Wed 9 Dec 2009
That Old Chestnut
Posted by Miss Represented under Meredith Kercher Case
1 Comment
“Nothing is easier than self-deceit. For what each man wishes, that he also believes to be true” Demosthenes
Amongst the furore surrounding the conviction of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito for their part in the sexual assault and murder of Meredith Kercher, I thought I’d take some time to examine an often lesser noted third character in this dramatis personae.
Rudy’s Story
Rudy Guede’s appeal began on the 18th November 2009, two days before court summations in the ongoing trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. During his appeal he stuck to his original story, claiming he’d had consensual sexual contact with Meredith and had been on the toilet when she’d been attacked.
Yet he also ‘padded’ his tale with new ‘revelations’ about what he’d seen and heard that night, details of which you can find here. One of these new ‘revelations’ was that Guede claims to have seen the silhouette of Amanda Knox and an unidentified man running away from the murder scene.
Amongst the most stupid surprising, however is the claim by Rudy’s lawyers that he is suffering from a psychiatric disorder as a result of what he saw that night. Rudy’s defence team hope to invite testimony from an expert to state that in fleeing to Germany following the ‘discovery’ that Meredith had been injured; Rudy was displaying a classic symptom of PTSD: “Flight and avoidance”
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)
PTSD is an anxiety disorder that often develops as a result of witnessing or experiencing a severely traumatic event. PTSD is generally considered to be the reaction of a ‘normal’ person to an extremely ‘abnormal’ event.
The symptoms of PTSD are generally divided into three subcategories:
- Re-experience (flashbacks, nightmares etc)
- Avoidance (feeling detached or emotionally numb etc)
- Increased arousal (lack of concentration, sleeping difficult etc)
Other symptoms can include depression, feelings of mistrust/betrayal and anger. Experts on PTSD believe it can occur directly after the event or after a period of time. Some research has indicated PTSD can be triggered by noises, images or smells which remind the individual of the traumatic event.
The PTSD Defence
The nature of PTSD and its symptoms means that those affected are not always in control of their actions and may behave differently to ‘clinically normal’ people who have not experienced the same stressors.
Because of this PTSD is often associated with war veterans and has been used successfully as a criminal defence in (often) cases where former soldiers affected by traumatic experiences during military service have gone on to commit crimes upon leaving the army. In many of the documented cases, the solider affected has overreacted (often violently) to a ‘normal’ event they perceived as ‘abnormal’ or hostile. PTSD has also been used as a defence in non veteran criminal cases, most notably in cases where victims of long term abuse have injured or killed their abuser.
I’m not sure I’ve ever heard of it used in an appeal case as a legitimate defence for a ‘witness’ (later ‘framed’ for rape and murder) fleeing the scene of a crime to go to a disco whilst leaving the victim of the crime they’ve just witnessed bleeding to death. Rudy’s defence seems a little on the weak side, wouldn’t you agree? Is it possible for PTSD to be faked?
PTSD and Malingering
Unfortunately because of the subjective nature of the disorder (and indeed many other psychiatric disorders) the PTSD defence is open to abuse. As yet there is no definitive way to detect malingered PTSD, despite the DSM V recommendation that all those tested for the condition be considered malingering before any diagnoses is made.
We are living in a digital age where much of the information about symptoms of various conditions including PTSD is easily accessible in the public domain. There have also been documented cases of defendants claiming PTSD as a result of military service, only for the prosecution to discover the defendant had no military history at all!
Malingered PTSD can be seen as a form of avoidance in itself, a kind of guilt mechanism or reflex which prevents the accused from having to discuss the facts of the case or answer questions honestly for fear of legal consequences.
Is Rudy Guede Malingering?
Does Rudy Guede have PTSD? I can’t say for sure though the timing is certainly convenient. Despite appearing less so, when compared to Knox and Sollecito, Guede is a highly manipulative liar and this ‘condition’ could easily be a form of malingering.
No Evidence of Re-Experience Presented
No flashbacks or nightmares were mentioned in the reports from Guede’s appeal which I’d expect to see if this were a genuine case of PTSD. If they were mentioned in some way they could easily be faked. Guede has told so many lies and half truths why should anyone believe him now he says he’s not right in the head?
Similarly, for a supposedly ‘highly traumatic’ event, Guede’s recollection of what happened that night has been hazy to say the least. Most people affected by PTSD have an extremely vivid picture of the traumatic event, so much so that they often experience vivid and terrifying flashbacks afterwards. If Guede really was telling the truth about being in the cottage legitimately and he saw and heard Knox, why not come out and say so from the beginning?
Surely if he were there as a legitimate ‘witness’ there would be no need for vague descriptions of ‘shadowy silhouettes’? Surely he either he saw Amanda and Raffaele or he didn’t. I’m not sure about you but I don’t think I could even identify a silhouette running down a dark corridor. And speaking of dark corridors. Why are Knox and the unnamed mystery figure (who we can only assume to be Raffaele) shrouded in mysterious darkness in Guede’s new account? Are we to believe that everyone was staggering about in the cottage with the lights off?
I don’t doubt Knox and Sollecito were there that night and I don’t doubt Rudy saw them running away. It seems Rudy is using the ‘trauma’ he has experienced as an excuse not to talk about what he saw that night in any detail, hoping that the ‘fact’ he is ‘traumatised’ will be enough to convince everyone he is telling the truth.
