Saturday, February 07, 2015

Sollecito On Italian TV: Seems RS And AK Selling Out One Another Is Gravitating To A Whole New Plane

Posted by Our Main Posters

Nearly 30 instances of Knox and Sollecito selling out one another since 2007 were described here.

In addition to those,  their two books also took some subtle whacks, and also there have been some other media instances since. Sollecito took several more whacks at Knox on the national crime show Porta a Porta last night.

That and his bland evasive, nervous manner seems to have done himself harm too. Italy has watched this tired show too often now, and it was Porta a Porta back in 2012 which first surfaced false accusations of crimes in his book for which he is now on trial in a Florence court.

Amazingly, Sollecito admits to stalking and harassing Meredith’s family, which under Italian law (and UK law and US law) for the protection of victims and their families is itself a felony crime. There should be no attempts at communication with them at all. Knox too has been harassing and stalking the family, and dangerously encouraging the more unstable of her followers to follow suit.

Our main poster Jools kindly translated this from the newspaper for Sollecito’s home town. Note the passages in bold.

Raffaele’s Truth

Sollecito guest of “Porta a Porta” told his side of the story about the murder of Meredith Kercher

“Yes, I have thought I could be going to prison, for me this is astonishing. I done nothing, I have nothing to do with it and there is nothing that places me on the crime scene in a factual manner.” Words pronounced by Raffaele Sollecito during the Rai 1 program “Porta a Porta”, hosted by Bruno Vespa. The computer engineer from Giovinazzo is accused of the murder of British student Meredith Kercher, which occurred in Perugia the night between 1 and 2 November 2007.

In seven years there have been four trials. Convicted in first instance trial with Amanda Knox, Sollecito was acquitted on appeal court. But that appeal court decision has been annulled at the Court of Cassation, leading to a new conviction sentence of 25-years. In March, exactly on the 25th, Raffaele Sollecito will face the final instance of the process. In prison for the time being there is only the Ivory Coast national Rudy Guede, who is serving a definitive 16-year sentence. “My life did not changed on the night of the 1st and 2nd November ““ said Sollecito pressed by Bruno Vespa - but when the investigators took me to jail. Knowing, meeting, making the acquaintance of Amanda fatally brought me into this hell.”

Raffaele’s life is suspended pending the final verdict, while Amanda Knox lives in the United States where she works writing theater reviews for a local newspaper in Seattle and is considered a victim of the Italian judicial system. “I can not answer for Amanda,” Sollecito reminded Vespa and then retraced the events of that night: “From around the hours of 20:30/21:00 I was home - said the accused - and I did not go out to Via della Pergola with Amanda when she went back. I stayed behind sleeping. At that time of my life I was smoking a joint every now and then, especially if I was in company - he admitted - and that night I smoked a very small amount present in my drawer. In fact, the investigators did not find anything because it was a little amount totally smoked.”

This would justify the sketchy memories in relation to those hours. Raffaele Sollecito does not remember when Amanda came back to the apartment but he is certain, “Amanda did not sleep at my place” [Ed note: mistake here, he said Knox did sleep at his place.] About the strange way the American woman behaved in the hours immediately after the murder, Sollecito reiterated that, “Amanda explained during the court hearings of being frightened during the interrogation.”

Just like the American student at the time, Sollecito wanted to stress of having suffered “relentless pressure from the investigators. They told me I would never be released from prison. They kept me 15 hours under interrogation. I fell into contradiction for not understanding what day they referred. They took off my shoes, leaving me barefoot, thinking that those shoes were the ones I was wearing during the murder. Then they admitted my consultant was right after eight months ““ he stressed - about the shoeprint found in Meredith’s room, while we had already provided that proof after 2 months. It was my consultant to find the inconsistencies of the prosecution.”

The morning the body of the poor British girl was found, Sollecito recounts, “Amanda told me that she saw the shattered window [panes] and the door to her house wide open and that she thought her roommates had gone to take out the garbage. There were a few drops of blood when I arrived. Meredith’s door was key locked and I told Amanda to call her roommates and Meredith.” In any case, following a question by Vespa he specified, “I don’t think Amanda killed her. It doesn’t seem possible. I would have noticed something. This argument seems to me unlikely. But she must respond herself to these allegations, not me.”

