Questions For Sollecito: Katie Couric, Push Back Against Sollecito’s Bluster And False Facts #2

Posted by The TJMK Main Posters



[The vastly more talented person, Meredith, who the smug and odious Sollecito still stands accused of killing]


Kermit has suggested some very tough questions in the Powerpoints post directly below.

Here are ten more of the possible dozens of unanswered questions that Katie Couric and other media interviewers of Sollecito should ask him, and we invite readers to suggest more questions in Comments below. 

II should be recalled that all three suspects were brought to trial on the same body of evidence. Judges at Guede’s trial court, his first appeal court, and the Supreme Court of Cassation have all ruled that the evidence showed that it was impossible for him to have attacked Meredith alone.

Despite contradictory efforts by the defenses in the Sollecito and Knox appeal to make credible two possible sets of alternative killers, both attempts descended into courtroom farce. Right now, all of the considerable body of evidence still points ONLY at the three originally charged.

Several context points from the previous post below with this same title should be reiterated here.

1) Sollecito was NOT finally acquitted at the end of 2011; as all the media have been wrongly parroting. He still stands accused until the appeal process fully plays out - and in some similar cases, that has taken years. As he is still accused of a murder and other felonies he might be in the United States illegally.

2) The investigation and crime-scene analysis resulted in a very powerful case at trial, the trial judges’ reasoning was brilliant and precise, and they showed NO media influence, NO satanic theory, NO desperate prosecutor, NO rush to judgment, and NO hint that it had all been inspired by Knox’s and Sollecito’s quirky behavior, or by a misinterpretation of the effect of drugs.

3) Knox and Sollecito were convicted at trial based on clashing alibis, autopsy evidence, blood evidence, footprint evidence, cellphone evidence, computer-use evidence, eye-witness evidence, and so on and on. In the UK and US any ONE item might have been enough. They both refused to be fully cross examined at trial. Knox was only partly examined, about her false charge of murder against Patrick Lumumba, but even so she did herself harm.

4) A bizarre and suspect last-minute change of appeal judges resulted in a bizarre and suspect court management, a bizarre and suspect DNA consultancy, a bizarre and suspect appeal verdict, and a bizarre and suspect appeal sentencing report - which in enormous detail has been dissected by the Chief Prosecutor of Umbria, Dr Galati, in an appeal to the Supreme Court and shown to have broken Italian law in a large number of respects.

5)  The entire officialdom of Perugia holds a pro-guilt view. Dr Galati holds this view. Relevant officials in Rome all hold this view. Probably 95 percent of the interested Italian population hold this view. The vast majority of Italian journalists hold this view. The Rome-based foreign reporters all hold this view.  A large if unknown fraction in the UK and US populations hold this view. Behind the scenes in the NYC media, a majority seem to hold this view. Hillary Clinton and the ambassador in Rome hold this view. Knox’s and Sollecito’s lawyers at trial in 2009 seemed less than firm believers in their innocence. Both families have acted as if they KNEW there was guilty involvement all along.

While Sollecito did not take the stand during the trial or the appeal, he did make a number of voluntary written statements entitled “Notes on a Prison Journey” which were edited and given to the media by his lawyers. These notes have been meticulously translated into English by the PMF translators and are available here.  They don’t show him in an innocent light.

With so many questions unanswered, it would be unconscionable for any good reporter or network to allow Sollecito to promote his book and case one-sidedly on their nationally-syndicated talk shows without answering some tough questions. Keeping in mind that a talk show is not the best place to debate forensic evidence and other intricacies of the case, we offer these ten example questions in other areas, which with Kermits questions below should start to get to the core of what Sollecito did and didn’t do on the night.

1. The Kercher family has asked that people involved in the case keep a low profile out of respect for their daughter Meredith. What effect do you think your loud promotion of this tendentious book deal will have on the Kerchers?

2. Did your publisher, Simon & Schuster, express any concern that you might yet be convicted of this murder, if the Supreme Court rules in March that you were improperly acquitted? And that if Italian officialdom is smeared, they may risk charges of calunnia?

3. You were the person closest to Amanda Knox in the days before the murder. Why did you write that Amanda was “detached from reality?” What in your view is her psychology? Is she loyal to you? And do you always see eye to eye?

4. You and Amanda were among the last people to see Meredith alive. Did you hear Meredith’s conversation with Amanda, if any, before she left to have dinner with friends? If so, what was said, and in what tone?

5. That afternoon you claim the two of you merely smoked a little marijuana but both suffered mental black-outs. Amazing. Medically very unusual. At what time precisely did you both stop remembering, and at what time did you both start remembering again?

6. If neither of you can remember what happened that night, how can you be so sure you and Amanda had nothing to do with the murder? How in that light do you account for highly incriminating forensic and computer and cellphone and eyewitness evidence? 

