Sollecito Book - Chapter 2 Kafka On The Hudson

Posted by Peter Quennell

Comments and corrections


1. Raffaele states in his book that once in prison, he was confused as to why he should be there: “why not focus the investigation on her (Amanda)? I didn’t believe for an instant she was capable of murder, but I did have doubts about the crowd she ran in.”

It’s of interest that Knox’s erstwhile lover had doubts about Amanda’s social contacts in Perugia. We can assume that he isn’t referring to the Italian girls she lived with, nor to Meredith or Meredith’s English girlfriends.

The question arises as to who were Amanda’s other contacts in Perugia whom Raffaele could have been directly or indirectly aware of. Perhaps Raffaele is referring to a drug-dealer who’s name and number were allegedly found on Knox’s mobile phone.

Is Knox one of “the nicest, most honorable, intelligent students imaginable” as pro-Knox lobbyist Steve Moore states on the back cover of the book? Raffaele himself puts that into doubt.
Posted by Kermit on 09/29/12 at 09:55 AM | #
2. “If I wasn’t handling the questions well, it was because I was out of my depth in every way imaginable”

Raffaele’s only excuse for all the inconsistencies in his statements, his weird excuses, his illogical behavior, lack of explanations etc etc during his preliminary hearing - “I was out of my depth”.

He himself admits that he made a lot of false statements like he did not know Patrick (he did), his father called him (he didn’t), his footprints could have been made the previous day (the prints were in blood), he could not be sure if Amanda went out that night etc etc. He even went to the extent of making absurd suggestions like someone stole his shoes and committed the murder in them.

Why would anyone start inventing stuff out of nowhere even if he/she were out of depth? If I am sitting at home for the whole day and someone accuses me of committing murder on the same day, my response would probably be something on the lines of “What rubbish, I was at home the entire day”. I would not start suggesting that maybe my look alike alien committed the murder, no matter how out of depth I am. Come on already.


Posted by Sara on 10/03/12 at 07:20 AM | #
3. (1) In chapter 1 (Love and death) he says of the interrogation, “They asked if Amanda had gone out that night, and on the spur of the moment, I couldn’t say. Was November 1 a Tuesday or Thursday”. (2) Again in chapter 2 (Kafta on the Kiber), he says of the preliminary hearing “I still had no clarity on this and could not answer the judge’s repeated questions without sounding evasive”

Raffaele says that during his interrogation he got confused by the dates and ended up saying that Amanda might have gone out. He stresses repeatedly about getting confused between Oct 31st and Nov 1st. In fact, even Gumbel has spouted the same nonsense as an excuse for Raffaele throwing Amanda under the bus (in his interview).

If that was the case, why was he still unsure and repeated the same things during his preliminary hearing? Surely, he had enough time by then to work out the dates in his mind? He could have even asked his lawyer if he was that confused about the dates. He admits that he had a discussion with Tedeschi before the hearing. Why not ask him the date of Halloween if he was so damn confused?

He knows he is going to be asked about it in the hearing. If it was just a matter of dates getting confused in his mind, it should have been a matter of 2 minutes to get it clarified.


Posted by Sara on 10/03/12 at 07:25 AM | #
4. Raffaele says “Had we any prior knowledge of the murder, I imagine we would have had our stories straight and practiced responses at the ready”.

This is perhaps the most telling statement in the entire book. Why on earth would anyone need to “practice responses” if they were innocent?

I am sure none of Meredith’s friends, Laura, Filomena et al had time to “practice” their responses. You need to get your story straight or practice only if you are guilty.

You don’t need to do any of that if you are innocent. You simply tell the truth.


Posted by Sara on 10/03/12 at 07:34 AM | #
5. About his absurd story regarding the knife pricking incident, , Raffaele says “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”.

Why haven’t we heard this one before if it was true? In the first chapter he says Meredith was aloof to him (with good reason, in hindsight) and the only interaction he describes is when he offered her food and she politely declined.

