Seeds Of Betrayal: Sollecito Twice More Implies Evidence Against Knox Much Stronger Than Against Him

Posted by Peter Quennell



Above and below are two videos of TV interviews in the past few days which will give real weapons to the prosecution coming up.

Nobody who is innocent ever needs to lie to contradict a huge amount of evidence to the contrary. At the 2009 trial and the 2011 annulled appeal, Sollecito was kept carefully circumscribed by his own lawyers.

Giulia Bongiorno was often observed firmly making him toe a line. If she liked him, it sure never showed, and she had little response when some fairly disgusting things about him came out.

Sollceito’s spontaneous interventions in court made him look whiny and guilty and never did him any good, and unlike Knox he was never game to be cross-examined by the prosecution on the stand.

But since his release, in his interviews and especially in his self-serving book, he has done his level best to convince the world “I saved Knox!!”.

In both videos, he is repeating the same false claim which has already landed him in such legal trouble in Italy. It is that a desperate Knox needed his support, and he gave it (despite illegal prosecution pleas) without considering the cost to himself. 

These questions and these questions and these questions are what competent interviewers could and should have asked.  But of course, the silly TV interviewers on NBC Today and KOMO TV in Seattle each nod happily and just wilt. 

Here are our takes on the sub-texts of Sollecito’s claim to have selflessly saved Knox. 

(1) That the prosecution had a weak case against RS or AK

Those tuning in after 2009 might think so, but in the first half of 2009 the prosecution’s case was smooth, fast and brilliant in the extreme. They figured out a way to get Knox on the stand and to hang herself in her own words.

In contrast, the defense phase late 2009 was halting and uncertain and often with daggers drawn. It never once landed a blow. Defense counsel didnt always turn up, and there were hints that two of them (Bongiorno and Ghirga) might walk.

At the end, of course, the prosecution got a unanimous verdict and all they wanted, less a few years off the sentences for supposed kindness shown to Meredith by the killers. The trial report was praised this past March by the Supreme Court.

The evidence against Sollecito was quite overwhelming (false alibis,  computer inactivity,  mobile phone inactivity,  a credible eye-witness,  DNA in Meredith’s room, and of course this on his footprint in Meredith’s blood. Also read this list of lies Sollecito had already told by April 2009.

The prosecution was legally barred from offering any deals, but even in their dreams here, they had zero need.

(2) That Sollecito was loyal to Knox after 6 November 2007

It never happened, as Knox herself knows. Read this astonishing transcript here in which Sollecito’s father is making quite clear what Sollecito must do. Sollecito thereafter separated himself repeatedly from Knox in court and online..

On 6 November 2007 at his witness interview Sollecito cracked fast and turned on Knox, painting her as a liar who had made things up. She then accidentally gave him quite a break, by implicating Patrick instead of him.

Knox has clearly been bothered by this disloyalty ever since. She has tried both to pull him in and to push him away.

In her cell, she pondered whether he was the real killer. She later wrote Sollecito some love letters and once rather desperately asked to meet. And then just the other day she really barked.

When Sollecito’s lawyer Giulia Bongiorno for the first time EVER showed some tolerance for Amanda Knox it was 11 months into the trial and it caused many heads to be scratched.


The code throughout which Sollecito never once broke from was never “honor bound”. It was to throw Knox under the bus. Reporters should confront him hard on this.




Comments

It is becoming rather obvious that sooner or later these two will really (and finally) turn on each other and accuse each other of actually committing the murder. Sollecito is far more likely to turn first because of location with Guede waiting in the wings for his turn. Good says I, the sooner the better. These two idiots and their handlers particularity the mentally challenged Curt Knox seem to be living in a bubble because their own egos will, and have, let them down. ie “She’s American ergo innocent.” (Shakes head in disbelief.) Please bring on all the media exposure you can.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 05/21/13 at 11:08 PM | #

The NBC Today woman is unreal. Where do they find these brainless, plastic interviewers? Is it a job requirement, do they have to prove they have no interest in truth or deep issues when they apply to be a TV journalist? Or are they given a lobotomy after recruitment? Anyone would think she’s interviewing a movie star! This kind of tawdry sideshow might keep couch potatoes from having to think, which may be their function, but thank heaven they have no bearing on the outcome in Italy.