7. Inconsistencies between Amanda’s account of what she found at her cottage the next morning, and what you said you saw when you got there, make the story seem made up. For example, you wrote that the first thing you noticed - you said that you remembered this particularly well - was one of the bedroom doors was wide open, the window was broken and the room was a mess. But Amanda wrote that the door was closed and the break-in wasn’t discovered until you conducted a search of the house. Why don’t your stories match?

8. Both of you have described how, after Meredith didn’t answer, you tried to kick down her bedroom door. It was easily pushed in later. Were you surprised that you were unable to break it down, despite having taken eight years of kickboxing lessons?

9. Were the police wrong to arrest you after you specifically and quite readily told them that Amanda had persuaded you to lie to them, and to say that she’d been home with you all night when you had consistently maintained that she wasn’t?

10. Rudy Guede, the man confirmed convicted by the Supreme Court of Cassation of murder and a sex crime, in complicity (“in concorso”) with two other people, says that you were the other two people there. Guede is eligible for parole later this decade. Do you think that his parole should be denied? Did the Supreme Court get it wrong? Is Guede the sole killer, and if so how?











Comments

The Kindle copy of Andrew Gumbel and Raffaelle Sollecito’s book, “Honor Bound”, has just come out, so it can now be quoted here, verbatim.

Later I’ll post some items apparently NOT included in previous reviews of this book.

Confirming what was previously reported by A.P, in its otherwise biased paraphrased version, Sollecito does concede that his “ recollection of that night was hazy because he had smoked marijuana”, that he knew he was innocent and he still insists that Amanda Knox “was not capable of murder”.

The obfuscation therefore continues, although he does, truly, say “She was just as innocent as me.”

In spite of “hazy recollection” of what actually happened, Sollecito “knows” that Sollecito is innocent, and that Amanda Knox “was not capable of murder”, and “Neither Amanda Knox or I had anything to do with the crime”.

Sollecito does not specifically exclude his involvement in an “innocent”- game, and he does not specifically state that Amanda Knox was not capable of involvement in an “innocent” game that resulted in the death of Meredith Kercher.

Sollecito is silent on his probable belief that the killing was NOT a murder, and he does not say what was the “crime” that neither of them ” had anything to do with”.

Sollecito’s attribution of his hazy recollection of that night to his smoking marijuana, also called “hashish”, may remind readers of James Raper’s comment regarding Amanda Knox’s “Mask of the Assassin” phrase.

James Raper pointed out that the word “Assassin” appears to come from the word “Hashshashin”, a reference to the Ismaili Shia killers of a Persian ruler who were promised paradise in heaven for carrying out his orders.

It is commonly thought that the Ismaili Shia killers primed themselves with hashish, hence “Hashshashin” .which became corrupted to “assassin”.  See Friday, December 03, 2010, post here by Hammerite:

“The Toxic Pro-Knox PR Campaign And Media Circus That John Kercher So Rightly Complained About”

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/the_toxic_pro-knox_p.r._campaign_and_media_circus_that_john_kercher_ri/

Posted by Cardiol MD on 09/18/12 at 02:01 AM | #

This book will be like shooting fish in a barrel. I’ve read about 30 pages and have yet to read any fully accurate fact. Gumbel has done a TERRIBLE job of fact-checking - if he did any at all. Three things stand out in the early part of the book.

1) A strident mis-characterization of how the prosecution handled publicity, which was generally sparing and cautious and soon dried up to nothing at all. Mignini never leaks; all the reporters know that. Compared to the roar of publicity on American TV about any sensational crime and the incessant “guilty” and “fry them” mantras, the Italian media were a model of restraint and decorum.

2) A strident mischaracterization of the caution and carefulness of the Italian justice system which has almost no travesties of justice (way fewer than the US) and is heavily loaded toward the defendant. Stupid move by Sollecito, considering he must still face those same prosecutors.

3) A notable tendency to raise suspicions about Amanda Knox but in the “nicest” possible way. this really drops her in it. Either:

(a) Sollecito’s father Francesco (who is known to despise the Knox-Mellases and to totally believe Amanda caused the murder) had a very big hand in this book, or

(b) Raffaele himself is deeply angered at Knox having pushed the knife furiously into Meredith’s throat to cause her death, and at Knox dumping him (or being made to dump him) right after she headed out of Italy.

As with Cardiol above, more later. Both in comments and in main posts we have planned in our series of posts addressed to Dr Galati.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 09/18/12 at 02:40 AM | #

Here are some additional questions for Raffaele Sollecito:

1) Why on one hand have you expressed a desire to return to “normal” life, yet at the same time you are on a glitzy media tour right now, cashing in on Meredith’s death and your 7 day romance with Amanda?

2) What were you going to tell Prosecutor Mignini, when you requested - through your lawyer - a meeting with him in November 2007, and then when you arrived effectively clammed up because hours before Rudy Guede had been arrested?