Things did not go well and then came the judicial ordeal that still continues and that rather involves him personally. Raffaele is certainly different, now an IT graduate who struggles to find work, but who still wants to shout to the world his innocence after 7 years. He watched the images of his fellow citizens and friends defending him during a broadcast report and recounts of having tried to contact the victim’s family, “I have tried several times to talk to Meredith’s parents - he said -. If the facts are looked at in an impersonal way one understands that a lot of mistakes were made. I sent a letter to Dr. Maresca their legal representative, with not getting any replies. Even my family has tried to contact them, without them ever coming to approach.”

The question mark with which Sollecito will be arriving on March 25, the date of the trial before the Supreme Court, remains the same for a long time: “What motive did I have to hurt Meredith? This is about having justice on what is the truth.” One truth and a justice that now are in the hands of the Roman judges.

In fact as most Italians know Sollecito was interrogated quite briefly that night and the only pressure was from his own phone records, showing he had lied. Knox was not formally interrogated at all. Her ONLY pressure came directly from him.

Our main poster Yummi suggests that what was going on here could be this:

The purpose of his show seems to me to be to point out the “difference of positions” between Sollecito and Knox. I think it is obvious that this is the main “message” of the Porta a Porta show; and I talk not just about the content of his interview, but also the whole setting, the framework including the journalist’s report on the show about the Florence trials in which the “main points” of his defence were described..

Sollecito does not make explicit statements to put more distance between him and Amanda, not more than he already had. But the theme of “difference of positions” is highlighted, and he even draws attention to some known inconsistencies such as the open/closed Filomena’s door.

Indeed he himself makes a declaration contradicting his own statements to the police and to Judge Matteini, and in his own diaries (in the show he says “socchiusa”, but he wrote “spalancata” in his prison diary and this is what he stated to the investigators too); but what he tries to do in the show is to point out himself the inconsistency as something that is responsibility of Amanda, one of the things “she should explain”.

The report - to which his attorneys may well have contributed - points out that the “main defence points” at the Florence trial were:

1) that “Raffaele is not Amanda” (he happens to be implicated because of evidence against Amanda), and

2) that Amanda herself does not place Raffaele Sollecito on the scene of crime in her statements; it is remarkable that Sollecito highlights the content of Knox’s statements from Nov. 5-7 rather than her subsequent claims; and the same defence arguments even imply that Knox does not place herself in the company of Sollecito at all..

Another point that I found remarkable, was when Sollecito points out how it was “a judges’ finding” that he was a “collateral effect” [sic]; I mean it is glaring that he quotes the courts as a source that adds credibility to his theory.

So by the end I thought the setting of this show included “help” given to the journalist Vanni by Sollecito’s attorneys, and I think the purpose is obvious, if we want to see it as a kind of message-in-a-bottle to the Supreme Court on approaching the March 25th hearing.

It is basically a point of law, that is that the evidence against Amanda Knox should not be transferred onto him. This is the aspect he really wants the Supreme Court to review. Amanda Knox has “things to explain” and he should not be demanded to answer for them.

As Knox might now want to point out, there is of course very extensive evidence tying Sollecito to the crime. Consider this and in particular this.


Thank you so much, Peter and Jools. This site is such a valuable resource for people who won’t be taken in by lies and histronics.

Posted by Wascana on 02/07/15 at 11:53 PM | #

I copy and paste here what I just posted on PMF (some points about Sollecito’s performance at Porta a Porta):

1. About the question: what does he says on whether Knox went out that evening; did he actually say that? I listened again to the interview, and what I can say is: if you listen carefully, you can understand he does not state Knox went out that night, but what happens is Bruno Vespa does not understand correctly what he means (but who would?) and he understands that he is talking about the night while he probably talks about the morning. When Sollecito says “Knox went out” and “she came back”, and then soon after he says “she came back in the morning”, Bruno Vespa understands that he is talking about the night; I think most likely Sollecito in his broken speech refers to what she did in the morning, but this is not clear at all. Bruno Vespa asks him more than once to be more precise, whether he is talking about the night; Sollecito also apparently doesn’t get the questions entirely and mixes up topics of when she came back and went out at night and what she did in the morning. He mixes up also Vespa’s questions when Vespa seems to point out he means a different topic, so you don’t always understand what he is taking about and not everything is really clear. But I tend to assume he says that he doesn’t know where Amanda was, rather than stating that “she was out” during the evening.  However we should note point 2.

