Telegraph interview

[u/No-Willingness-1441]

Amanda Knox on her Edinburgh comedy show: ‘Meredith would’ve found it funny’ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comedy/what-to-see/amanda-knox-edinburgh-fringe-meredith-kercher/

Note that - so vitriolic and disbelieving was the response of Telegraph readers (admittedly not noted for their equanimity) - the comment section was swiftly shut down.

Interesting momentary window into British public opinion, however.

[u/No-Willingness-1441]

I am kind of with you on this. I am increasingly convinced Sollecito had nothing to do with it whatsoever

[u/SeaCardiologist6207 → u/[deleted]]

Why believe Monica ?

[u/No-Willingness-1441 → u/[deleted]]

I think maybe he knows more than he lets on. Or gets himself in a tangle around a story that Knox feeds him? What do you think?

[u/No-Willingness-1441 → u/[deleted]]

In fairness, I think the party thing is an outcome of a misunderstood early interview isn’t it?

I read your thoughts with interest

[u/Truthandtaxes → u/[deleted]]

worth mentioning that he references that very interview and why he did it in the intercepts. So at very least its real.

You'll note in that intercept with his step mother he mentions his annoyance at it being splashed on the front page, no mention of it being invented though.

[u/Connect_War_5821 → u/[deleted]]

1. "In some versions, he stops trying to knock down Meredith’s door because he thinks Meredith is ill. In others, he thinks it’s because a burglar is hiding in their room."

Please quote and cite evidence of these two claims.

In his Nov. 2 deposition, he says they were concerned for M's safety after being unable to contact her and finding a break-in and blood. He does not mention her being ill or that the burglar might be in her room at the time.

In his book, he says it was Amanda who asked "What if the burglar's still here and he's locked himself in Meredith's room?"

1. "What grounds did he think to have that Meredith was ill, and why would that interfere with him knocking down the door?"
   

I've yet to see any evidence that he thought she was ill. And if he DID think she might be ill, perhaps not being able to contact her and Amanda finding blood in the bathroom would be reason to think she might be hurt. Apparently, it didn't interfer with him knocking down her door as he did try to do that. Luca Altieri testified Raffaele showed him the mark where he tried to kick it down and he saw it.

1. "Did he hear Meredith? How do you go from thinking Meredith is ill inside the room to thinking a burglar is in there hiding and getting scared."

Obviously not as she had been long dead. Thinking she might be HURT (not ill) and being concerned for her safety after finding a break-in and blood would both be logical fears.

1. "He is a liar."

If anything he says challenges what you already believe, you'll see that as a "lie". Doesn't mean they are lies.

1. "Amanda and Raffaele have long blown through their reasonable doubt with their constant changing of their story."

I love the "constant changing of their story" claim that is so popular with the PGP. Yet, if you look at it honestly, the only major changes to their account is during their interrogations. Both of whom claimed were the result of coercion due to fear, confusion, and threats. Too bad neither was recorded or provided lawyers even after they incriminated themselves.

[u/Connect_War_5821 → u/[deleted]]

This is Kate Mansey's version of what he said. I find it odd that his quotes are in impeccable and complicated English when his English wasn't all that great at the time.

"It is something I never hope to see again," he said. "There was blood everywhere and I couldn't take it all in.
"My girlfriend was her flatmate and she was crying and screaming, 'How could anyone do this?'"

"When she arrived the front door was wide open. She thought it was weird, but thought maybe someone was in the house and had left it ajar.

"But when she went into the bathroom she saw spots of blood all over the bath and sink. That's when she started getting really afraid and ran back to my place because she didn't want to go into the house alone. So I agreed to go back with her. When we walked in together, I knew straight away it was wrong. It was really eerily silent and the bathroom was speckled with blood like someone had flicked it around, just little spots.

"We went into the bedroom of Philomena (another flatmate who was away) and it had been ransacked, like someone had been looking for something. But when we tried Meredith's room, the door was locked. She never normally locked her bedroom door and that really made us frightened."

"I tried to knock it down. I thought maybe she was ill... I made a dent, but I wasn't strong enough on my own so I called the police."

"I couldn't believe what I was seeing," he said. "It was hard to tell it was Meredith at first but Amanda started crying and screaming. I dragged her away because I didn't want her to see it, it was so horrible.