Posted by Odysseus on 05/22/13 at 03:50 AM | #

The question of betrayal does not arise. Why, you ask?

Their relationship was based on a quick physical affair. No emotion, trust or sensitivity was involved. I never saw any evidence of love or respect for the other. Yes, it was only sex: nothing but raw sex.

If you do not start with trust, the question of betrayal never comes. What is the big deal? I do not see any emotional bond between them: what do you expect?

Today RS has more reason to feel let down. He has been just used and abused like a ...

Let us see.

Posted by chami on 05/22/13 at 03:59 AM | #

I’m surprised the Knox clan didn’t put more distance between AK & RS sooner. Who in their right mind wants their daughter connected to a guy whos main hobbies are, knife collecting, snorting cocaine and animal sex.

Posted by Urbanist on 05/22/13 at 06:17 AM | #

Chami, Good point about the ‘no emotion’, funny how AK keeps using the phrase ‘making love’. No one who ‘beds’ on the first night ‘makes love’, there are many other words to more accurately describe it. I guess Curt didn’t want to embarrassed by his ‘easy’ daughter so instructed her to use the ‘L’ word.

Posted by Urbanist on 05/22/13 at 06:35 AM | #

For anyone interested in fleeting micro expressions ( NB these are involuntary), there’s some interesting eye movements in RS when the interviewer suggests the book has so far had a mixed reception; also an unmistakeable mouth gesture ( very rapid) when she says the words : Foxy Knoxy .

I’m sure there is more that will be noticed by the professionals.

I noted at the very end RS said,
‘I have the true…and I will use it.’ Not quite how I would think about it.

I wondered if anyone here could help me understand more by providing links to any very early interviews/ speeches by AK or RS? Before they have learnt to polish their performances ?

I didn’t pay particular attention to this case until the provisional acquittals ...when I was so puzzled I had to try and make sense…thanks in advance.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 05/22/13 at 06:37 AM | #

The NBC Today woman is unreal. Where do they find these brainless, plastic interviewers?

The questions are put together by researchers and approved by producers. The interviewers just work from a script, but are very adept at making it look as if their questions are spontaneous—that is what they are chosen for.

Posted by Domingo on 05/22/13 at 08:03 AM | #

Domingo - yes I’m sure that’s the case on cheap shows but better quality programmes have good interviewers who also participate in the editorial planning. They are not just “talking heads”.

In the U.K. for example Jon Snow on Channel 4 actively and spontaneously engages with his subject rather than strictly following a script or agenda. Another example (love him or loathe him) is Jeremy Paxman on Newsnight. They are both free to be inquisitorial if necessary and give the interviewee a tough time. Sadly lacking in the case of this particular NBC interviewer.

Posted by Odysseus on 05/22/13 at 08:56 AM | #

In the U.K. for example Jon Snow on Channel 4 actively and spontaneously engages with his subject rather than strictly following a script or agenda.

Yes, I know Jon Snow personally from our days at the University of Liverpool. He was sent down for being a leader in the occupation of the Senate House to protest the University’s investments in South Africa, so he was always a guy who was driven by a desire to right wrongs, etc.

This quality has served him well in the world of UK TV, but he would probably have been a persona non grata in the world of US television,where media is a BUSINESS above all.  I know quite a bit about the US as I lived there for 20 years and have citizenship.

Posted by Domingo on 05/22/13 at 09:14 AM | #

hmmmm !! very odd sentence that. Thinking he is “some kind of hero”. I’m pretty certain an innocent person could never think that. Wouldn’t they “kind of” know that a sell out wouldn’t have been at all possible anyway ?

Posted by shavournia on 05/22/13 at 09:18 AM | #

hmmmm !! very odd sentence that. Thinking he is “some kind of hero”. I’m pretty certain an innocent person could never think that. Wouldn’t they “kind of” know that a sell out wouldn’t have been at all possible anyway ?

Posted by shavournia on 05/22/13 at 09:19 AM | #

In the U.K. for example Jon Snow on Channel 4 actively and spontaneously engages with his subject rather than strictly following a script or agenda.

Yes, I know Jon Snow personally from our days at the University of Liverpool. He was sent down for being a leader in the occupation of the Senate House to protest the University’s investments in South Africa, so he was always a guy who was driven by a desire to right wrongs, etc.