3) Who are Amanda’s media handlers, Entourage members, Friends-of-Amanda hangers on, etc. who have supported you in your American media tour? What sort or coordination (or coercion in one direction or the other ...) is there between the two sides?

4) Would you dedicate any of your earnings to an action in memory of Meredith Kercher (the girl who got murdered, just in case you can’t remember throught the joint-induced blackout you suffered)?

5) Do you still remember pricking Meredith with the Double DNA Knife while cooking together?

6) Why were you afraid of what Rudy Guede would say when he got arrested? In theory (according to you and Amanda’s Entourage), neither Amanda nor you “had set eyes on” Rudy before.

7) What specific actions are you aware of that your father, sister or other family or friends took in your favour, using money to “make water flow uphill”? Were any of those actions illegal or unethical?

8) Are you afraid of the Truth? Is that why you didn’t testify in your trial? If there was actually no evidence against you, all you had to do was repeat that you smoked a joint or two with Amanda, went to bed, then woke up in the morning.

9) Why did you take a knife with you in your pocket to the Police questionning?

10) What drugs were you using around the time of Meredith’s murder?

Well, the list goes on and on ...

Posted by Kermit on 09/18/12 at 02:56 AM | #

Thanks Cardiol.

I hope Katie will press Sollecito on how he can be sure of his and Knox’s innocence, given that his recollection is so “hazy” that he can’t even be sure if Knox was with him or not.

I hope Katie will press Sollecito on how he can be sure that Knox was not capable of murder, despite her being, in his words, “detached from reality,” and despite having known her for only one week.

Posted by brmull on 09/18/12 at 03:07 AM | #

“Katie” producers should recognize that the latest intrigue over whether the Sollecito family tried to cut a deal with the prosecution to give up Amanda Knox, or vice versa, is yet another dog and pony show that brings us no closer to understanding Raffaele Sollecito’s role in the murder. The interview should remain focused on getting Sollecito’s answers to substantial questions like those above.

Posted by brmull on 09/18/12 at 05:59 AM | #

Thanks, Peter, for the link above to Sollecito’s Prison Notes.

Some interesting quotes -

“But I do not remember exactly whether she went out or not to go to that pub and as a consequence I do not remember how long she was gone for. What is the big problem? I do not remember this, for them, important detail, therefore they should stop bothering me and start investigating her…. It would have been better if I had done nothing and had limited myself to saying that she had remained at at my house.”

Presumably Sollecito is still of the same opinion?

“I hope the real truth comes out. None of the three is involved!!!” (18th Nov)

I would want to know from Sollecito when he became aware that the police had evidence on Guede, or were even looking for anyone else. There is nothing indicative of this in the Prison Notes until, on the 20th Nov, he mentions Guede’s arrest.

So presumably “the three” were himself, Amanda and Patrick. This raises the question why he knew/believed, or hoped, that Patrick was not involved, and would be released. Or is it just that Sollecito is a very charitable and trusting person?

Finally I would like to know just what aspect of the murder and his subsequent arrest and incarcaration satisfied his desire for “new experiences” as stated on facebook.

Posted by James Raper on 09/18/12 at 06:32 AM | #

Hi Kermit and James

Great questions. As you know there could be a whole extended family of questions about the drugs. The prosecution seemed pretty sure they were on cocaine not pot that night.

Defenses never proved that two could lose their memories for some hours under drug influence, a medical rarity or impossibility, especially simultaneously. (Did Gumbel know that?)

Both skunk marijuana and cocaine have been found to cause psychotic episodes and murders and could have been more blamed for Meredith’s death though that is considered a weak argument and not usually one that results in time off or not guilty.

Leaving drugs aside, my first questions for Katie would be:

(1) Are you in the US illegally? Did Immigration understand you still stand accused of murder?

(2) Why did Knox conjecture that you might have done the murder and while she was asleep you pressed the handle of a knife onto her hand to collect finger prints?

(3) Remember there was that strange episode during the appeal when Knox was rather desperate to get you a message or talk with you. Was she asking you to finally fully confirm her verdict?

(4) When you flew to Seattle last year did Knox really want to see you? Did you hope that this the only sex experience you ever had could be resumed? Why was your father keen to break it up?

(5) What do you think of those in FOA who first emerged online slobbering over Knox and still seem smitten? Did you ever get a visit in prison from the lusty Italian MP called Rocco Girlanda?

(6) When you headed for Los Angeles and then Seattle earlier this year, why did your father and sister rush to get on a plane to follow you? Were they trying to keep you on a short string?

(7) Did your sister fairly lose her Carabinieri job for attempted political manipulation? Is your family fairly arraigned for attempted political manipulation and illegal evidence release to Telenorba?