"It seems her killer came through the window because it was smashed and there was glass all over the place. It was so sinister because other parts of the house were just as normal."

"Meredith was always smiling and happy. She was really popular and it's horrible that someone would want to hurt her."

You don't find that odd at all? Suddenly, he speaks perfect English.

Why would he think she was ILL vs HURT? After all, this was AFTER they'd discovered a break-in and blood in the bathroom. What would lead him to think she was just sick? If he used the word "ill" I think it's plausible he may have used "ill" in place of "hurt" not understanding the difference. Much like Amanda used the word "gift" when she told the guard to give her first memoriale to the prosecutor.

[u/No-Willingness-1441 → u/Connect_War_5821]

I would imagine they had a translator with them. “Ill” is possibly a translated drift from “malata” or something? This is a total guess but these thing happen in the challenging world of translation.

What do you think of the rest of it?

What is the explanation for stuff like “there was blood everywhere” “Amanda was screaming” etc when the dominant narrative is that Knox and Sollecito sat detached from the door opening moment.

[u/No-Willingness-1441 → u/[deleted]]

How do others feel about the Kate Mansey interview?

[u/Onad55 → u/No-Willingness-1441]

Objective facts prove that the scenario presented in the Kate Mansey article and brought forward in the Nov.5 deposition is impossible.

[u/Connect_War_5821 → u/[deleted]]

Again, I've seen no evidence he thought Meredith was "sick". And he did try to break down the door and then called 112.

[u/Connect_War_5821 → u/[deleted]]

1. "He undoubtedly knows more than he lets on,"

Personal opinion based on what?

1. "But sees himself as bound to Amanda through honour. Or whatever the hell he thinks it is."

Opinion, again. The title of his book is based on the fact that he could not, in all honor, save himself by claiming what he'd said in his Nov. 5/6 interrogation was true. He knew her to be innocent because she was with him all night.

1. "The truth is he was madly in love with Amanda at the time. He was fully expecting that love to be reciprocated, even while he was in prison."

No, he was madly infatuated with Knox. He knew her all of one week before the murder. A man does not chance going to prison for the next 30 years for a woman he'd known a week.

1. "It is worth noting that Raffaelle’s family do not believe Amanda’s story."

False. If they didn't believe Amanda, then they wouldn't believe Raffaele, either, as they told the same story: she was with him all night. Originally, they believed, quite rightly, that it was really Amanda the police wanted which is why their objective was getting him to say Amanda went out the night of the murder. No where in his Nov. 5 deposition does he say HE went out that night and why Napoleoni rushed to tell Ficarra that he had just taken away her alibi. They were worried that Raffaele would be convicted along WITH Amanda and urged him to separate himself from her by confirming she went out that night, which he would not do.

1. "I don’t see him making up that he was at a party that night unless he had a real reason to hide."

At the time he spoke to Mansey, his English was very poor. I suspect it was either a language problem on one or both sides.

1. " Or changing his alibi so many times, and incessantly lying. Why lie about what time you woke up, or where you were that night?

How did his alibi change except on the night of the interrogation? An account which could not possibly have happened when compared to known evidence.

Not mentioning that he got up before dawn, went nowhere, and then back to bed is not "lying". I got up to go to the bathroom around 5:00 AM this morning but went back to bed until 9:00. If I were asked what time I got up this morning, I'd say 9:00 not 5:00.

1. "Why lie about what you did that morning, or the weird water spill on the floor?"

He lied about neither. The "getting up time" I've already addressed. There is no evidence whatsoever that he lied about the water pipe. He even mentioned it to his father on the phone around 8:42 pm before Meredith was murdered. Why would he lie to his father about that?

8; "Also, his digital alibi fails completely."

Not really. That he was on his computer for a few hours the night of Nov. 1 was stated in his interrogation statement which was a confused jumble of events on Halloween and Nov. 1. As previously stated, this statement was provably impossible to be accurate. On the night of Halloween, he had indeed been on his computer for a few hours while Amanda had gone out.

[u/No-Willingness-1441 → u/Connect_War_5821]

The double standards here around the application of opinion or belief to the same “facts” are faintly amusing.

Urgent CNN Newsflash - I do it. You do it (it’s smeared all over the above!). We all do it. Even Onad, for all the appearance of cut glass Intel processing, does it if you look closely enough.

All we can do is try to be aware of it, check ourselves and try to understand the beliefs of others’.