You might be wondering why nobody challenged this silly tale. As a matter of fact they weren’t allowed to. Rudy made a ‘spontaneous declaration’ to the court allowing him to speak freely without being cross examined.
Indeed this the not the first time we’ve seen this form of malingering in the people who murdered Meredith Kercher. In a previous post I discussed how Knox and Sollecito avoided discussing what happened on the night of the murder and inconsistencies in their alibi (or lack thereof) by claiming they had marijuana induced amnesia.
No Evidence of Avoidance Presented
Rudy’s lawyers claim that he was traumatised by the sight of Meredith’s injuries and fearful that he would be framed for the murder. It was this ‘trauma’ they say, that caused Guede to flee to Germany following the murder. Guede also allegedly claimed not to remember how he got to Germany.
Though this may seem like avoidance and emotional numbness following a traumatic event, Guede was remarkably lucid in Germany, this was evident from a Skype conversation he had with his friend whilst on the run in Dusseldorf.
In it Guede laments that he has no money and has been “living on a barge in the Rhine and sleeping on trains without paying for a ticket” he also makes it clear he had “nothing to do with this business” and “wasn’t there that evening.” Rudy seemed to have been tactically avoiding police and surviving without any money even with Interpol on full alert. He also tried to explain away the presence of his fingerprints found at the crime scene to his friend by saying “I must have left them there before.” Emotionally numb and shell-shocked? I’m not convinced
Similarly if Guede was genuinely suffering post traumatic stress as a result of what he had seen why did he go home clean and up after the murder took place and then head out to a disco where he was seen by a number of witnesses? Surely a shell-shocked and traumatised witness who was afraid he’d be framed for a murder he didn’t commit wouldn’t have the inclination to party?
On a similar vein, if Guede developed an acute anxious reaction to the events at the cottage and fled the country soon after, then we can surely assume his supposed PTSD developed straight away? Despite this, no mention was ever made of Guede having any form of psychiatric condition including PTSD in his initial trial. If PTSD is responsible for him fleeing Italy, why have his lawyers waited until now to present PTSD as an excuse for his ‘avoidant’ behaviour? Funny how they omitted the Domus disco session from their ‘evidence’ of “flight and avoidant” behaviour.
No Evidence of Increased Arousal Presented
Rudy’s lawyers did not present any evidence that Rudy was experiencing sleeping difficulties or concentration problems. With regard to concentration problems, if any do later ‘arise’ it could also be argued that as a young man with virtually no ability to apply himself and stick to a college course or job, Rudy already had concentration problems which should factor into any future psych assessment into PTSD.
It may seem a little unfair to discount Rudy’s claims of PTSD based on the fact that he doesn’t seem to be suffering from many of the symptoms. Many people with psychiatric disorders have only two or three of the symptoms whereas some people may experience more. However it seems the only evidence reported for PTSD is the highly dubious “flight and avoidant” symptom which, even if believed could not in itself demonstrate evidence for PTSD.
Implications for Rudy’s Appeal
It seems pretty clear that Rudy is still being extremely economical with the truth. His version of events is still unfathomable and ridiculous and the suggestion that he has PTSD based on one symptom which his defence will have enough trouble proving, seems a fairly good indication that he will face a long time behind bars. Will Guede ever tell the truth? Who knows?
All I know is that old chestnut ain’t going to do him any favours.
Miss R, thanks so much for this informative and thoughtful blog. I have spent the last week or so going through the archives, and there’s still a long way to go, but what I’ve found so far has been fascinating (and disturbing), given that the psychological angle here is the one that baffles me most.
I know that in some of your posts you talk about the idea that there was a “pact” formed between AK, RS and RG, but despite the fact that there has been some unraveling of that pact (RG suddenly refuting AK’s alibi, for example), it seems odd to me that the three are still somehow protecting each other two years after the crime.
After everything I’ve read, there’s no doubt in my mind that all three were involved, but what I would like you to shed more light on is why they would still be protecting each other after all this time. AK and RS were lovers, and may still be bound by some loyalty in that respect. They also cleaned up the crime scene together and presented themselves as a loving pair in the weeks following the crime before they were arrested. So their pact to remain silent about each others’ involvement makes sense to me.
But what motivation could RG still have to keep from implicating them completely? He must know by now that they tried to frame him as a lone wolf attacker through their selective cleanup, and can’t possibly have any loyalty remaining for them. His new mention of vague silhouettes is hardly an outright admission that they were there. He’s already been convicted, and it seems to me that any chance of appeal he might have would be to confirm AK and RG’s participation in the crime. I don’t know if that would reduce his sentence, but would he be able to strike “a deal” with the prosecution? (I know very little about the Italian justice system, and if I know anything about the American one it’s because of movies and TV shows).
I also realize that he’s been sticking to the story that he had “consensual” sex with Meredith, but doesn’t it make more sense that he would tell the truth, or at least a version of the truth that makes him sound more like a pawn in someone else’s game?
I guess I’m asking because I desperately want someone to tell the truth about this case, and it seems like RG is the best bet for a clear picture of what happened.
Anyway, your thoughts on this would be much appreciated, and thank you for all the time and effort that has gone into ensuring justice for Meredith, and for making sure the attention and sympathy remains centered on the victim of this heinous crime.