(8) How do you explain these recorded statements by your father which were posted online by Perugia Notizie?

1) From a family conversation recorded in Capanne prison:

“And then this f@cking knife that you carried back and forth .... I told you about leaving it at home .... You’re an idiot from this point of view .... aren’t you? .... and then the f@cking point that you could have avoided the [marijuana] joints .... You promised a few years ago about it, didn’t you? You gave us your promise, to me and to your sister that you would not have used them again, and instead you have not given a f@ck .... is that clear?“

2) From another family conversation recorded in Capanne prison

“If the investigators are finally realizing what the real dynamics of the matter is ... automatically understand that you have nothing to do with that [rude in italian] ... Do you understand? ... Amanda can be more or less involved in this matter ... more or less I do not know and do not give a damn ...

She will know something ... precisely ... especially considering all the versions that she has given, maybe she has not told the right one because she was worried about what this character the little negro [i.e. Patrick Lumumba] has managed to do, something like that ... do you understand what I mean? ... But you have nothing to do with [rude in Italian] ... and they understood ... now this morning or Monday there will be also the checking of your computer ... they have already cloned the hard disk ..

If Amanda was home ... if she was out, wtf were you doing? ... were you at the computer? ...... We cannot understand, this [=AK] within three days, when she went to the questura ... she has four to five different versions ... she has pulled in the little negro a@@hole ... Is a strange personality this girl, isn’t it?.”

Posted by Peter Quennell on 09/18/12 at 06:50 AM | #

Questions ....

1.  You claimed that you were alone at your apartment on the night of the murder, and that Amanda Knox had gone out from 9pm to 1am, why ?

2. You were quoted as saying after your release from prison, that the best thing to do now was to keep out the spotlight, keep your head down and get on with your life, what changed your mind ?

3. When the police arrived and noticed what seemed like a break in, you are quoted as saying nothing was missing. How did you know this, the person whose room appeared to be broken into was not yet present at the scene to confirm anything was missing or not, why did you state this, and how did you know nothing was missing ?

4. You claimed that you had spoken to your father at 11pm. Phone records show this not to be the case. Your father phoned you at 8.40pm, why did you lie about the time of the call ?

5. You claimed in an interview with Kate Mansey from the Sunday Mirror that you and Amanda Knox were at a friend’s party on the night of the murder. Why ?

Posted by Jeffski1 on 09/18/12 at 08:39 AM | #

Thank you to everyone who was involved in writing these posts.  I too am curious how Katie Couric will approach this interview, and I do hope that she has done some independent research and will not completely avoid any touchy subjects.

Also, thank you Peter for posting those excerpts from the recorded statement.  I’d read the first before, but not the second. 

I seriously wonder if Sollecito Sr. suspected that the room was bugged and what he’s saying is, on the one hand, for the benefit of the surveillance people, and, on the other hand, a set of veiled instructions to Raffaele.

For one, he tells Raffaele, in no uncertain terms, that the version he has to stick with is one of zero involvement - “automatically understand that you have nothing to do with that [rude in italian] ... Do you understand? ... ” and ” But you have nothing to do with [rude in Italian] ...” I wonder what “rude in Italian” refers to - would be “this messy situation” or “Amanda”? I don’t think this is a simple statement - “oh, good, you have nothing to do with it,” but an imperative: “you’d better say you had nothing to do with it.” 

Secondly, he tells him that he doesn’t have to protect Amanda: “Amanda can be more or less involved in this matter ... more or less I do not know and do not give a damn ...” So that translates to: “it’s okay to throw her under the bus as long as you don’t incriminate yourself.” Sollecito Sr. must know at this point that Amanda is involved, and I think he mentions her many versions and the fact that she likely hasn’t told truth yet for the listening officers - “it’s her you should be focusing on,” in other words.  The fact that Raffaele doesn’t heed this advice is pretty telling: when faced with 20 years in prison, loyalty towards someone you knew for a week fades; so he must be very afraid of what she’d say if he explicitly accused her.

I don’t know if Sollecito Sr. had been told what really happens, or if he had a fair idea given how well he knows Raffaele. But I think he knew Raffaele was actually involved and was very afraid that he would talk too much without directions.

The fact of the matter is that Raffaele was at the cottage - there is the DNA trace and Curatolo’s testimony that he saw them together.  Now it’s possible that he just watched and then helped clean up, but watching someone being killed is criminal in itself, especially when you don’t have the excuse that you were afraid for your own life.

There doesn’t seem to be any evidence that he Amanda called him after the fact and that he just helped her clean up and lied to protect her.  For one, there would have been phone records.  Secondly, I have no doubt he would have cracked and told the truth, especially with his father backing him up. Having a criminal record for lying to the police is nothing compared to being accused of murder. So no, it’s hard to believe Raffaele had nothing or little to do with it.  He probably had a lot to do with it, and the fact that he might get away with it is abhorrent.