This quality has served him well in the world of UK TV, but he would probably have been a persona non grata in the world of US television,where media is a BUSINESS above all.  I know quite a bit about the US as I lived there for 20 years and have citizenship.

Posted by Domingo on 05/22/13 at 09:47 AM | #

Lovely (or not) moment at 1:29 on the NBC video. RS says “...because everyone know we are ...er…I am innocent”.

It’s clearly everyone for themselves now. This could get spectacularly nasty.

Posted by Odysseus on 05/22/13 at 10:55 AM | #

Thinking about Chami’s thought-provoking comment above.

Certainly in the two books you can see that neither considered this to be a match made in heaven - Sollecito the shunned virgin loner would have liked it to have been, but there were already strong signs Knox would not hang around.

Knox was the one that had the growing animosity toward Meredith and may have snapped on the night, after she was rejected at Halloween, at Patrick’s “no need to come to work” text.

But Sollecito was the knife and cruelty fetishist, who may have been the one to urge that if they were going to give Meredith a fright, a couple of knives would certainly do that.

Judge Micheli concluded that Knox initiated and called the shots throughout the attack, with Guede and Sollecito competing to outdo one another as both were craven to Knox. A group dynamic that is certainly not unknown.

But then, Judge Micheli and Judge Massei concluded, it was Knox who went further, a bridge too far, and plunged in the knife, the horrific stab that some minutes later took Meredith’s life. 

Under this scenario Amanda Knox first betrayed the other two, by turning what they thought was intended to be a hazing into a cruel murder with all three facing possible life in prison.

Guede and Sollecito have always had an anger toward Knox which could be because she betrayed them first in this way; note she was always the least inclined later to point to either of the other two, and she beat her own head.

Knox really does need to be in the Florence court to protect her own back. She’s the kind that would get on the stand in a heartbeat, where she could do herself some good, but has the book with its ludicrous claims pushed that out of sight?

Maybe Edda Mellas should push Curt Knox and his addled shock-troops aside, and start driving the bus. Maybe Francesco Sollecito also should seek to get a grip on his late-twenties still-unemployed “kid”.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 05/22/13 at 01:11 PM | #

That makes a great deal of sense, Pete…

‘Kid’ Sollecito doesn’t seem to have a clear appraisal of facts - especially around time, which he is most vague about. If he was, as he described, in prison when the DNA knife was found and bagged - how can he describe how it this occurred ? Mignini says other knives were considered. This one fits the wound. They would have known what to look for.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 05/22/13 at 01:30 PM | #

So Italy sent the knife to the U.S.?  If not how did this expert test it?

http://www.metro.us/philadelphia/news/local/2013/05/21/amanda-knoxs-philly-lawyer-said-the-evidence-is-not-there-to-convict-her/

Posted by Miriam on 05/22/13 at 02:15 PM | #

Hi Miriam.

Ted Simon sounds more and more foolish and fraudulent by the day. A real font of terrible advice. Knox and Edda Mellas should insist that he move on.

One sample of the DNA Dr Stefanoni collected has not been tested. This hired gun sure didnt get his hands on that. And the DNA evidence may not even come up again, at the Florence appeal, if Cassation or the Florence judge decide Massei got it right.

What does Simon mean in saying Knox doesnt “need” to attend the appeal? She does,  or the court will not be pleased, and RS will have a home run. What does he mean, the “issues being discussed” dont implicate her?  What is being discussed? He doesnt have a clue what the Florence judge will want to hear.

HOW did the crazy book full of wrong claims get by Ted Simon? What of the hundreds of “issues” that DO implicate Knox? Can Ted Simon say “mixed blood”? Does he even understand the case? !

Posted by Peter Quennell on 05/22/13 at 02:26 PM | #

I can’t understand why Sollecito believes he has proved his innocence.

Posted by DF2K on 05/22/13 at 03:45 PM | #

@Peter

I’m still catching up on all this (I have only followed the case for a year or two) and without background in or knowledge of Law (I’m a retired statistician, married to a psychotherapist),I particularly appreciate your last post which paints a very credible picture of the dynamic between the three.

Especially with regard to RS who does seem to be in rather sad long-term grief over his absent (and possibly suicidal?)mother, and so primed for the anima to appear in his life in one form or the other. His early comments about being mesmerised by the feminine archetype in the shape of AK are very telling.