2. Something I found remarkable: Sollecito cites multiple times his interrogation before the GIP Claudia Matteini. He claims that interrogation as his version, it seems that he stands by it. I find this a remarkable point, since in that questioning he states some things, including that Amanda went out during the evening.

3. The setting of the program was definitely favourable to Sollecito’s defence. In fact the aired reports looked like they were written directly by his PR consultants. But perceivably, as a person in the studio he failed to convince Bruno Vespa, who at the end wished him “good luck” as a “father” but, putting big distance the two roles, he looked in an opposite direction “as a citizen” hoping the Cassazione would bring “justice”. The politely skeptical expression of Bruno Vespa can be noticed even by those who don’t understand Italian.

4. His performance was about a series of old rehearsed points, which included several lies. For example, when he claims that only his experts discovered the wrong attribution of the shoeprint.

5. Another glaring lie, this one stands out for the first time in an interview with Raffaele, is when he mentions Filomena’s door, saying it was “socchiusa”. What is interesting is he brings it up himself, he intends to bring it as an argument to Knox’s inconsistence, to point out that there are strange things about her behaviour Amanda Knox should explain. The remarkable contradiction that we see instead, is that in his police statements, and in his diaries, he said “spalancata”.

6. His answers on direct questions are convoluted to say the least. Just look what he says when Bruno Vespa asks him if Amanda went out that evening, Vespa also pointing out how Amanda claimed they were together (so he was her alibi). Sollecito starts a complicated statement that begins with “ho rimostrato le mie piccole perplessità” because when he and his lawyers examined the papers more “thoroughly” they found out that “the judges were placing responsibility on Amanda” about “things that she did and said”… and so on with this incredible rambling statement that gets lost in circles (where Knox went that night, is that an answer that should depend on his lawyers examining thoroughly the papers to discover something the judges thought about what Knox said… you can’t follow that.)

7. Apparently Sollecito found out that there was blood in the bathroom only when he saw that at the apartment. Knox didn’t tell him about it.

8. Overall one perceives Sollecito puts distance between him and Amanda. He is annoyed about having to answer about “mistakes and choices” of Knox, he shoves that away emphasizing that “she has things to explain” and he just can’t answer for her actions. He has no clue why she said or did some things. Bruno Vespa seems incredulous, slightly exasperated, about such unrealistic ‘detachment’ from Knox’s statements.

9. By the end of his interview I noticed one thing more he says that is an outright lie. Bruno Vespa asks why did he refuse to be questioned. He asks him: why did you never answer questions? Sollecito answers: you should ask all the magistrates and judges, they never asked me; I was always available to be heard for questioning but they never asked me. Besides being a ridiculous argument, this is false. The truth is Raffaele was not ready to be questioned, he refused to answer questions. invoked his right to remain silent when the magistrate (Mignini) summoned him for interrogation on Dec. 20. 2007. Amanda accepted, but her interrogation turned out catastrophic on Dec. 17. Maybe Sollecito’s defence got scared because of this. What happened anyway, is that he invoked his right to remain silent, he refused to answer questions. I note that he lies before Bruno Vespa about this.

Posted by Yummi on 02/08/15 at 01:25 AM | #

Another excellent article covering the truth! Thank you Peter and Jools. It has been previously reported by our back channels that Raffaele will be having a press conference in March. I think that this is a very good preview of that happening.

This is just the first verse of his grand finale swan song. Indeed, he will sing like a sparrow once they throw him back into prison. Likewise his family will have a lot to say to the press and they really need the money now for sure.

There’s just 45 days to go before March 25, 2015. True Justice for Meredith Kercher 2015!

Posted by Johnny Yen on 02/08/15 at 01:57 AM | #

The most unsatisfactory aspect of this interview (in common with all the others which Sollecito has given to Italian mainstream TV shows) concerns the questions which were not asked.

I’m not suggesting the TV show hosts (Linea Gialla, TG24, PortaaPorta et al) are ‘in the pocket’ of advocates for Sollecito. They don’t need to be. They want this D list celeb on their show, to attract viewers, thus they (understandbly) agree to keep to script, and accept that some aspects are out of bounds.

So we only get a tiny amuse bouche from the lips of Sollecito. (The telling smirks are not scripted, but he just can’t resist!) It’s the exact same thing we see when Knox preps herself up for TV interviews. To be honest - these entertainment shows are best ignored IMO.

Posted by Sallyoo on 02/08/15 at 02:10 AM | #

Justice for Meredith Kercher and her family on March 25th.

I don’t know what RS thinks will be proved by going public, unless it’s a prelude to a court filing.

His representatives keep telling me there’s another story. We have been waiting for 7 years. Go big Raffaele.

Posted by Tina on 02/08/15 at 05:09 AM | #

Sollecito clutches the issue of the identification of the shoes like a drowning man. He goes on about them in his book.

He was without shoes for maybe 15 minutes according to testimony at trial. What he should really explain is: why is there smoking-gun unrefuted evidence of his bare feet?

Posted by Peter Quennell on 02/08/15 at 06:41 AM | #

Hello Peter and Jools, amazing work.  Was wondering if he would pop out again.

The bus driver must really be getting annoyed, as Knife-Boy and Stabby-Girl keep throwing each other and damaging his suspension.

Raffy still seems to be talking in code, and being evasive.  SomeAlibi posted this back in July 2014.

Does this make sense to anyone: He ‘‘believes that Amanda is innocent’‘, but tries to pin all of the police attention on her odd behaviour?  And at no time does he say Amanda didn’t kill Meredith, he just doesn’t ‘‘think’’ she did?  And why does he not give more definitive answers about himself and Amanda? Screams guilty to me.

Yummi - (I know very little Italian), but on your comments, and nicely done:

[1] RS has trouble distinguishing the evening and the night?  Really, you would think that some of the finest legal minds in Italy could help him out.

[6] Even after all this time, he still cannot give clear, coherent answers?

[7] RS only found out about the blood AFTER going to the cottage??? This is a new one to me. I thought the ‘debate’ was over how anxious AK was when she told RS about it.

[8] RS seems annoyed at having to answer for AK actions, but seems to overlook that he avoids answering for his own (ie. false alibis).

[9] RS says he was never asked to be questioned.  In his own book, he says he exercised his right not to answer at trial (Massei 2009).  He claimed however, that he just had nothing to say.  Seriously, he has been in jail unjustly (for 2 years at that point), and has nothing to say?  Well, perhaps he could start here.

RS claimed at the first appeal (Hellmann 2011), that Amanda was at his place.  So he did have things to say, he was just never sworn in or cross examined.  He had been in prison 4 years at that point.  And while he clearly has anger towards the court, he never testifies?

Further, at the Florence appeal (Nencini 2013), Judge Nencini did invite him to answer, rather than just give speeches.  It was a factor in the Judge’s decision not to sever the AK and RS appeals.  In fact, RS’s lawyer Bongiorno filed a complaint over Nencini commenting about this.

**** Sollecito does a f***ing book tour, but won’t answer questions in court

**** Knox does a f***ing book tour, but won’t even show up for court, let alone answer questions.

Bruno Vespa seems to see right through it, and his audience can tell.  Well done.

Posted by Chimera on 02/08/15 at 06:42 AM | #

“I can not answer for AK,” RS reminded Vespa and then retraced the events of that night: “From around the hours of 20:30/21:00 I was home - said the accused - and I did not go out to Via della Pergola with AK when she went back. I stayed behind sleeping.”

There has been a shift from the last press conference

THE JUDGES say she lied about the early evening to:

I, RS, say she lied about the early evening

As if the press conference was putting a kitten anong the pigeons knowing it would soon grow to be a cat.

Posted by PK777 on 02/08/15 at 11:46 AM | #

RS whines “They took off my shoes, leaving me barefoot, thinking that those shoes were the ones I was wearing during the murder.”

Is he implying the police were stupid because there were other shoes he wore?! (It’s possibly just the way it comes across in translation but he’s enough of an arrogant imbecile to suggest just that.)

Posted by Odysseus on 02/08/15 at 12:55 PM | #

Sollecito’s book on Amazon gets much praise from the 5-star reviewers for the strength and backbone and decisiveness and wonderful language and sheer amazingness of that Sollecito.

As Yummi in particular describes him on this show, this vague and inarticulate Sollecito is the complete opposite. He’s quite incapable of having written that book.

Goes to prove our conclusion in the ongoing series on the Florence book trial that a predatory Gumbel hijacked the book and actually wrote it with the Moores and Fischer and Sforza and so on.

In a radio interview, Gumbel actually said Sollecito’s memories were very vague, and he had to be “reminded” what happened by showing him “documents.

Lets guess. The documents that “reminded” him were by Burleigh, Dempsey, Fischer, Preston, Steve Moore, Frank Sforza, and so on…

None of them at all accurate, none of them fact-checked with the trial transcripts, or with anyone official in Perugia. No wonder RS’s lawyers are so mad at him.

Note how the lawyers were not on the show, by the way, though Yummi sees their hidden hand throughout it.

The obvious subtext throughout was “AK took the leadership” and the weak and daffy Sollecito made that case even without trying.

But the hidden subtext was “We in Italy really dont appreciate the huge slamming of everything Italian by the Knox forces, only in English, and mainly to Americans”. Leading to a ready belief that Knox above all deserves not to escape punishment.

Well done, Curt Knox and David Marriot.  Mission achieved… Or perhaps not.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 02/08/15 at 02:31 PM | #

I guess one has to be careful about the accuracy of the newspaper report on his TV interview given that the reported “Amanda did not sleep at my place” is clearly not an accurate quote.

Bearing that in mind, what about this?....

“The morning the body of the poor British girl was found, Sollecito recounts, “Amanda told me that she saw the shattered window [panes] and the door to her house wide open and that she thought her roommates had gone to take out the garbage. There were a few drops of blood when I arrived. Meredith’s door was key locked and I told Amanda to call her roommates and Meredith.””

On the assumption that this is an accurate quote, what does it tell us?

First of all it clearly relates to the period when according to Knox she went to the cottage in the morning without Sollecito. We can understand this because it is tied to her thought that her roommates had gone to take out the garbage.

Secondly, there is Sollecito’s affirmation that she had told him on her return to his place that she had noticed Filomena’s window panes were broken!

Wow! Now everything Knox ever said about not having been aware of this at the time is open to doubt, not just because it never made much sense anyway but because Sollecito himself now says it is bunkum.

Thirdly, he says that when he noticed that Meredith’s door was key locked he told Knox to call her roommates, AND Meredith. Did she? We know that she didn’t, not at that time.

So what is Sollecito up to? Is he just plain stupid and/or totally ignorant of the evidence?

Very possibly both (exactly why anyone would think that garbage is being routinely disposed of in a property that anyone must assume has just been burgled rather defeats me) but undoubtedly - and surely he must see this - he is, through sheer stupidity or as a deliberate ploy, piling pressure on his co-accused.

None of this can make a jot of a difference to the final outcome but from a PR point of view Sollecito is fast becoming a nightmare for Knox and her supporters, try as they might to hang on to his assertion that their icon is 100% innocent.

Posted by James Raper on 02/08/15 at 02:34 PM | #

Hi James

Great points. We are always thrilled to find wedge issues and particularly thrilled to find Sollecito and his lawyers and tweeting aunts hard at work on them.

It does put Knox and her PR on the spot in a deer-in-the-headlights fashion.

By the way an irony is that that report in the post was by Sollecito’s own hometown paper in southeast Italy. Media there have always carried water for him.

Hmmm. Perhaps not such an irony. Over to you, Seattle PI and West Seattle Herald, as the main US media seem to have moved to middle ground.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 02/08/15 at 02:59 PM | #

“she thought her roommates had gone to take out the garbage.”

Have I been missing something all these years but doesn’t only entrance to the cottage lead you directly past the garbage bins (just inside the gate at the top of the drive)?

Posted by PK777 on 02/08/15 at 03:58 PM | #

I gather that there is now a Chinese Edition of WTBH.

Actually I thought it had been written in Chinese to start with (LOL) but perhaps it’s a ploy to get some more signatures to their petition since the result has been a bit abysmal so far.

Posted by James Raper on 02/08/15 at 05:07 PM | #

RS’s continuing, brazen obfuscations are tiresome. They only add to the time needed to unravel his web of deceit.

Here, RS resurrects the story that AK left so early for Le Chic for the purpose of talking to friends:

“Amanda and I went to the [town] centre about 18.00 but I don’t remember what we did. We remained in the centre till 20.30 or 21.00.

I went to my house alone at 21.00, while Amanda said that she was going to the pub Le Chic because she wanted to meet with her friends.”

Actually, 20:18:12 was time of PL’s message, and 20:35.48 was the time Amanda sent her SMS in reply to Patrick. So if RS’s statement was not false, he admitted that RS & AK were together at the time of AK’s receipt, & probably of her reply-to, PL’s message, 17minutes & 36 seconds later.

Knox didn’t need to read PL’s message on its receipt if she was actually on her way to either her Le Chic friends, or to her cottage, and there is no record of her meeting her Le Chic friends that evening..

RS omits the actual telephone conversation with his father that evening, claims to have eaten alone, omits reference to the later-alleged broken pipe & water-spill needing a mop to clean-up. Nor does he acknowledge that their own phones were switched-off at 2040.

When challenged we can expect Sollecito to respond something like “I admitted I had had a Joint! How can you expect me to recall the exact details of a night spent alone minding my own business more than 7 years ago?!

Oh what a web they weave…..

Posted by Cardiol MD on 02/09/15 at 12:28 AM | #

James Raper makes good points about the glass, that Raffaele reveals that Amanda had already seen the broken window. She lied for years saying Molly’s door was mostly shut and that she did not see it until she returned to cottage with Raffaele.

Why would she lie about the window? Perhaps because she’s the one who broke it. Maybe she set up the fake burglary without Raffaele’s help and he’s angry she botched even that.

Odysseus suggests Raf may be taunting the police for having removed his shoes, the wrong shoes. I agree that the shoe issue has stayed very large in Raffaele’s psyche. It touched his pride when police controlled his clothes, he loves his clothes. His shoes may have been expensive. It touched his fear. Maybe he was afraid they were going to check his bare feet more closely. He was aware he had walked in the cottage barefoot during the cleanup. So he feared he might still have a blood trace on his feet. Or maybe he had cut the bottom of his foot on a piece of glass or injured it tip-toeing around the wet floors during the cleanup and was afraid they would note the cut. As son of a doctor, he may be afraid of athlete’s foot in the jailhouse (minor worry but maybe he’s fastidious).

Maybe he had a Band-Aid on his foot or toe and was afraid they would notice.

As Peter Quennell points out, Raffaele should have been more concerned about his bare feet than the police taking his shoes off for 15 minutes.

Buried under the lies for misdirection Raffaele has a sixth sense that his bare feet which were found in Meredith’s blood on blue bathmat will be his undoing.

So much for Raf’s dramatic statement that it was simply his “knowing, meeting, making the acquaintance of Amanda” that FATALLY brought him to this hell and that he did nothing. He works the nothing line about having no part in the crime like a blanket excuse.

And look at the strange order of how he got to know Amanda. Normally it is meeting, making the acquaintance, then knowing a person. He scrambles the order. Fatal attraction is what he now claims.

We see Raffaele pushing Amanda closer to the fire in yet another limelighting TV talk. He is addicted to new love affair as media darling and having such power while Knox lays low scared and keeps mum. He’s pretending he is not scared when he is closer to the prison door slamming on him than she is.

Some alibi he gives her: I don’t THINK Amanda killed Meredith. I would have noticed!!!!!! fruitcake

Posted by Hopeful on 02/09/15 at 03:04 PM | #

@ Hopeful: Don’t forget that Raffaele Sollecito had a distinctive hammer-toe deformity of the 2nd toe of his Right Foot (but had no distinctive deformity of his left foot).

Sollecito’ Right foot, with its distinctive hammer-toe, demonstrates his presence at the murder-scene.  MASSEI addressed this on p352-353 of the Translation.

Posted by Cardiol MD on 02/09/15 at 03:48 PM | #

There seems to be a factor which has been overlooked and that is, Meredith was a British subject and is therefore protected by English law. Now surely the British government will not take kindly to giving the appearance that one of it’s subjects has been thrown away in some esoteric attempt to appease the support of an American civilian. Just because there is a ground swell of support for Knox and thereby Sollecito will not sit well in Whitehall particularly if it makes them look bad. Therefore I predict that very quietly pressure is being brought to bare upon the American government to resolve this in the form of international treaties. Therefore Knox and Sollecito are guilty not only from the Italian legal system but the British one as well.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 02/09/15 at 06:08 PM | #

Yes, Grahame…a very large proportion of the informed population here would be justifiably outraged on Meredith’s behalf if justice fails her.
They would be angry should there be any show of capitulation from our government - very angry. Anti-American sentiment would run high.
I doubt anyone in official places will want all that.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 02/09/15 at 06:34 PM | #

@Grahame Rhodes @SeekingUnderstanding

Absolutely. British Embassy staff have been omnipresent at the trial with the Kerchers and will certainly be up to speed on the case; their views will no doubt have been communicated to the Foreign Office from day one.