For some reason, I expect Raffaele to be the first to crack, if either of them ever does.  Couric has an extraordinary opportunity to bring Raffaele to the brink of cracking, and that would do considerably more for her career than a lukewarm interview with someone that most Americans don’t give a bat’s arse about. But it’s not even live, as far as I understand, and I’m sure he’ll be walled by his handlers.  Meh.  I don’t expect this to anything we haven’t seen before.

Posted by Vivianna on 09/18/12 at 09:18 AM | #

Before I get into this just a short comment. The consensus in parts of the USA who have been lied to by Bruce Fischer and the infamous PR firm plus paid others into believing in the innocence of these two murderer have in fact done Meredith Kercher a favor. That being that Knox cannot refuse to return to Spain to face trail since that would be an admission of guilt. The vast majority of people are beginning to see that they have been sold a bill of goods. You will notice also that Knox has just disappeared from the radar since her backers are terrified of letting her anywhere near an interview unless the interviewee is only allowed to ask puffball questions.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 09/18/12 at 10:36 AM | #

Jeffski, here is Sollecto’s plausible response to your Q3 – “..and how did you know nothing was missing ?”:

“….Okay, we thought, so there’s been a break-in. What we couldn’t understand was why Filomena’s laptop was still propped upright in its case on the floor, or why her digital camera was still sitting out in the kitchen. As far as we could tell, nothing of value was missing anywhere.”

Gumbel, Andrew; Sollecito, Raffaele (2012-09-18). Honor Bound (Kindle Location 462). Simon & Schuster, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

(i.e. I didn’t KNOW, but that was as far as I could tell. Under stress I am not always precise, or logical.)

Posted by Cardiol MD on 09/18/12 at 11:41 AM | #

Gumbel/Sollecito wrote:

“Who cleans a murder weapon and puts it back where it belongs for the police to discover?”

Gumbel, Andrew; Sollecito, Raffaele (2012-09-18). Honor Bound (Kindle Locations 1340-1341). Simon & Schuster, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

Stupid, panicked, people?

Posted by Cardiol MD on 09/18/12 at 11:49 AM | #

People whose knives belong to the landlord.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 09/18/12 at 11:56 AM | #

Hi Cardiol

People whose knives belonged to the landlord?!

They did dispose of some other items. He would have to account for that one.

To him it would seem more incriminating for the knife not to be there than to be there, provided all traces were removed.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 09/18/12 at 11:58 AM | #

Gumbel/Sollecito also wrote:

“How did Meredith’s DNA end up on my knife when she’d never visited my house? I was feeling so panicky I imagined for a moment that I had used the knife to cook lunch at Via della Pergola and accidentally jabbed Meredith in the hand. Something like that had in fact happened in the week before the murder. My hand slipped and the knife I was using made contact with her skin for the briefest of moments. Meredith was not hurt, I apologized, and that was that. But of course I wasn’t using my own knife at the time. There was no possible connection. As I worked through all that in my head, I was close to panic. My stomach was burning and I felt ready to leap out of my skin.”

Gumbel, Andrew; Sollecito, Raffaele (2012-09-18). Honor Bound (Kindle Locations 1342-1347). Simon & Schuster, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

So Sollecito admits lying, but only from sheer, reflexive panic?

If they write:

“Something-like-that had in-fact-happened in the week before the murder. My hand slipped and the knife I was using made-contact-with-her-skin for the-briefest-of-moments.”

Who can contradict this alleged in-fact-happening?

Posted by Cardiol MD on 09/18/12 at 12:14 PM | #

Kermit’s questions, HOT HOT HOT. Mr. Gumbel may be playing with fire here, accepting a former jailbird’s every word about innocence.

Rafaelle recently said his revulsion at the thought of seeing Amanda again after years in prison made him recoil instinctively as if it were a return to the lion’s den. This was his exact analogy, referring to himself as Daniel in the lion’s den.

Well, although Daniel is a Biblical hero, it is still true that Daniel did break the law of the land which was why he was thrown into the lion’s den. The reference to Daniel DeLuna? another of Knoxy’s Italian lovers who was visiting the boys downstairs “dungeon” also comes to mind.

Raffaele as Daniel who had visions and dreams does seem to fit, but the grand hero status he’d like to invoke with this analogy of himself as Daniel has a few holes in it. The main truth is his total revulsion toward Knox, having been given four long years to think about her objectively.

Raf’s recent kickin it at Burning Man appears to be his righteous turn to sow wild oats in this country like Foxy did in his. It’s Raf’s turn now in New York to cause trouble for her, like she did for him. Justice’s perfect symmetry may arise from the natural law of sowing and reaping.

She sowed wild oats in Perugia and took a doctor’s son for a hairy ride, it’s his turn to repay the favor to his first love.

