Sunday, April 19, 2009

Raffaele Sollecito… Trapped, In His Own Words

Posted by The Machine

[click for larger image]

When the prosecutors present the forensic evidence, the defence lawyers will do their level best to try and muddy the waters, by claiming that much of the damning forensic evidence is due to contamination.

Well, good luck with that one. There is a FAR greater danger for them lurking…

We have already described in among other places here and here how Amanda Knox has boxed herself in with her own words.

Raffaele Sollecito has done precisely the same. Sollecito has also said things that are demonstrably untrue, and they now seriously haunt him and his team.

There is no question that Raffaele Sollecito has deliberately and repeatedly lied. He even himself admitted that he told the police “un sacco di cazzate” (a load of rubbish), and the judges at the Italian Supreme Court noted that he had lied and was reluctant to cooperate.

False claim one. Raffaele Sollecito first claimed in an interview with Kate Mansey from the Sunday Mirror that he and Amanda Knox were at a friend’s party on the night of the murder.

It would have been obviously a tad difficult for Sollecito to find any witnesses who had attended an imaginary party to provide him and Knox with an alibi. This alibi was predictably abandoned very quickly.

False claim two. Sollecito then claimed that he was his apartment with Amanda Knox.

This alibi is flatly contradicted by a silent witness: forensic evidence. According to the scientific police, there are six separate pieces of forensic evidence, including an abundant amount of his DNA on Meredith’s bra clasp, that place him in the cottage on Via della Pergola on the night of the murder.

False claim three. Sollecito then came up with a third alibi. He claimed that he was alone at his apartment and that Knox had gone out from 9pm to 1am.

Phone records and computer records dont support him being at home at that time. Nor does the eye-witness who claims to have seen him in the park. Nor do the forensics in the house.

Both Sollecito and Knox gave completely different accounts of where they were, who they were with and what they doing on the night of the murder. These weren’t small inconsistencies but huge whopping lies.

False claims four and five. Sollecito and Knox told the postal police that he had called the police before the postal police had turned up at the cottage and were waiting for them.

Sollecito himself later admitted that this was not true and that he had lied because he had believed Amanda Knox’s version of what had happened.  He said he went outside

... “to see if I could climb up to Meredith’s window” but could not. “I tried to force the door but couldn’t, and at that point I decided to call my sister for advice because she is a Carabinieri officer. She told me to dial 112 (the Italian emergency number) but at that moment the postal police arrived”.

He added: “In my former statement I told you a load of rubbish because I believed Amanda’s version of what happened and did not think about the inconsistencies.” (The Times, 7 November, 2007).

False claim six. Knox and Sollecito said they couldn’t remember most of what happened on the night of the murder, because they had smoked cannabis.

It is medically impossible for cannabis to cause such dramatic amnesia and there are no studies that have ever demonstrated that this is possible.

Long term use of cannabis may affect short-term memory, which means that users might have difficulty recalling a telephone number. But it won’t wipe out whole chunks of an evening from their memory banks.

False claim seven. Sollecito claimed that he had spoken to his father at 11pm.

Phone records show that there was no telephone conversation at this time. Sollecito’s father had called him a couple of hours earlier at 8.40pm.

False claim eight. Sollecito claimed that he was surfing the Internet from 11pm to 1am.

The Kercher’s lawyer, Franco Maresca, pointed out that credible witnesses had shattered Sollecito’s alibi for the night of the murder. Sollecito still maintained he was home that night, working on his computer.

But computer specialists have testified that his computer was not used for an eight-hour period on the night of Meredith’s murder

False claim nine. Sollecito claimed that he had slept until 10pm the next day.

However, he used his computer at 5.32am and turned on his mobile phone at 6.02am. The Italian Supreme Court remarked that his night was “sleepless” to say the least.

False claim ten. When Sollecito heard that the scientific police had found Meredith’s DNA on the double DNA knife in his apartment, he told a cock and bull story about accidentally pricking Meredith’s hand whilst cooking at his apartment.

