Sunday, September 30, 2012

Correcting Sollecito: A Task In Which We’d Like To Invite Everybody Here To Help DRAFT

Posted by Our Main Posters



[Image above: Francesco Sollecito, left, trying to defend his loose-canon son on Italian national TV]


What was Sollecito thinking? If he was indeed thinking?

To our Italian lawyers his highly aggressive and inaccurate book seems a really misconceived attempt at an extra-legal end-run, by someone with low credibility and an over-sized ego who still stands accused of murdering Meredith.

Especially in face of an increasingly widespread grasp beyond Italy of the real facts - and of a remarkable Italian Supreme Court appeal by the prosecution which looks to be almost impossible to beat.

Main sources for the “research” by the shadow writer Andrew Gumbel seem to be Nina Burleigh and Candace Dempsey, two PR shills for the Knox family with notorious chips on their shoulders toward Italy. Andrew Gumbel seems to have anti-Italy and competency issues of his own.

None of the three are lawyers. In fact no good lawyers are publicly standing up for the two accused and repeating any of the junk law or false facts or defamatory claims in the book.

Simon & Schuster don’t seem to have insisted on any fact-checking or checking against Italian law. New charges against Sollecito have already been threatened in Italy based on the couple of pages made famous by the Porta a Porta TV program, during which Sollecito’s own father had to distance himself sharply from his son’s claims.

Italian authorities and media read here. We’d like to help them further by identifying just which “facts” are wrong in the book (in places Sollecito even contradicts his own past words) and who is unfairly depicted, which seems to be just about everybody.

Our new book corrections page is here. It can also be reached via the new link in the left column. All help is most welcome.


Tweet This Post


Comments

Sara when you come by

Might you post these 10 excellent points in the appropriate chapters on the Sollecitos Book page?

***

I tried to read the free pages of RS’s book on the simonandschuster website (though at the rate at which it is selling, they might as well put up the entire thing for free). I am so angry after the first 35-40 pages. Are the Foakers blind? Why can’t they see the several, several obvious, glaring holes in his story?

1. The biggest whooper is his claim that he spent the night waking up intermittently to answer mail, listen to music etc on his computer. I can’t even believe he wrote that. Surely that should have been his biggest alibi? Even if the evil, evil policemen destroyed his hard drive, why couldn’t he simply show them his sent items? Or the mail in the recipient’s inbox? Don’t tell me they didn’t teach the point of email in all his computer classes.

2. When talking about the phone calls that AK made in the morning,he conveniently ignores the fact that she had made a call to Meredith’s English phone first. Ok, let’s say he did not know about it at that point. But surely he knows about it now. Why not address it instead of ignoring its existence completely? Ditto for the phone call that she made to Edda and “forgot”. No recollections, no opinions, no theories about it at all. He was still stoned perhaps.

3. When he talks about the morning in the cottage, he says that they peeked into Meredith’s room and saw her purse sitting on the bed. Surely, any logical person would deduce that Meredith might be inside and her phone would be in the purse. Why not call and see if it rings instead of acting the spiderwoman which he claims AK tried to do.

4. He claims that Filomena’s door was “ajar”. Did he not claim in his earlier prison dairies that it was wide open? What is this - some kind of compromise between his and AK’s versions?

5. He comes up with a ridiculous explanation for AK’s statement that Meredith kept her door closed. He says AK said that No, Meredith did not keep her door closed but he misunderstood and mistranslated. How on earth could anyone mistake a “No” for a “Yes”? Even assuming he somehow did, wouldn’t he have asked her again looking at Filomena’s panic and her insistence on breaking the door?

6. He says his sister’s colleagues told her that if they had the case, things would have been very different. Again, what is this - some kind of indirect admission of evidence tampering? If they are innocent, why would things be any different no matter who is handling the case? Things were not any different for Sophie, Amy, Filomena, Laura..et al.

7. He continues harping about comfort kiss claiming that they did not know about the cameras. It is pretty clear that they both (or atleast AK) is looking around quite clearly in between the kisses. She did not notice several cameras, videos etc being set up and shots being taken? Blind or what?