Posted by Hopeful on 09/18/12 at 12:22 PM | #

Hi Pete:

Your “To him it would seem more incriminating for the knife not to be there than to be there, provided all traces were removed.” is spot-on.

Were they stupid, panicky, and illogical, only when it suited their cover-story?

Posted by Cardiol MD on 09/18/12 at 12:27 PM | #

Just watched the brief overview of Sollecito’s memoir on CNN given by a reporter from the UK.

Sollecito is reported to have written that the prosecutors offered him a plea bargain if he implicated Knox. He says he turned them down. This of course is an out and out lie since he threw Knox under the bus because he did not provide her with an alibi and it was only after she was told this that she implicated Patrick Lamumba.

Ah honor among thieves or in this case murderers.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 09/18/12 at 12:54 PM | #

I have two questions for Sollecito:

-On hearing that a large knife had been found as a potential murder weapon in your flat, why did you write in your prison diary that you had pricked Meredith’s hand with it in the one week you had known her roommate? Was this true? When and where did this happen? If it’s not true, why did you write it?

-I’m under the impression that you had smoked a lot of marijuana before Nov 1st, 2007. How many years had you smoked for? In all those years (or since you’ve been released from prison), did you ever have a night (or day) when the marijuana caused you to lose your memory like you did on Nov 1st, 2007? If so, when and please explain the circumstances. If not, why do you think this happened ONLY on Nov 1st, 2007?

Posted by Earthling on 09/18/12 at 12:59 PM | #

Hi Cardiol.

Well done. You got it. They were acting stupid, panicky, and illogical only when they were not acting stupid, panicky, and illogical…

***

You and Hopeful have suggested for me what may be the mother of all tough questions. To Sollecito.

In 2008 you and Knox were both psychologically tested in Capanne and found likely to be a continuing danger to the public, so you were denied house arrest up to trial in 2009 and instead had to remain in Capanne.

We understand psychologists saw symptoms in both of you ranging from NPD through BPD to full psychopathia. In fact, you test high on the remote testing psychopathic scale.

This same jubilation and catch-me-if-you-can contempt for the law you are demonstrating in the book and public statements has been noted in a number of murdering psychopaths. In many cases they killed again.

Did you get kicks out of Meredith’s murder and taunting the police up to when you were arrested? And are you a continuing danger to the public? Could you kill again?

Posted by Peter Quennell on 09/18/12 at 01:08 PM | #

Hi Vivianna

Great dissection of the recorded chats. The rude words apply to Amanda.

Sollecito rarely seems to have responded to his father’s words of guidance, rude or otherwise. He was always quite a handful and that is why Francesco kept his bank balance so low, he didnt want money left over for any drugs.

We believe neither set of parents ever knew FULLY what their offspring’s story was as they both knew there were open microphones. Curt Knox said as much when Amanda was released. Four years earlier both he and Edda had shushed her when she began to open up (“I was there”). 

So both families had four years of flying blind and not sure what had happened or how much further their kids could drop them in it. Initially they did think the police and prosecutors had it all wrong and started their ad-hominem attacks.

After that it was like a train on rails.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 09/18/12 at 01:27 PM | #

http://www.corriere.it/cronache/12_settembre_18/sollecito-libro-incastrare-amanda-anticipazioni_2c01fd00-019f-11e2-a63e-daa4ff219e76.shtml

«TI PESTO A SANGUE» - Mentre il dramma si consuma nell’altra stanza, racconta Raffaele, il poliziotto che lo controlla gli si avvicina: «Se provi ad alzarti e andartene, ti pesto a sangue e ti ammazzo. Ti lascio in una pozza di sangue. Poi mi si gelarono le ossa», scrive Raffaele, «quando sentii i lamenti di Amanda dall’altra stanza. Urlava in italiano, “Aiuto, aiuto!“».

I’ll beat you bloody. While the drama continued in the other room, the policeman that was
guarding him got closer. ” if you try to get up and leave, I’ll beat you bloody and kill you. I’ll leave you in a pool of blood.” then my bones froze, writes RS. “when I heard the crys of Amanda from the other room. She was screaming “Help, help”, in Italian.

Posted by Miriam on 09/18/12 at 01:40 PM | #

I guess this idiot is not planning on coming back
to Italy. The comments below te article are not kind, to say the least.

Sorry about the double post,my computer froze.

Posted by Miriam on 09/18/12 at 01:49 PM | #

I hope Ms Couric’s infrastructure is keeping her informed about TJMK’s findings.

Apart from Personal Pronouns, Gumbel/Sollecito’s favourite word seems to be “Never”, which they use, as a whole word, 83 times – about 3 times per printed-page.