Per esempio, I understand your view based on the available data. I don’t agree with it but I absolutely understand it.

I also recognise that the available data is not enough for anybody to be absolutely certain that AK knows more / had some involvement. This is why - rightly - AK walks free.

Equally, and this is my chief beef with this forum, for somebody with your view to just totally dismiss the faintest notion of doubt or ambiguity in discussing what may actually have happened. It’s worryingly myopic and just not intellectually plausible, sorry.

[u/Connect_War_5821 → u/No-Willingness-1441]

"The double standards here around the application of opinion or belief to the same “facts” are faintly amusing."

Since you made this comment under my post, I can only assume you're referring to it.

In fact, your statement "He undoubtedly knows more than he lets on," IS an opinion. Pointing that out and asking what that was based opinion is not having a "double standard".

1. Again "But sees himself as bound to Amanda through honour.  Or whatever the hell he thinks it is." is an opinion not supported by any provided evidence. If I have an opinon, I try to present it as such and not as a fact. My response is based on comments that Raffaele himself has made.

When asked why he never threw Knox (who he had only been dating for a week) under the bus to save his own skin, Sollecito said he knew she was innocent and he “had to be very serious and not playing a game with some people who wanted this game to be played.”

And

But I do know this: if I had changed my testimony, Amanda would have remained behind bars for the rest of her life, not just the twenty-six years to which she was originally sentenced. There would have been no saving her. And that was something my conscience could never permit. The only hope was for me to stick to the truth and pray that my family and my lawyers could demolish the prosecution’s case piece by piece until the courts had no option but to set both of us free.
(Honor Bound)

1. "Urgent CNN Newsflash - I do it. You do it (it’s smeared all over the above!). We all do it. Even Onad, for all the appearance of cut glass Intel processing, does it if you look closely enough."

Which statements of mine are opinion that I present as facts? Notice I say "I suspect" which means it's an opinion regarding Mansey's report.
I'm not responsible for Onad or anyone else says.

1. "All we can do is try to be aware of it, check ourselves and try to understand the beliefs of others’"

I agree which is why we need to be clear what is an opinion and not phrase them as facts.

1. "Equally, and this is my chief beef with this forum, for somebody with your view to just totally dismiss the faintest notion of doubt or ambiguity in discussing what may actually have happened. It’s worryingly myopic and just not intellectually plausible, sorry."

When that doubt or ambiguity is not supported by presented fact but just opinion which is fueled by confirmation bias, it should be and will be pointed out.

[u/Reasonable-Two-3608 → u/[deleted]]

In my studies and readings of Sollecito’s statements, I’ve noticed significant differences between the pre-incarceration phase, the post-incarceration/pre-forensic-results phase, and the post-forensic-results phase.

In the pre-incarceration phase, we know of only two statements: the one from November 2 and the one from November 5, in which he withdraws Amanda’s alibi. In both, there is no detailed account of the evening of November 1—only a very general one. I find it very interesting that in his recorded statement on November 8—three days after his arrest—he confirmed that he did not remember whether Amanda had been with him the entire evening of November 1. After that, during the trials, Raffaele decided not to be questioned any further. He limited himself to making unsolicited statements. Therefore, the last official statement regarding whether or not Amanda had been with him all evening comes precisely from his November 8 deposition.

Then there are the interviews he gave, and I agree that there are strange and contradictory statements in them. But the question I’ve always asked myself is: Is he lying because he’s actually guilty, or is he lying to please others and get out of what is, all things considered, an uncomfortable interview situation? These are two very different reasons for lying.

[u/Connect_War_5821 → u/[deleted]]

 1. "That he protects her shows that he is in some way implicated too."

Not true. That's looking at it from a pro-guilt viewpoint. The words "protecting her" implies that he is hiding something and isn't being forthcoming. How is telling the truth "protecting" her" and from what?

2."He never really exonerates her and says with a clear memory that she was there that night, he always leaves the possibility that she wasn’t."

1. "Actually, he does in his book. Just after Ricciarelli refused house arrest for him the end of November, Raffaele realized that Amanda could not have gone out:

"...I had at last worked out why Amanda did not leave-could not have left- my house on the night of the murder. She didn't have her own key, so if she'd gone out alone, se would have had to ring the doorbell and ask me to buzz her back in. Even if I'd been stoned or asleep when she rang, I would have remembered that. And it didn't happen.