8. He expresses his annoyance that after a couple of days he could not work on his thesis at all because he had to ferry AK to the police station. Really? Suddenly very conscientious about studies, aren’t we? He had time to spend hours together having “lazy, long evenings” with AK, watch movies, go underwear shopping etc etc…yet within 2 days, taking AK to the police station became terribly bothersome. So much for “helping” the police.

9. He says Sophie inadvertently poured fuel to the sex game theory by telling that AK brought a string of strange men home, even though she did not “mean” that it was for sex. Interesting. AK brings home a string of strange men, keeps condoms and vibrators in plain view, boasts of her sexual contests….and yet, it is the prosecutors who reached the wrong conclusion. Hmmm, wonder why she brought them home then. To strike drug deals? No wait, maybe she just wanted them to read harry potter in German with her.

10. His defense of the underwear shopping incident is that there was a much expensive lingerie store nearby and they didn’t even set foot in it. So, that somehow makes it ok that they were laughing and joking and talking about sex barely a couple of days after her “good friend”‘s murder. Wow, I am so glad that’s cleared up.

If I am so annoyed after reading 35 pages, I cringe to think about the rest of the book. I can’t imagine why anyone would think it’s “well-written”. I can’t decide which is worse - Hellman’s report or this trash.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 09/30/12 at 02:19 PM | #

Sara, by the way, to point 9 you could add “walls shaking and beds squeaking and grunts… “

As they say, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck.

Or similar.

Hard for RS to accept. The wannabe sexy little beast. But Sophie etc got Knox exactly right.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 09/30/12 at 04:04 PM | #

@Peter,

Don’t be annoyed. There is a reason for everything - I am just pretending to be a FOAker and trying to guess their response:

1. Yes, I got up several times and listened to music and sent emails and what not and what not- just out of politeness I did not mention that some drug and smoke went into my computer and it got stoned and forgot to record everything! Even the ISP forgot to record the downloads! Don’t believe me? Even the police can certify that the hard disk was bricked for ever!

2. Oh, you see, I cannot speak or understand English and so I thought AK was talking to her other friends and I got jealous and forgot about it completely. You see whenever she talks English I get suspicious and try to forget that- you understand that, right? Anyway, whatever she talks I do not pay any attention: I am a man of action and I do. If we need to communicate with each other, we use some primitive sound that everybody understands!

3. How funny you are! We know the whole story and you want to waste our time making phone calls? We were worried about the lamp and wanted someone else to break into the room before the police comes. Then we will get some chance to correct some mistakes. Everybody is entitled to correct some mistakes they have made, right? Only a fool will try to call a phone they know is not there. And I am not a fool.

4. Again you are nitpicking with my English! I wrote all my programs in Italian: It is the fault of the Englishman- I told him to write just open - not to mention wide or narrow - but he did not understand Italian- is it my fault?

5. This is a communication problem- you see I communicate only with a graphical interface where you just have to click yes or no- you get my point? You see, whenever AK used to get men to her bedroom, MK used to close her door. So she thought that is very common- MK kept her door closed mostly because AK was with some or other man mostly. But the Englishman told me that there is no need to go into all these details- people will understand. I hope you understand now?

6. This is another misunderstanding: if we can get a sympathetic judge, do you complain? Is it not good to get a good judge from the beginning? I cannot make everyone happy, but surely I can make myself happy and surely on the way make AK happy too? Do you think I am being unreasonable?

7. I am Italian and we worry about appearances very much. We kiss anyone and everyone and make it a good nice and long kiss if there are TV cameras around. I saw the TV people around but I did not see they are focussed on us: any way, I did not take chances: I made sure it is a good shot. I did not look into the camera (no good Italian actor would) when they filmed us. If they had shown the full video, you would have been convinced that I was trying to comfort AK the best I can - and this is my way.

8. You want me to think of my thesis when I am with AK? Surely you need to get your head examined! Yes, I was thinking about my thesis when AK was in the police station (otherwise she would be with me, you understand)- what is wrong with that! Apart from that I was not sure what she would be telling the police- that is a worry- best taken care of by thinking about my thesis.

9. Yes, Sophie is British and I never thought she will think or talk about sex: particularly AK’s adventures. Now I am sure: you cannot trust the British! I however still think that she said this inadvertently.