“The fact that Meredith’s DNA is on my kitchen knife is because once, when we were all cooking together, I accidentally pricked her hand.’‘

But Meredith had never ever been to Sollecito’s apartment. Sollecito could not have accidentally pricked her hand whilst cooking.

It’s highly telling that Sollecito wasn’t surprised that the forensic police had found Meredith’s DNA on the double DNA knife in his apartment. He obviously knew Meredith’s DNA was on the blade, which is why he made up the cock and bull story.

He was attempting to explain the presence of Meredith’s DNA on the blade, but in doing so, he further incriminated himself and Amanda Knox.

Manuela Comodi, the deputy prosecutor, explained during the hearings that the prosecution had not called either Knox or Sollecito as witnesses “because there is no point. Every time they were questioned during the pre-trial investigation they lied or tried to derail the inquiry.”

Judge Paolo Micheli, who presided over Rudy Guede’s fast-track trial and sent Knox and Sollecito to trial, didn’t believe many of their claims. He noted that they had given multiple alibis and had lied in attempt to cover for each other.

Sollecito’s lawyers claim that he lied out of confusion and fear. However, Sollecito lied from the very first time he spoke to the police long before he and Knox were suspects. His lies cannot be attributed to confusion and fear.

Like Amanda, he has boxed himself in.


Excellent points, Machine. Regarding lies 2, 3, and 8: on March 28 the Italian court heard direct testimony from an eyewitness who saw both Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito in Piazza Grimana the night Meredith was murdered. The witness described seeing them at talking animatedly at several specific times during the night in the outdoor plaza that has a direct view of the gated entryway to Meredith’s and Amanda’s cottage. The eyewitness testimony, provided on the witness stand, did not appear to be diminished in the least by defense cross examinations and flatly contradicts Knox’s and Sollecito’s contention that they were at Sollecito’s home that night.

Posted by Fly By Night on 04/19/09 at 06:39 PM | #

Hi Machine,

Although you have sighted ten, I am sure you will agree with me the standard requires only, “THREE STRIKES and you’re OUT!”

Sollecito lied out of confusion and fear?  Damn straight! He better be afraid because when the bomb drops he’s not going to know what hit him and from where.  THAT will be confusion and fear Sollecito’s lawyers may thruthfully claim.

Great photo, I didn’t realize just how very ugly Sollecito is - except to the core of his soul.

Crucio! (The Cruciatus Curse)
Great pains coming your way, Raffaele.

Professor Snape

Posted by Professor Snape on 04/20/09 at 10:17 AM | #

If witnesses saw them in Piazza around the time of the murder, then they should have a description of their clothing.  Was their clothing and shoes tested for blood?  Also if Amanda did sleep at Rafael’s at some point that night she probably did not change shoes.  I am wondering if their clothing was ever tested?

I cannot wait to hear the DNA evidence becuase at this point it does not seem that the prosecutor has much physical evidence.  Most of it belongs to Guede, but if they were equally involved in the killing you would think they would find more DNA especially if Amanda did the killing.  If three people are runnign around the house with blood on them I would think it would be in more places.  Is it just a rumor or do they actually have it confirmed that blood was wiped up?  That is easy to test with luminol…..use it to find blood and then test those blood spots for cleaning agents.

Posted by kao555 on 04/21/09 at 12:02 AM | #

I watched 48 hours and agree with all that it was just an “infomercial” for the family.  They were not really discussing the evidence. The main focus was on the prosecutor and how he misinterpreted the murders in Florence. It turned out to be a joke. 

I am from Washington State and when this crime first happened, I really thought it was just the “Italians” going after the American. I was sure that AK had nothing to do with this horrendous crime.  Now, I am convinced that she was responsible. 

My idea is that it started with AK letting RG into the apartment to flirt with Meredith, and she probably started yelling to get out or she would call the police. At that point, I think AK or RS grabbed her to quiet her down and when she didn’t, they went so far that if they stopped, they knew they would be arrested, and so the murder occurred.  There is so much evidence against the 3, along with numerous lies.  The other roommates were not even considered suspects and if AK and RC were at his apartment, the evidence of that would be enough to clear them.