To me this all adds credence (not proof)to AK being the prime mover in a drugged rage against Meredith, with the other two as “betrayed” (but culpable) accomplices.

Posted by Odysseus on 05/22/13 at 03:52 PM | #

@Peter,

You have put it very succintly.

One thing I admire in Italian parents: they do not let they children go astray as soon as they turn 18. ALL kids are kept on a short leash by the parents. Till they get some job, get married, or somehow leave the father’s hotel.

The children are not rebellious: they do whatever they want anyway but somehow stay within the limits. Well, almost. They know the advantages of the social security the parents offer.

The British and American kids feel kind of insecure in this environment. They actually feel helpless and lost, but cannot express what they feel. Nevertheless they make fun of the Italian kids all the time. There is a reason, I understand. But well…

Using sex a as a tool is nothing new. But some can use it better than others.

I am curious to know about the academic achievements of the two kids. You can see that the girl has no focus in life.

In some sense, I feel sad. It need not have been like this.

Posted by chami on 05/22/13 at 03:54 PM | #

One thing that strikes me in both interviews is how very young and immature Sollecito seems…more like a young teenager.

I think Odysseus is right about the projection of the anima… he must be right at the very beginning of the process (of understanding one’s projections).

And if he was a virgin when he fell upon Knox, he would have had no idea whatsoever about what was happening. I think completely taken over. Unfortunately.

I noticed that AK said he was ‘taken with her’ but, coolly only ‘I…liked him.’

He answers VERY firmly, ‘No’...when asked if he loves Amanda. He didn’t want to answer at first.

He says, ‘I am going very fast….trying to grow up quickly now’, or similar.

His facial body language is interestingly different from Knox’s, most noticeable in his eyes which do change and smile.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 05/22/13 at 05:55 PM | #

Excellent post as always Peter. 

One thing that really struck me with this interview was that both the interviewer and RS were basically confirming that AK left the apartment that night, as otherwise there would be no reason to ‘stand by her’ or ‘save her’ or ‘being a hero’ or deserving ‘gratitude’.  If he throws her under the bus, he will also be in trouble.  Can’t he see that?  It’s like he is completely brainwashed.  He’s got his script which someone created and fed to him, possibly Gumble? and now he just repeats it over and over.  Also how do you have ‘evidence’ proving that you are innocent?  And what evidence is he referring to anyway?  Nobody ever dares to ask him.  I thought evidence was just for proving the crime.  Not one person has been allowed to ask about the bare footprint so far, notice that?

Posted by believing on 05/24/13 at 01:59 AM | #

@believing

“Not one person has been allowed to ask about the bare footprint so far, notice that?”

In belated reply, yes - I notice that, now you’ve emphasised it! How curious. I suppose the general idea is that the media mustn’t raise awkward questions that will distract the dumb masses and disturb their slumber. Better to keep it all on a superficial level: then no one sue/withdraw their advertising/claim that there has been overt bias.
Naturally, omitting a crucial fact, like the bare footprint, is not considered bias at all by reporters. In the neurotic haste to post copy it’s treated as necessary precis, lol.

The court has taken and will take a different view, thankfully.

When this is all done and dusted perhaps we can have a trial of the media. Then all the non-questioning journalists who couldn’t be bothered with researching the facts, preferring to copy and paste the latest Knox gang press release, will hang their collective heads in shame when they are dismissed as a disgrace to their once noble profession. Not remotely likely but we can fantasize…

Posted by Odysseus on 05/25/13 at 05:21 PM | #

I just read this long interview with Andrew Gumbel , not sure if you already posted it. 

http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/2012/09/26/raffaele-sollecito-i-spent-that-night-with-amanda-knox/

Posted by believing on 05/28/13 at 08:31 PM | #

Thanks Believing.

Andrew Gumbel is named in the complaint to the Chief Prosecutor in Florence and for her categoric accusation of crimes by Mignini - nothing new for her - the PR shill Candace Dempsey could be as well.

These two books sure have painted the two into small corners and made their defenses at the Florence appeal that much more difficult. Good.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 05/29/13 at 06:03 AM | #


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 Very Appropriate Casting Of Doug Preston As The Fredo Corleone Wannabe

Or to previous entry The Amanda Knox Book: On Top Of Everything Else It Seems The Book Is Financially A Huge Flop