10. Unfortunately I was told about the much expensive lingerie store after we have purchased stuff for the night. Otherwise we should have certainly set our feet there- we had enough cash but paid with credit card anyway just for the record. And, you see, I can forget about the murder and all these nonsense only when I am with AK in her new underwear. Perhaps you will never understand.

No offence intended to anyone: I am just trying to guess a FOAKER response

Justice: a ruling in your favour

Posted by chami on 09/30/12 at 05:14 PM | #

@Chami, au contraire, your post made me smile 😊. I am sure that if I post my comments in one of the FOA forums, these are the same responses that I might get (or some variations of these), I can bet on it.

@Peter - Thank you. I will check and post them in the appropriate sections tomorrow.

Posted by Sara on 09/30/12 at 08:11 PM | #

Sara or anyone who can answer,

Re. your ten points, point 1, in a sense just seems to good to be true. Has there been any follow up on this. Was his claim to have sent emails previously brought up in court, or is it just now that Sollecito is coming out with this.

Surly it would just be a matter of asking him who the email recipients were and then checking. Has this been done?

Posted by John Forbes on 10/01/12 at 12:22 AM | #

From its very Title onwards this Book is an instrument of Deception.

The Deception covers the full spectrum from Spin and Selective Omissions, through Falsehoods to Bare-Faced Lies.

Here are two examples [my EMPHASES]:

1. Of Spin and Falsehood.

“Amanda went ahead with her shower only to notice a small bloodstain on one of the washbasin taps. IT LOOKED LIKE MENSTRUAL BLOOD. Was Meredith, who shared the bathroom with her, having some sort of problem? It was unlike her to leave things less than immaculate. Maybe she’d run out to a pharmacy. Then again, it was just one small stain; perhaps she missed it.”

Gumbel, Andrew; Sollecito, Raffaele (2012-09-18). Honor Bound (Kindle Location 412 Simon & Schuster, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

“IT LOOKED LIKE MENSTRUAL BLOOD.”

To whom? Using what criteria?

Spin, or simple Falsehood?

2. Of Selective Omission.

“Of all the things Amanda did that day, none attracted more criticism than her failure to raise the alarm as soon as she saw so many things out of place. It wasn’t just the police who attacked her. Many Italians, including most of my family, could not fathom how she could go ahead with her shower after finding blood on the tap, much less put her wet feet on the bath mat, which WAS ALSO STAINED and drag it across the floor.”

Gumbel, Andrew; Sollecito, Raffaele (2012-09-18). Honor Bound (Kindle Locations 421-425 Simon & Schuster, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

RS Selectively Omits to state that the widespread Italian criticism of Amanda Knox included the FACT that the STAIN ON THE BATH MAT AK then dragged across the floor was not just any old stain but was an actual BLOOD-STAIN!

Posted by Cardiol MD on 10/01/12 at 06:32 AM | #

There are three major items that has not received wide attention:

1. The money trail: AK has never explained satisfactorily the money that was found on her and her expenditures and deposits during these days. In my opinion, money is something people (including criminals) consider impersonal and just do not discard on the road. And there has been little debate on that.

2. Their behaviour: the reaction of AK when shown a knife in the cottage. And the attempt to justify (rather than denying) the presence of DNA on the knife by RS. RS complained that police took away his knife and asked him to remove his shoes; this suggests his sensitivity towards the knife and the footprint.

3. The broken window: on another site, one FOAker explained in great detail how the stone was thrown from outside and how it landed where it was found. One evidence, a small scratch on the window frame, suggests that the stone hit the wood at that point. I suggested that the details of the scratch suggest that the stone moved the other way; inside to outwards. There was no reply.

Does RS describe in detail what they did on that and the previous day? Why they cancelled their visit to Gubbio?

I loved Massie when he asked “what kind of heating you have in the cottage?”

Posted by chami on 10/01/12 at 07:23 AM | #

Would anyone like to explore the book for false facts for posting here but finds the price a bit steep? If you email we might spring for a copy.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 10/01/12 at 03:07 PM | #

Hi John Forbes

“Was his claim to have sent emails previously brought up in court, or is it just now that Sollecito is coming out with this.”

It’s new. There are many such new claims in the book. It was clearly not run past anyone at all in Italy who knows the facts of the case. His father was bypassed, as were his lawyers (Maori publicly said so).

