this statement (while he was on the run in Germany) that earwitnesses outside the cottage might have heard the victim screaming, and might therefore be able to pinpoint the time of the scream(s). He might reasonably therefore have decided that his version of events had to place the scream at the correct time, in order to avoid the possibility of flat contradiction by reliable witnesses further down the line.
For example, suppose Guede's version of events had been that he had had sex with Meredith, and that it was only some time after the event (say 10pm+) that he'd gone to the toilet and the mystical intruders had swept in and killed Meredith. If one or more witnesses then came forward to testify with certainty that they had heard a loud terrified woman's scream at 9.20pm, Guede would immediately find his version of events being gravely challenged. He therefore (in my opinion) knew that had to concoct a curious version where consensual sexual interaction started, but where he (Guede) had to terminate the sexual activity abruptly in order to go to the toilet, whereupon the intruders burst in etc etc. That was (in my opinion) the only way in which Guede could fit both the proven sexual interaction and the c9.20pm scream into the very narrow time frame.
Of course, my opinion is that the truth is that none of this curious dance ever happened. The truth is that Guede confronted Meredith shortly after she arrived home at 9pm, and that he attacked and stabbed her by 9.20, in the course of a serious sexual assault. But of course Guede doesn't want to admit to any of this. And yet he knows he has to correlate the scream time in order to match any potential witnesses.
And that is how it's reasonable to suppose that some parts of what Guede said are accurate, while other parts are not. The crucial factor is what one thinks Guede needs to say in his own best interest.
Greeting JREF, first time posting, so I'm not sure how this will appear, but hoping for the best. I've been following the case probably for less time than and less intensively than most here, but I'm considering a writing project and could use some help banging out my mistakes or misconceptions.
I'm starting here, because it dovetails with another poster's expressed interest in 'early investigation' (Anglo) as well, but I'll try to stay brief and on point (recognizing, it may already be too late).
To begin, I completely agree with LJ's approach towards analyzing statements by unreliable narrators, such as Guede. My contention here, is that the same method can be applied to the lies that the prosecution and Mignini have told to the press, and its particular relevance in the early part of the case. The articles in the press which rely on information from the police or prosecutor reflect their motivations at the time of publication, and in this way provide a factual trail of the prosecution's actual intent at each moment of publication.
In short, what they say, and when, is relevant.
My core belief is that Detective Napoleoni recognized Guede's break-in signature (rock through window to test if anyone's home, followed by a metal grate assisted climb up to the target window) and immediately alerted members of the investigation team. Further, that MIgnini was informed of this, before arriving at the crime scene on day 1. My belief is that Napoleoni had sized up Amanda and Rafaele as suitable for framing before Mignini even arrived at the crime scene, because they needed to protect Guede.
The prosecution's motivation to frame Amanda and Rafaele, is to deflect attention away from the Perugian authorities, and Mignini himself, for not having arrested Guede, thus allowing him to be free to harm Ms Kercher. If Guede alone is responsible, then the police are solely to blame for allowing him to remain free.
The first inference, is that there were no mistakes in the police investigation. All tests reasonably expected to be performed, were performed. Any results not consistent with the prosecution's theory were suppressed, destroyed, or manufactured to achieve an apparent, though false, fit.
Examples of Directional Lying:
1. Guede's choice of windows was irrational. (it was exactly consistent with his prior break-in signature choice of windows, ie the law office in Perugia).
2. Covering the murder victim with a duvet is likely a female gesture. (Guede is male, so saying its female leads suspicion away from Guede and towards Amanda. My understanding is that its common knowledge in professional criminal literature, that this covering of a victim is the act of an inexperienced killer, almost always male).
3. The break-in was staged (if its a genuine break-in, its not a conspiracy, just a break-in. Ironically, its the investigation that is "staged").
4. Amanda's behavior was odd. (Guede alone was found to have danced through a moment of silence at the Domus nightclub the night the murder was discovered).
5. Amanda is a she-devil, etc. (Creating a persona to commit the crime, where the truth is exactly the opposite).
6. Satanic, masonic conspiracy (consistent with Mignini's previous allegations in the Monster of Florence case, for which he himself was then already under indictment. He had received notice almost immediately after the crime, from the same psychic medium Gabriella Carlizzi that the cases were related - her and the deceased Exorcist Father Bernardo(?) that is, who she claims illuminates her on such matters).
7. As was pointed out in a recent article comments column by a poster, an early UK tabloid article on Nov 4 or 5, 2007, claimed the police believed the time of death was in the early morning of Nov 2 (not sure at the time claimed, but I think it was either 2-3 am or 5-6 am, I'm still trying to get the exact article so sorry about the lack of accuracy). - (this late time of death would be consistent with Guede's fake alibi of going to a club the night of the murder. It isn't proof, but a 'directional indication', that the police were already covering for Guede's fake alibi BEFORE the forensic results came back officially identifying Guede as a suspect. It suggests the police knew Guede was responsible, and Amanda and Raf were being actively framed).
8. Rafaele's book claims the knife was selected at random from his kitchen draw on Nov 6th, the officer asked his superior, "will this do?". Stefanoni's lab method could fraudulently validate literally any item with a corresponding DNA profile to Kercher's DNA, as explained in DR Mark Waterbury's book, "The Monster of Perugia: The Framing of Amanda Knox" (p.101).
The judicial opinions can be read as specifically corrupt in their united unwavering support for finding Guede did not act alone (deflecting police responsibility for Guede), and that the police interrogations of AK and RS were not improper (i.e., the calumnia conviction, which not even Hellman would overturn).
I guess now I'll apologize for the length. I can see now that i've failed in providing a short post. I'm guessing most or all of these points have been addressed over the years, but I need to nail these things down with sources so I know I'm right, or junk them if I'm wrong. So I really appreciate any help I can get.
Lastly, you people are awesome in your efforts.
(The final push that got me to register on this site and comment, was DAN O's theory of the self-unrolling underwear, inadvertent digital rape, & zombie wanking after sexually positioning the dying victim's body - but without any sexual motive. So you should really blame him
. - DAN O., I'm sure I've learned from other posts of yours, but that theory lacks elementary plausibility to me).
I use fresh Granny Smith apples btw.