If this knife incident is indeed true, why not describe it in detail considering that it had such a big impact on the case? For someone to make contact with a knife you are holding while you are cooking or cutting up something, they need to be standing really close to you.

But by all accounts (including his own) he never had more than a few fleeting moments of interaction with Meredith and most certainly they never cooked together. He has dedicated pages and pages of the book to nonsensical details like washing Amanda’s hair.

Why doesn’t he clearly explain the circumstances which led him to tell such a bizarre lie (about pricking Meredith during cooking) instead of acting as if it’s of no importance?


Posted by Sara on 10/03/12 at 07:54 AM | #
6. Raffeale ridicules Mignini for obtaining a match for his shoes from the Polizia Scientifica based on photographs, saying “they had only photographs of my shoes, not the shoes themselves. Somehow, though, they came to the much more definitive conclusion that my Nikes were the same make, model, and the shoe size as the print on Meredith’s floor”. Yet, after a few pages, he says of Guede’s shoes “Our lawyer, Delfo Berretti, took pictures, and my father showed these to two technical experts. The prints, they said, were an exact match for the ones at Via della Pergola. Now we had concrete evidence”

Hypocrisy much?? The well-qualified, well-equipped scientific police are stupid because they formed conclusions based on photographs? But some random “experts” hired by his father are absolutely right to do the same thing?

In fact, while the police commented only on the make, model etc, his father’s experts went a step ahead and classified them an exact match altogether. Isn’t this just as wildly stretched as the the PR claim that the police got the DNA absolutely right in case of Guede - but botched up completely in case of these two?
Posted by Sara on 10/03/12 at 08:08 AM | #
7.Raffeale ridicules the judges’ reason for refusing their release from prison saying “Amanda and I came in for what was by now a familiar drubbing”¦..Over and above the flight risk if we were released from prison, the judges foresaw a significant danger that we would make up new fantastical scenarios to throw off the investigation”

Hmm, I wonder why that was. Could it be because they both kept changing their stories. Or could it be because he claimed someone must have stolen his shoes and committed the murder? Or could it be because he told several lies? Could it be because Amanda fingered an innocent man? Could it be because she had already tried to leave? Could it be because already they were refusing to cooperate. No, it must just be “a familiar drubbing”.
Posted by Sara on 10/04/12 at 07:56 AM | #
8.About the confusion regarding the timing of the calls made to police, he says “The court made no apparent attempt to dig deeper”¦”¦”¦”¦”¦Had such an investigation taken place, we would have been vindicated”.

Regardless of the timing of the call, does he really think that they were suspected and arrested only due to the suspected delay in calling the police?

What about their changing stories, lack of proper alibi, lies, evidence etc?

The fact is that even if there had been a year-long investigation on the timing, and even if the results were in their favor, they still would not have been “vindicated” because there was were much more evidence against them.
Posted by Sara on 10/04/12 at 07:56 AM | #
9. About why he was sure that Amanda could not have left “I had at last worked out why Amanda did not leave ““ could not have left ““ my house on the night of the murder. She didn’t have her own key, so if she’d gone out alone, she would have had to ring the doorbell and ask me to buzz her back in”

This is the stupidest thing ever. First of all, if he was so stoned up and his memory was all that hazy as he claims, how can he be sure that she did not ring the doorbell?

Secondly, how does he know she did not take the key with her when she went? If he was too stoned to realize that she left, then obviously he would not know whether she took the key before she left or not.

And finally, if he is indeed sure that she did not have the key, then considering everything else, it can only be interpreted that he went with her when she left.
Posted by Sara on 10/04/12 at 07:57 AM | #

Posted by Peter Quennell on 01/20/15 at 03:00 PM in

Tweet This Post


Comments

No comments yet.

Tweet This Post


Post A Comment

Smileys



Where next:

Click here to return to The Top Of The Front Page

Or to next entry Sollecito Book - Chapter 1 Love And Death

Or to previous entry Sollecito Book - Chapter 3 The Protected System