It seem Bumble did all his “research” exclusively in collusion with Curt Knox’s hatchet men - well, hatchet women in this case: Dempsey and Burleigh. He was in effect “Kassined”.

But it simply shows once again how unhelpful to Amanda Knox’s real interests Curt Knox’s hatchet people really are.

<ul><li>The Knox people have not got what they want: full adulation and exculpation for Knox and a big crescendo for American diplomacy to short circuit the process. The only shows that mattered (Katie Couric’s and Jane Velez Mitchell’s) both chilled on them. And the way forward for Amanda’s own book is now way harder than before.</li>

<li>The Sollecito people are also much worse off. The family are all made to look like mean fools in the book, and Sollecito’s father had to go on Italy’s top investigation show (equivalent of 60 Minutes in the US) to admit to all of Italy that his son committed a new crime. Francesco will have huge new legal bills.</li></ul>

So who gains? really, only the prosecution. They now have many new smoking gun points like this to share with the Supreme Court and to bring up at any new appeal trial. We’ll make the smokiest of them into main posts addressed at Dr Galati.

Curt Knox really should fire the monkeys who are driving their runaway train - only, he seems to be the chief monkey, so he would need to outsource that. If she is mentally capable, Knox herself should be the one. It’s her neck on the line.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 10/01/12 at 03:13 PM | #

Peter,

It is not just a question of false facts but blatant omissions as well. For instance nowhere in the book does Sollecito mention that the blood on the tap is Amanda’s. By the same token neither does he say whether or not he ever saw her ear bleed from the piercings. Amanda might be a bit ticked at that.

Posted by James Raper on 10/01/12 at 05:23 PM | #

I have posted some of the inconsistencies as posts here and at PMF but I have no idea what chapters they belong to.  There are specific cites, though, that are demonstrably false and/or contrary to what he’d written upon his arrest.

There are other mere omissions of fact, too, that obviously won’t appear in the book.  There are equally inclusions of events or personalities that Sollecito cannot have been aware of but that were stolen from Candace and Nina.

An example of the former is, as James has said several times, Sollecito’s claim of a sympathetic police officer at the Questura who is unidentified yet must have witnessed the brutality he suffered during the alleged ten hour interrogation.  Who was this police officer?

Posted by Stilicho on 10/01/12 at 10:48 PM | #

Hi Stilicho

Yeah we see all the valuable work on PMF and dont intend to see it scroll without grabbing it all for entry here.  If there is a direct quote of a few words we can place the correct location no problem.

This masterlist by chapter is intended to morph into something else. Powerpoints in English and Italian of the smoking gun points? I couldnt possible say…

Posted by Peter Quennell on 10/01/12 at 11:44 PM | #

I know they got the reasoning for Galati’s arguments about Curatolo wrong.  Now I am trying to remember where I posted that.  It was here at TJMK, though.

Posted by Stilicho on 10/03/12 at 09:32 PM | #

Hi Stilicho.

The excellent Curatolo comment is here:

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/dr_galati_how_giulia_bongiornos_client_tells_america_that_you_are_inco/#c13216

Posted by Peter Quennell on 10/03/12 at 09:54 PM | #

New Barbie Nadeau, cautious but interesting on the paranoia:  http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/03/amanda-knox-one-year-later.html 

New Peter Van Sant:  http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57525276-504083/raffaele-sollecito-tells-48-hours-peter-van-sant-that-all-the-world-was-against-us/

Oddly, Barbie missed mentioning Dr Galati’s appeal,  or the disastrous Porta a Porta and Katie Couric shows.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 10/04/12 at 12:04 AM | #

What a laugh!!!
I find it utterly unbelievable that Knox and RS’s defense teams would not provide proof to the courts of ‘sent or received e-mails’ (undermining the prosecutions overpowering case of ‘no alibi’) ......had they existed!!!

Posted by starsdad on 10/04/12 at 01:09 AM | #

Tweet This Post


Post A Comment

Smileys



Where next:

Click here to return to The Top Of The Front Page

Or to next entry Testified That This CCTV Camera Probably Last Photographed Meredith Alive DRAFT

Or to previous entry Translation Of Dr Mignini’s Interview After Takedown Of Sollecito Book On Porta a Porta