Sollecito Part 2

Sicily based blogger Welshcakes Limoncello commented on the first post here on Sollecito: “Do you think we will ever know the truth?”

It was a neutral statement, one so many must have made around the world when they considered the case in as much detail as the media allowed.   The short answer, for those who’ve gone into the evidence in as much detail as PMF, TJMK and dozens of others, including me have, is a resounding: “Yes, we do actually.  We are as sure as any court needs to be or has ever been, short of a signed confession.”

This is not an even playing field in the least.   The evidence points one way, the professionals in the field concur, the Kercher family who, one needs to remember, were neutrals in the sense of whoever emerged as the killers they’d be down on, have sat through every bit of evidence as it was presented and they concur.   Nineteen justices who reviewed the case concurred.

One can’t just sweep that under the carpet, claiming there was “zero evidence”, not when that time and effort when into gathering and considering it all, not when consideration of the evidence presented filled hundreds of pages.   Just what are people trying to pull, claiming there was “zero evidence”?

And the defence – it hasn’t chosen to attack pieces of evidence [around 130 pieces of it] which they know they can’t attack.   They picked on two main pieces in the appeal and failed to establish either, except in the minds of Hellman and Zanetti, the curious Berlusconi appointees who came in when the previous trial judge was sacked and who are now under investigation by the Supreme Court via an appeal by the Chief Prosecutor for Umbria, Dr. Galati.   Would he risk his reputation and hundreds of pages of scathing consideration of Hellman and Zanetti if there was zero in it in the first place?

I mean, at what point doe blind denial cease and the cumulative weight of evidence win the day?   Not cherrypicking two pieces of evidence and the judges refusing to hear the rest.   I mean cumulatively – all of it.

And cumulatively is the only way to approach this case – what the totality of evidence, not the cherrypicking, points to.   The weight of that evidence, from the DNA to the false alibis and the phone calls, would be sufficient to put anyone away, let alone the Supreme Court view that there was most certainly more than one killer, a point Sollecito, in his Couric interview, does not pooh-pooh.  Wasn’t that interesting?   He hopes the Kerchers will one day find the killers.

Really?  One of the key defence points was that they had found him – a black guy called Guede.

Not only was Sollecito forgetful of what had already been given as evidence but he has shown himself an inveterate liar.   When you accuse someone of being a liar, as a certain commenter at Orphans of Liberty is wont to regularly accuse me of, being asked to produce his evidence of that and then dropping into assertion and ad hominem with no evidence whatever, the outcome is not one of life and death.

In Sollecito’s case, it is – the death of Meredith Kercher.   So, I’ve accused him of being a liar.   Where is my evidence?   See this post and here are some of the main points [hoping Harry will allow me to quote verbatim:

Lie 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.

Lie two. Sollecito then claimed that he was [at] 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.

Lie 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.

Lies 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).

Lie 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.

Lie 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.

Lie 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

Lie 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.

Lie 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.

In the Couric interview:

Click here for the avi

Transcript here

… he made quite a few misleading statements, some of which are covered the first post here on Sollecito in the Couric interview.

Here is a piece on his conflicting alibis, summarized here:

Raffaele Sollecito claims to have been abused and threatened by interrogators and claims that the same thing happened to Amanda Knox. He implies that he held out for hours, and that Knox was interrogated for 10 hours.

This seems to our lawyers precisely the same kind of invented malicious claim against interrogators which has resulted in both Amanda Knox and her parents being sued for felony defamation (calunnia) by police officers present when she was interrogated.

We know that both Sollecito’s own father Francesco AND HIS LAWYER Mr Maori have just indicated on national Italian TV that Sollecito was lying when he made this and other claims in his book. He has zero evidence to prove it, and he cannot point to anyone who abused him.

Sollecito had more than four years at trial and appeal and on national TV and privately with his lawyers to lodge such charges of abuse – and yet he never did. Not once did he ever advance them even though they might have got him off.

He did not even mention it in his nationally televised interview in Italy soon after he was released. He had to come to America to start making it.

A July 2009 post on Sollecito’s many alibis:

Sollecito was asked to return to the police station on 5 November to answer some more questions. He was at that time confronted with telephone records that proved that he and Amanda Knox had lied previously.

So for his third alibi, which now cut Amanda Knox loose and implicated her, Sollecito claimed that he was at his apartment all evening, and that for part of the evening Knox was out, from 9 pm to 1 am.

In my previous statement I told a load of rubbish because Amanda had convinced me of her version of the facts and I didn’t think about the inconsistencies…..

Amanda and I went into town at around 6pm, but I don’t remember what we did. We stayed there until around 8.30 or 9pm.

At 9pm I went home alone and Amanda said that she was going to Le Chic because she wanted to meet some friends. We said goodbye. I went home, I rolled myself a spliff and made some dinner.”