I have great confidence in our civil service, they are mostly very experienced and professional. (Unlike here today/gone tomorrow politicians; if these ambitious main-chancers have more than limited input anything can happen. Think Blair)

Posted by Odysseus on 02/09/15 at 07:32 PM | #

I knew the British Embassy staff in Rome. They were immaculate examples of the well-educated, discreet and effective English gentleman.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 02/09/15 at 09:16 PM | #

I know the type. Though I’ve never been in the civil service I worked in Audience Research for the BBC World Service in the 70s and the heads of the various foreign language services, for example,  were well-travelled, urbane and wordly types (with very strong language skills etc., obviously)yet refreshingly free of the fierce egocentricity that you might find in those who have struggled up “the ladder of success” in commerce or industry.

Some were likely poached from overseas government postings.

I should never have left - brilliant place to work but I didn’t realise it fully at the time!

Posted by Odysseus on 02/09/15 at 10:00 PM | #

Agreed, no need to text Patrik, as she was intending to drop in at the pub. But did she actually go there (in which case, “see you later” would have worked in the sense that the police took it to mean).
Also, why claim that she turned off her mobile to avoid the risk of being called into work later, if she intended to place herself at the pub to socialise?
“We generally stayed in; we did not go out.” Generally. Perhaps she didn’t look at her calendar, and had that evening confused with a different one.

Posted by mimi on 02/10/15 at 04:53 AM | #

A red fox ran by in the rain as I looked out my front door after posting a comment, a good sign we are on the trail of the fox.

The foxy one told Raffaele that she thought the door of the cottage was open because her roommates were taking out the garbage.

This reference to trash and garbage could reflect that Knox had given thought to where to throw her crime garbage. She knew where the roommates normally threw their trash and she didn’t want to put anything in that same bin.

It may imply that Knox was stepping out of the cottage during the night maybe temporarily leaving the door unlocked as she discarded things, perhaps worried about being absent from the cottage during the disposal of trash, afraid the door would fly open while she was gone? Or perhaps in her nervousness she had not locked it well and the door flying open because of wind had actually happened during the cleanup and scared them badly, thinking someone was arriving to catch them in the act.

Posted by Hopeful on 02/10/15 at 07:33 AM | #


The red fox on the run - definitely could be a harbinger!

Did it turn around and give you that baleful LOOK (“I just want to get on with my life”)?

Posted by Odysseus on 02/10/15 at 09:55 PM | #

The fox has been treed- please wait patiently!

Posted by chami on 02/11/15 at 12:24 PM | #

Speaking of baleful looks (and sobbing in court, though only for himself, not his victims), Schettino was just found guilty!

Posted by all4justice on 02/11/15 at 09:13 PM | #

On the Costa Concordia trial, thanks a lot for the tip all4justice. Welcome news.

We posted four times about this back in 2012 and knew then that all deaths would have been avoided if the captain had not been trying to hide that he was semi-drunk and had broken other Carnival Line rules.

Thereafter Andrea Vogt often reported well.

Capatin Schettino was a real show-off, brought low, cowardly to the end. Where have we heard that before?


Posted by Peter Quennell on 02/12/15 at 12:40 AM | #

Thank God the equally drunk/doped La Knox hadn’t reached maturity and been given charge of a cruise liner.

Have Carnival Line taken any measures since to ensure that alcoholic show-offs aren’t recruited as Captains?

Are any measures now in place to prevent wild, disturbed adolescents from being let loose and unsupervised in a liberal culture they really don’t understand?

Posted by Odysseus on 02/13/15 at 05:31 PM | #

Here it is! Raffaele Stabby’s recent interview on Porta A Porta:

Click “Subtitles” on the top right to see Mr. Paroisien excellent translations. If an ad is blocking your view, you should install Adblock Plus into your browser:

Thank you Eric! Great work!

Posted by Johnny Yen on 02/16/15 at 12:25 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 The Sollecito Trial For “Honor Bound” #6: Examining Gumbel’s Role In Biasing The Book

Or to previous entry Meet The New President Of The Republic Of Italy; Dr Mignini Was Also One Candidate Named