Also, I posted this website on my comment to The Seattle Times report on the 48 hours piece. This web-site is an eye-opener.  Thank you for all your hard work to bring out the truth.  I am convinced that Amanda is a sociopath and she has taken down RS with her.

Posted by BARBM on 04/21/09 at 08:52 AM | #

Excellent comment Barb and we have had many similar in the emails. It is always good to hear from Seattle where some of us live - well, not me, though I easily could, a nice city.

We are going to have to tackle the absurd Monster of Florence red-herring head-on soon in a post, as once Mignini’s true (minor) role is really understood, he comes out looking fairly okay.

I put a comment on Mignini and the Monster here and there is more to come.

And the remorseless analysis of Finn and Machine we just posted have CBS pretty well tied up in knots. Even their own producers are apparently now thinking “what was that we just did?!”

Posted by Peter Quennell on 04/21/09 at 03:21 PM | #

I do have one question.  Why is court only 2 days a week.  Here, juries are sequestered in high profile cases as not to be influenced by outside sources. Courts will run 5 days a week.  I would imagine it would be very hard to remember what was said in court versus what was in the news. Is this standard in all trials in Italy? Thanks Barb

Posted by BARBM on 04/21/09 at 10:58 PM | #

Ciao, A comment to the many americans who wonders about why court is only 2 day a week, and claims that jury members are likely to forget evidence under that circumstances.

The majority of modern learning theories does not support that it is beneficial to cram information into short intensive periods, in order to produce knowledge. On the contrary - as show in many studies of university students studying for exams - intensive information cramming seems to benefit reproduction without understanding; i.e. the best way of acquiring knowledge is to have time in between information loading to reflect upon against a variety of horizons in order to making sense.

From this point of view the US system does not in itself embed a more ‘just’ way of produce a verdict. Best, Fiori

Posted by Fiori on 04/22/09 at 11:46 PM | #

True Fiori,

This is what I always recommend my students: don’t cram, take you time and digest the knowledge! 😊

PS Da dove digiti?

Posted by Nicki on 04/23/09 at 12:11 AM | #

Thanks Fiori and Nicki,

It does make more sense to be able to digest the information.  I just feel sorry for Merediths family having this go on so long.


Posted by BARBM on 04/23/09 at 07:27 AM | #

The “I pricked her with the knife when we were cooking” excuse is one of the things I have found very bizarre about Raffaele’s rather weak attempt at a defence.

He and Amanda had known each other only a short time before the murder happened, and as far as I know Amanda has not mentioned that she and Meredith ever went to his flat together to cook dinner in that time, or that Raffaele brought that knife round to Amanda’s house to use it to prepare a meal there with her and Meredith. There would have been a window of only a couple of weeks at most for that to have happened.

If he did “prick her” with the knife - which sounds rather far fetched, it’s easy enough to cut oneself but not to cut someone else whilst chopping with a knife - surely he would have done so with the point of the knife, and in only a very tiny way. But the DNA on the knife was found in a groove (if I got it right), and survived a cleaning with bleach. And Raffaele surely was not in the habit of cleaning his cooking knives with bleach? Wouldn’t Amanda have remembered the weird “pricking” incident especially as such a fuss was made about the knife and she had a reaction to it? If the story were true, she would have immediately referred to it?

And hasn’t he elsewhere said that he only met Meredith a few times in her house, not at his place, not that they were friends who had cooked together? Again, if the story were true he would have mentioned the cooking together previously as it would have shown they were friendly.

Is this why he chose not to testify - because he’s a terrible liar and wouldn’t stand up to cross examination?

Posted by lilly on 11/03/09 at 10:29 AM | #
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.

Where next:

Click here to return to The Top Of The Front Page

Or to next entry Understanding Why The DNA Is On The Knife

Or to previous entry Trial: Another Objective Report From ABC News