He goes on to say that Amanda returned to his house at around 1am and the couple went to bed, although he couldn’t remember if they had sex.

How did things proceed from there? Did Sollecto or his lawyers claim that he had been tricked or abused into a “confession” ? No…

This third alibi was undercut by Amanda Knox when she took the stand and testified. She stated that she was with Sollecito at his place all night.

It was also contradicted by the forensic evidence presented by the prosecution: the six separate pieces of forensic evidence that placed him in the cottage on Via Della Pergola on the night of the murder.

This third alibi was also undermined by the telephone records and by the data taken from his computer.

Sollecito claimed that he had spoken to his father at 11 pm. The phone records showed that to the contrary, there was no telephone conversation at this time, though Sollecito’s father had called him a couple of hours earlier, at 8.40 pm.

Sollecito claimed that he was surfing the internet from 11 pm to 1 am. Marco Trotta, a police computer expert, testified that the last human interaction on Sollecito’s computer that evening was at 9.10 pm and the next human activity on Sollecito’s computer was at 5.32 am.

Sollecito said that he downloaded and watched the film Amelie during the night. However, Mr Trotta said that the film had been watched at around 6.30 pm, and it was earlier testified that Meredith returned to the cottage she shared with Amanda Knox at about 9 pm.

Sollecito claimed that he had slept in until 10 am the next day. There was expert prosecution testimony that his mobile phone was actually turned on at 6.02 am. The Italian Supreme Court remarked that his night must have been “sleepless” to say the least.

This alibi was undermined by the eyewitness Antonio Curatolo, the watcher in the park above the house, who testified that he saw Sollecito there.

From 2007 to 2011 Solleceto was rather notorious for NOT reaching out to Amanda Knox during trial and appeal and for NOT fully supporting her alibi. He has never retracted the statement that she was absent from his house from 9:00 pm to 1:00 am on the night Meredith was murdered.

The man is a liar and this did not go down well with the Knox camp:

His own lawyer Bongiorno repeatedly blamed Knox.

There comes a point when one wonders why most who are still supporting Knox and Sollecito are doing so.   One can understand the family and close friends doing so against all the evidence but not people like that professor at John Jay University who made the same assertions, minus evidence and relied on his learned credentials to convince.   Minus evidence, minus evidence – it has to be repeated over and over.

First Sollecito post

There were numbered points in that post which needed explanation:

[1]  many of the questions which should be put:


[2]  separating the evidence into discrete bits, attacking each bit in isolation with these hypotheses and then stating that there were glaring anomalies when their strawman reconstructions don’t seem compatible with each other


[3]  The notion of only one murderer was put paid to by the Supreme Court itself in the Guede trial:

Here here [scroll down  long way to 4] and here:

Judge Micheli notes that Amanda’s defence claimed that “the small round spots of blood” apparent on Meredith’s chest indicated that she was not wearing her bra when she was killed. He agreed that it was likely that these spots fell from Meredith’s gasps for breath as she lay on her back after she had been stabbed. However, he could not agree with their conclusion that her bra had been removed before this time, as similar small round spots were also found on Meredith’s bra.

Micheli reasoned that this indicated that Meredith was still wearing her bra as she gasped for breath, but that her top was rolled up and the bra moved also. Thus indicating the sexual nature of the original attack, but also allowing the small round spots to fall on both chest and bra. Furthermore, other blood evidence involving the bra indicated that it wasn’t removed until some time after Meredith had died.

He said that Meredith’s bra was found by investigators away from other possible blood contamination on the floor, near to her feet. Photographs of Meredith’s body show clear white areas where the bra prevented blood from falling onto Merediths body. These white areas corresponded to those areas where blood was found on her bra. This was particularly true in the area of the right shoulder strap which was soaked from the wound to Meredith’s neck.

Micheli said that evidence showed that Meredith had lain on one shoulder near the wardrobe. She lay in that position long enough for the imprint of her shoulder and bra strap to remain fixed in the pool of blood after she was moved to the position in which her body was finally found. Photographs of blood on her shoulder matched the imprint by the wardrobe and her shoulder itself also showed signs that she had remained in that position for some time.

Based on all this, Judge Micheli concluded that there could be no doubt that Meredith’s body was moved away from the wardrobe and her bra removed quite some time after her death.

Neighbor Nara Capezzali had testified that people fled from the cottage within a minute of Meredith’s final scream. There was no time for any alteration of the crime scene in those very few moments.

Judge Micheli asks in his report, who could have returned later and staged the scene which was found?

Who later moved Meredith’s body and cut off her bra?