Here are the 2nd and 3rd instances (my caps):

2nd:
“Meredith was Amanda’s friend, a fellow English speaker in the house they shared with two Italian women just outside Perugia’s ancient city walls. She was twenty-one years old, intelligent, and beautiful. She and Amanda knew each other for a little over three weeks, long enough to feel their way into their new surroundings and appreciate each other’s interests and temperaments. I NEVER HEARD ABOUT A SINGLE TENSE MOMENT BETWEEN THEM.”

Gumbel, Andrew; Sollecito, Raffaele (2012-09-18). Honor Bound (Kindle Locations 43-46). Simon & Schuster, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

3rd:
“….if I had changed my testimony, Amanda would have remained behind bars for the rest of her remained behind bars for the rest of her life, not just the twenty-six years to which she was originally sentenced. There would have been no saving her. And THAT WAS SOMETHING MY CONSCIENCE COULD NEVER PERMIT.”

Posted by Cardiol MD on 09/18/12 at 01:49 PM | #

Not everyone knows that washing a knife thoroughly in bleach will sometimes fail to remove all the blood, if the knife as a small scratch in it.

Surely Sollecito isnt dumb enough to allow Kuric total freedom on the questions. Wouldnt he demand to vet them before hand? I know he wants to sell books but I wouldnt get your hopes to high on him self-incriminating. Time inside can help concentrate the mind.

Posted by harrym on 09/18/12 at 01:54 PM | #

My main question to Sollecito is due to a fresh claim arising from published excerpts from his book.  He says he was concerned about Knox’s Perugia acquaintances.  This seems to be a new allegation and crosses swords with his supporters’ view that he had no contact with Guede or with any of the other less-than-reputable people in Knox’s social circle.

How well did Sollecito know Guede?  How many other of Knox’s friends did he know?  Did he explain any of this to the police during his interviews prior to his arrest?

Posted by Stilicho on 09/18/12 at 02:10 PM | #

@James:

“So presumably “the three” were himself, Amanda and Patrick. This raises the question why he knew/believed, or hoped, that Patrick was not involved, and would be released. Or is it just that Sollecito is a very charitable and trusting person?”

At the conclusion of AK’s baffling and contradictory court testimony, she said she was relieved when Patrick was released from prison.  Sollecito expressed similar thoughts about him.

How could both of them independently arrive at the conclusion that Patrick was not involved in Meredith’s murder?

Posted by Stilicho on 09/18/12 at 02:32 PM | #

Great questions all, above.

Since it wasn’t specified, I’d certainly ask a few questions about Sollecito’s activities in the morning after the murder.  There are several unexplained events that he should clarify:

1]  When was the plan to take a day trip to Gubbio aborted?

2]  What were the contents of the phone calls in the hour around 9 am, of which Knox was unaware?

3]  Why did you turn on your mobile phone in the morning?

4]  Did you or Knox sleep at all that morning?  Your computer had some kind of activity shortly after midnight and again around 6 am.  Can you explain this?

5]  Who awoke first in the morning at your flat if you did indeed sleep?

6]  Was Knox wearing the same clothing in the morning that you had seen her in the previous night around the time Jovana Popovic arrived at your flat?

7]  Did you have a shower at your apartment that morning?

8]  Why did you wait until morning to try to staunch the “flood” of water from the kitchen sink?  Whose idea was it to carry a mop back and forth from the cottage if there were ample cleaning supplies in your own apartment?

9]  When did you eat?

————-

If these questions (and several others) are all occluded beneath the umbrella of “too stoned to remember” then we know that Sollecito is asking his readers to believe that smoking a little pot will essentially erase your memory for around eighteen hours.

Posted by Stilicho on 09/18/12 at 02:52 PM | #

I’ll be surprised if Katie Couric asks Raffaele Sollecito any tough questions. She’s just referred to him as Raffaele on Twitter. It seems that they are already on first name terms. I think this interview has already been carefully scripted and choreographed in advance.

Posted by The Machine on 09/18/12 at 03:33 PM | #

Its 3.07 pm. The interview has begun. Sollecito talks slowly and with a strong accent. Seems nervous.

Katie talks over him. She is being quite tough and (surprise surprise) seems to have lined up some good questions. She has had him off balance several times.

*******

There’ll be a link to a downloadable version of the show here in about three hours.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 09/18/12 at 04:12 PM | #

Okay here is the video of the interview.

It is 20 minutes long and should open in a media player or download in 3-5 minutes on a cable or fiber optic connection.

http://truejustice.org/ee/documents/perugia/2012CouricInterviewsSollecito.avi

Do I get the impression “Get out of my studio you lying little weasel” were Katie’s final thoughts as she brushed him off?

I think she did some homework here and also I get the impression she was ticked she had been lied to, maybe not told the case was under appeal.

Pete

Posted by Peter Quennell on 09/18/12 at 05:24 PM | #

“Do I get the impression “Get out of my studio you lying little weasel” were Katie’s final thoughts as she brushed him off?”

LOL Pete. No, she did not seem to be very warm toward him. And I don’t think there was any clapping at the end of the segment, as there was (“quiet clapping”) for the mother with cancer, and the sleeping baby and father, later.

My first impression: pretty well-scripted but she got to ask a few slightly tougher ones such as, “What would you say to those (and there are many) who still think you and Amanda had something to do with it?”

By the way, when she asked him if he was satisfied that justice had been done by Rudy’s conviction, he did not say “Yes.” He danced around that one.

The audience seemed bored and on edge. They knew they were only getting a partial story. It was not a “feel-good” moment for them.

Posted by Earthling on 09/18/12 at 06:20 PM | #

People who do not believe in his innocence ¨do listen too much to media frenzy, that make money ou of it.¨

My comfort is, these are the last apocalytical days of old school money making television.

Katie did a fine job, but smart phones in general do better filming.

Let´s do some copy and paste:

¨TJMK is a totally self-funded volunteer-run website where nobody ever gets paid for anything.
We channel advice freely provided by law enforcement, lawyers, crime experts, and others with professional expertise who believe the right verdict was reached.
We claim no copyright. We offer credit to our many friends in the US, UK and Italian media for stories and shots we may use.¨

I´m proud to be in it.

Posted by Helder Licht on 09/18/12 at 06:23 PM | #

Thanks to Bedelia for handing out flyers outside the ABC studios. It only takes one good person to make a difference and you have made a difference. I hope your actions encourage and inspire others.

Posted by The Machine on 09/18/12 at 07:54 PM | #

Andrea Vogt has written an excellent article about Sollecito’s interview on her website:

http://thefreelancedesk.com/?page_id=148

Posted by The Machine on 09/19/12 at 03:28 AM | #

Thanks, Machine. A good article by Vogt. Nadeau has bombed for me.

It’s not Sollecito’s fault, I know. Those damn make-up people’s fault but Sollecito looked like a waxwork. Why do they do it? Bring back Nixon and his five o’clock shadow. Appeared pallid and unnatural. Like wearing a paper mache mask. Mask of the assassin? His hair didn’t seem to belong to him. I sensed the audience was uncomfortable, not sure what to make of him. Being subjected to a charm offensive that just makes one feel creepy. All seemed somewhat surreal and the questions were not tough. However Couric’s reserve (perhaps distaste)was there for all to see.

I get the sense that Papa Doc and son are not on the same wave length. I think he’s struggling and playing catch up with damage limitation. His son, I am sure, would like to live in the US permanently. He’s fearful of this whilst at the same time not wanting his son to risk going back to prison.

Posted by James Raper on 09/19/12 at 05:19 AM | #

That was hard to watch.  I didn’t think about his lack of English being such an obstacle for her, though he obviously used it to his advantage. And I agree Pete, I got the feeling she wanted him OUT as well by the end, she’s got some great looks… She also obviously cut over the beginning of the audience clapping at the end to introduce the next segment which she didn’t need to do and says a lot, also very nice of her to end on Meredith. I think she did a good job.

Posted by Spencer on 09/19/12 at 09:26 AM | #

Maybe Couric has shown us that “Honor Bound” isn’t just a reference to his pact with Knox, but with Guede as well.

I hope she gets another shot at this when Amanda’s book comes out.

Posted by Spencer on 09/19/12 at 02:11 PM | #

I agree, Spencer.  I think that Couric would do a decent job with Knox and likely cause her to contradict her previous testimony, previous admissions, and whatever her ghostwriter is preparing for “her” book, too.

It’s funny how liars can’t get their stories straight—free of any police “pressure”—with their own ghostwriters.

Posted by Stilicho on 09/19/12 at 03:37 PM | #

Hi Spencer and Stilicho

I agree. Couric was half up to speed this time (using 4-5 questions right here on the site) and she’d really be cooking if she was fully prepared.

This narcissistic leap by Sollecito has done immense damage to the Aamanda Knox cause because ANY other prospective interviewer now is going to look at the Couric show first. Who else will risk a gushy interview, which is what the Knox-Mellases and their publishers would really like?

Plus Sollecito has made stuff up in the book. he has lied about the prosecution and cops, which already has them inflamed and can only hurt the AK appeal.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 09/19/12 at 05:03 PM | #

Anderson Cooper is asking people to tweet their questions for Raffaele Sollecito. Please tweet your questions:

@AC360

Posted by The Machine on 09/19/12 at 05:41 PM | #


Make a comment

If you are reading this please log in to post a comment.

Smileys



Where next:

Click here to return to The Top Of The Front Page

Or to next entry The Rather Strained Couric-Sollecito Interview: Reading Between The Lines (1)

Or to previous entry Powerpoints #18: Katie Couric Interviews Raffaele Sollecito! We Already Have A Sneak Preview!!