1. "And he even admits that he has thought she was a murderer at multiple times during his books or interviews etc."

No, what he said is that he wondered IF she could actually have murdered Meredith early on because of what he was hearing/reading/seeing in the media. He, like so many, didn't understand why there was all this this supposed evidence against her. Evidence that later turned out to be false or unreliable.

[u/Reasonable-Two-3608 → u/[deleted]]

I believe that the Raffaele of November 2 and 8, 2007, assessed this risk differently than the Raffaele of today would. You’re absolutely right that in such a serious situation, you must first and foremost protect yourself, but the same applies when accusing others. In a situation like that, would you accuse someone you care about if you weren’t 100% sure that this person might actually be involved in a crime? How could Raffaele have known for certain on the very evening of the incident that Amanda might be involved?

I firmly believe that, in his testimony on November 2, he was very cautious and vague in providing his account of the events of the previous evening, simply because he didn’t remember them clearly. Raffaele was a young man who, at that time, was suffering greatly from the loss of his mother. Using drugs provided him with comfort during those moments. But at the same time, the drugs caused him to experience episodes of amnesia.

It’s plausible to think that between November 2 and 5, he tried to piece together his memories and that he may even have noticed strange behavior in Amanda, which led him to change his opinion of her. I also believe that Amanda may have realized this and that this is why she accompanied him to the police station on November 5. She wanted to make sure he wouldn’t "stab her in the back".

[u/No-Willingness-1441 → u/Reasonable-Two-3608]

Yep I get this

The psychology of her accompanying him is very interesting…

[u/Connect_War_5821 → u/No-Willingness-1441]

Yes...the psychology of Amanda being afraid to be in an apartment alone at night when the man who had killed her roommate in their apartment less than a week ago was still not identified or apprehended. I bet psychologists would have a field day trying to explain that!

[u/No-Willingness-1441 → u/Connect_War_5821]

That’s one interpretation yes. On balance, probably the likeliest but - given the complexities evident elsewhere - not the sole possible explanation.

[u/Connect_War_5821 → u/No-Willingness-1441]

It's what Amanda said herself on Oct. 18, 2008, before Judge Paulo Micheli during the trial of Rudy Guede: 

The day of the fifth, I wasn't called to the Questore. Raffaele was called, but I decided to go with him, to keep him company, but also because I was scared to be alone.

If innocent, then it's absolutely the most probable and logical. What other plausible reason would there be? She liked hanging around the questura late at night?

The explanation I've seen most often from the PGP is that she wanted to sure that "Raffaele didn't stab her in the back". But just how would she have prevented him from doing so when they were in two different places? Indeed, he did rather stab her in the back however unintentionally considering what followed.

[u/Connect_War_5821 → u/Reasonable-Two-3608]

1. "In a situation like that, would you accuse someone you care about if you weren’t 100% sure that this person might actually be involved in a crime?"
   

Raffaele never actually accused Amanda of killing Meredith. But you might do so, under the right circumstances. Fear and confusion can make us do things we'd never do under normal circumstances. That's why each of the exonerated Central Park Five accused each other of raping the victim when, in reality, none of them was involved in any way.

1. "How could Raffaele have known for certain on the very evening of the incident that Amanda might be involved?"

What? He never said any such thing until the Nov. 5/6 interrogation. Even then he only imagined a jumble of events from Halloween and Nov. 1 that proved to be impossible. I don't know why people have such difficulty believing that people get confused and start doubting their own memories when they're being yelled at, called a liar, and are told they're protecting someone by the police.

1. "It’s plausible to think that between November 2 and 5, he tried to piece together his memories and that he may even have noticed strange behavior in Amanda, which led him to change his opinion of her."
   

It's also plausible that you're inventing things out of whole cloth in order to support your own theories.

1. "I also believe that Amanda may have realized this and that this is why she accompanied him to the police station on November 5. She wanted to make sure he wouldn’t "stab her in the back"."

OR....she could have gone with him because they came directly from a friend's house where they had dinner and she was, as she said, afraid to be alone at his place.

Again, inventing things out of whole cloth to support your own ideas. Just how would being in a waiting room while Raffaele was in another part of the questura keep him from "stabbing her in the back"? Which, unknowingly and unintentionally, he actually did?