And this, in the sentencing report on Guede’s final appeal [pdf]:

guedesupremecourtsentencingreport [if that fails to open, try the PMF version]

… the Supreme court notes:

… and:

Now at this point, it is vital not to put words into the mouth of the SC and say that this in itself confirms more than one involved – the SC is noting what the first appeal concluded.   The more significant point is that it did not go on to overturn this, as it did Guede’s defence on other grounds.

Further, it included this:

So that was upheld, in that it was not dismissed by the SC.   Now the SC moves on to dismissing the attempt by Guede’s defence to implicate AK & RS and the language is strong.   A key part of Guede’s defence was to implicate them and/or others but not him of course, except for the sex by Meredith’s consent.

The SC rejects these attempts:

Read that carefully.  They are saying that the issue of AK and RS is not relevant to a determination of Guede’s guilt or not – it is not germane to this 2nd appeal.  The SC rejects the attempt by the defence to involve others for what was Guede’s part in the crime.   They are not saying that others were not involved – the previous quotes show they accept the premise of others involved – but that it is not to be taken into account in this appeal of Guede’s except in the context of impacting on the guilt or otherwise of Guede.

[4]  read what she had to say when asked about Meredith dying in agony:


Another friend, Natalie Hayward, expressed the hope that Miss Kercher had not suffered when she died. Miss Knox allegedly replied: “What do you think? She fucking bled to death.”

Nice girl.

[5]  those traces were sheeted home to him and to Knox:

See comments:

There is absolutely no evidence that Rudy Guede went into Filomena’s room or the blood-spattered bathroom. His visible bloody footprints lead straight out of Meredith’s room and out of the house. This means that somebody else went into Filomena’s room and staged the break-in and went into the bathroom after Meredith had been stabbed.

The scientific police found a mixture of Knox’s DNA and Meredith’s blood on the floor in Filomena’s room. They also found Knox’s DNA mingled with Meredith’s blood in three different places in the bathroom. Their biological profiles had united into one single streak on the basin and the bidet. In other words, they were deposited simultaneously. Sollecito left a visible footprint on the blue bathmat.

[6]  no contamination established, only the defence assertion of contamination:

Here and here

[7]  the timeline of Sollecito’s calls:

Here, here, here and here.

[8]  the knife


[9] police brutality

See comments section:

Is it true that ‘everyone else’ who was interviewed had an attorney?

Nobody else had a lawyer. A made-up FOA meme that they did “lawyer up” which Anderson Cooper somehow picked up on.

Nobody else was giving contradictory stories. Nobody at all was officially a suspect. Knox wasnt even called to the police station on 5 November.

When things flew apart for them that night, the interviews with both were stopped till they could get lawyers, and there were no further questions that night.

Knox demanded to make a further statement, and Mignini stepped in to observe, but asked her no questions.

He didnt ask her any question all that night as he wasnt even at the pre-midnight interrogation.

People stating otherwise are libelling Mignini and the other officers, hence the calunnia trials.

Plus here

6 comments for “Sollecito Part 2

  1. September 21, 2012 at 14:42

    Lie 2: Forensic evidence doesn’t place you at a scene at a particular time, it places you at a scene at ANY time

    Lie 6: Happen to know quite a few pot-smokers, and have witnessed them losing entire evenings from memory; studies don’t prove everything

  2. September 21, 2012 at 15:19

    Hope you’re keeping well, m’lud.

  3. bucketoftea
    September 21, 2012 at 19:03

    Lord Nazh, on September 21st, 2012 at 14:42 Said:

    “Lie 2: Forensic evidence doesn’t place you at a scene at a particular time, it places you at a scene at ANY time”
    I’d say their bare footprints in the victim’s blood puts them at the scene during a very narrow time interval. 😉

    “Lie 6: Happen to know quite a few pot-smokers, and have witnessed them losing entire evenings from memory; studies don’t prove everything”
    No memory blackouts attributable to cannabis. Not just a few studies, either No, hillbillies don’t know better than them there sciency doctor-types.

  4. September 21, 2012 at 20:06

    He used bra-strap DNA, not footprints (as you can or maybe not tell, I don’t follow this trial, just James) ergo, the bra-strap DNA does not provide time

    hillbillies that experience the fucking blackouts seem to know more than them there sciency doctor-types eh

  5. ubermouth
    September 21, 2012 at 23:58

    Lord Nazh I used to smoke quite a bit of pot[and do LSD] when I was young and there is NO WAY pot would wipe someone’s memory of events for even the tiniest length of time. I never even had that happen with LSD.

    If that is what they have claimed Lie# 1,000,000,000 . 🙂

  6. September 22, 2012 at 06:57

    Well, I’m not so sure about the acid but the grass is not bad in itself – it depends what it’s treated or cut with. There is some nasty stuff and as it’s not legal, it’s unregulated. Oil and hash was worse. I knew one or two of these boys and they weren’t … er … particular. That was 30 years ago though – current situation I know nowt about.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *