Spotlight on Raffaele Sollecito’s Different Versions of Events

Much of the talk about the Meredith Kercher case has been on Amanda Knox, with her boyfriend at the time, Raffaele Sollecito, getting a media pass. Aside from Knox’s voluntary spontaneous statement to police claiming that she may have been at the home during the murder and heard Meredith screaming while Patrick Lumumba was killing her; Raffaele’s versions of events on the evening of the murder are undeniably the more conspicuous of the two suspects. Perhaps that is why he decided not to testify!

Story # 1:

Just two days after the murder, Raffaele Sollecito gave an interview to Kate Mansey of the UK’s Sunday Mirror in which he explained his first version of the events.

“It was a normal night. Meredith had gone out with one of her English friends and Amanda and I went to party with one of my friends.”

Raffaele has never identified this imaginary friend or party since this interview, nor has he ever spoken of this version since.

Raffaele also claims in this interview that Knox was afraid when she noticed that spots of blood in her bathroom, and “she ran back” to his flat in fear. This is quite contrary to what Knox said on the witness stand during trial.

Amanda Knox Testimony (June 12, 2009):

“At first I thought they had come from my ears. But then when I scratched the drops a bit, I saw they were all dry, and I thought ‘That’s weird. Oh well, I'll take my shower.’”

After that, she dried her hair, got dressed and calmly returned to Raffaele’s apartment.

Amanda Knox Testimony (June 12, 2009):

“…Then he came out and we made breakfast, and while we were preparing it and drinking coffee, I explained to him what I had seen, and I asked him for advice, because when I went into my house, everything seemed in order, only there were these little weird things, and I couldn't figure out how to understand them.”

This is hardly the panicked girl that Raffaele described.

A few days after the interview, police intercepted a call between Raffaele and his father. During the call, according to police, Raffaele’s father said to him, “Raffaele, don’t walk about with a knife; if police find it on you who knows what they may think.” Raffaele responded by saying, “Well, they have already questioned me and they didn’t find it on me, those stupid policemen.” Raffaele was speaking of a small flick-knife that he was known to carry around. This conversation prompted police to call him in for further questioning, which ultimately led to his and Knox’s arrest. Coincidentally, experts for the defense argued that the Marietti knife that the prosecution offered up as the murder weapon was too big to have caused the wounds on Kercher’s neck, and that a smaller knife, such as a flick-knife probably caused the fatal wound.


Story # 2:

Raffaele told police that he and Knox stayed at his flat the entire night of November 1, 2007 (night of the murder).

Story # 3:

During his November 5, 2007 interrogation and subsequent arrest, Sollecito wanted to come clean, and he told police that his previous version to them was “un sacco di cazzate” (a load of rubbish). “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).

In this version, he told investigators that he and Knox returned to his flat at approximately 8:30pm, and that Knox left his apartment, while he stayed there, and she returned at around 1:00am. He claimed that he believed that she went to see if she had to work that evening. This was clearly an attempt to exonerate himself from any culpability, as Knox had received a text message from her then boss, Patrick Lumumba, at 8:19pm that evening informing Knox that it was slow at the bar and she would not be needed to work that evening.


Story # 4:

Some like to point the finger at police and say that they were forceful during their interrogations with Knox and Sollecito and that is why they both changed their stories so much. However, after his arrest, Raffaele wrote several letters to his father while in prison. One letter to his father explained in detail the version above. This was written under no duress. In the letter, Raffaele explains to his father that he and Knox had arrived at his flat at about 8 – 8:30pm on the night of the murder. “Amanda had [then] left for work,” he writes, but he could not remember how long she was gone—but he writes that he is “certain” that Knox had stayed with him the “entire night.”

Explaining Amanda to his father in the letters, Raffaele wrote of her:

“She lived her life like a dream, she was detached from reality, she couldn't distinguish dream from reality. Her life seemed to be pure pleasure; she had a contact with reality that was almost non-existent.”

Then, he shows uncertainty whether or not Knox had committed the murder (or knew something about it) and blatantly calls her a liar...Raffaele writes to his father:

“I try to understand what Amanda's role was in this event. The Amanda that I know is an Amanda who lives a carefree life. Her only thought is the pursuit of pleasure at all times. But even the thought that she could be a killer is impossible for me. I have read her version of events. Some of the things she said are not true, but I don't know why she said them.”

www.truejustice.org has compiled all of the unanswered questions pertaining to the case (SEE HERE) that have been asked over the years and featured them in one article. Please visit the link for a comprehensive look at all of these and many other questions still left unanswered.

Don’t Let the Truth Get in the Way of a Good Story: 10 False Claims on the Knox Case

In light of the recent indictment on Amanda Knox’s parents for defamation, it seems only fair to illuminate further the many false statements made by the Knox family and others. These untrue statements below are only a few of the many that have been asserted throughout this process and are not related to their indictment; they instead show the pattern of rhetoric over the last few years regarding the case. The underlying point in this story is the America media’s obsession with not letting the truth get in the way of a good story.

One might think that the family has simply innocently mistaken the facts of the case after this post, but remember that the Knox family hired David Marriott of Gogerty Stark Marriott, a Seattle, Washington (US) based publication relations consultant, soon after the charges against their daughter. Their public relations campaign has been predicated on the notions that there was no evidence against Amanda, and an inferior Italian justice system; the American media bought it hook line and sinker.

The validity and veracity of any of these statements can be checked by viewing either of the two Italian judge’s reports on the case: (Micheli Sentencing Report of 26 January 2009) and (Massei Sentencing Report of March 2010)

Let’s take a look at some examples:



False claims # 1 - 3: “His [Rudy Guede’s] DNA was in her [Kercher’s] purse, after the crime he all of a sudden had money that he didn’t have earlier in the day…when he was on the run and police were secretly wiretapping him, and he was talking to a friend of his, the friend said, ‘you know, they think Amanda was there,’ and he goes, ‘oh, I know who Amanda is and she was absolutely not there’” (Minute 3:16 above)

FACT: Somehow, Edda was creatively able to squeeze 3 completely false statements into a very short amount of time. The first is a completely false statement with no proof to back this up. No evidence was ever provided, nor was ever even brought up at any hearing in the case, from the prosecution or the defense, indicating that Guede had stolen Meredith’s money. The second: Guede’s DNA was found on the zipper of Kercher’s purse, not inside of it.

And the third: the transcript of that call to a friend that Guede made while unknowingly being recorded by police shows that Guede claimed not even to be there that evening. How could he say Amanda was “absolutely not there” if he himself claimed not to be there? Rubbish, as they say in the UK! Moreover, in the only other coversation that Guede had with a friend that was recorded by police, he says, "...Amanda or Raffaele did it."

False claim # 4: “They believe Meredith was killed at about 9.30pm” on Larry King Live (minute 1:37 above)

FACT: Knox’s mother makes this statement in order to explain that Amanda and Raffaele were at his apartment as late as 9:15p.m., and they could not have killed Meredith by 9:30p.m. Perugia Police Pathologist, Dr. Luca Lalli, was the first to examine the body. Italian coroner, Francesco Introna, also examined the body. Professor Introna concluded that the initial attack took place sometime between 9:30p.m., and 10:30p.m., and Dr. Lalli determined that Kercher’s time of death came between 8:00p.m., and 4:00a.m., on November 1, 2007 and November 2, 2007. Raffaele's flat was about a 10 minute walk from the cottage.



False claim # 5: “The prosecution had to admit that there was no physical evidence” (Minute 4:29 above)

FACT: The prosecution took nearly five-months indentifying and laying out the evidence against Knox and Sollecito during the trial, using the testimony of several specialists to prove the validity of the evidence. Not once has the prosecution made the claim that they had no evidence, physical or otherwise.



False claim # 6: Michael Archer – “There’s no evidence that brings Amanda into this crime scene; there’s no footprints, there’s no blood of hers there, there’s no biological fluids of her there; it perplexes me to see how they achieved a conviction” (minute 5:37 above).

FACT: Mr. Archer, who has consulted with the Knox family and is somehow listed as a forensic scientist, should be ashamed of himself for claiming to have “reviewed the [case] report” and misrepresenting the facts as he has above. You can either come to two conclusions regarding Mr. Archer’s statements here: he is either being paid by the Knox family to misrepresent the facts, or he is simply not a good forensic scientist and his reading comprehension is poor at best.

After CNN legal analyst, Lisa Bloom, points out that there was DNA of Amanda’s in the bathroom, Mr. Archer then says, “for Amanda’s DNA to be in her own bathroom…is not evidence of guilt of a murder” (minute 7:30 above). He has clearly made up his mind here and is not going to be swayed by the truth of the evidence, nor is he going to even acknowledge that there was a mix of Knox and Kercher’s blood in 3 spots in the house as well as footprints tracked by Knox in Meredith’s blood.

False claim 7: Anne Bremner, Spokesperson for ‘Friends of Amanda’ – “There is no evidence of Amanda Knox at the actual crime scene.” (minute 1:02 above)

FACT: The crime scene involves the whole cottage and it isn’t limited simply to Meredith’s room. Knox and Sollecito were both convicted based on their staging of the break-in and tampering with the crime scene. Moreover, there is plenty of evidence actually placing Amanda Knox in Meredith’s room on the night of the murder: the double DNA knife, and the blood she tracked into the bathroom, the hallway, Filomena’s room, and her own room. According to two imprint experts, there was a woman’s bloody shoeprint on the pillow under Meredith’s body which matched Knox’s foot size. Even Sollecito’s forensic consultant, Professor Vinci, claimed that he had found Amanda Knox’s DNA on Meredith’s bra.

Guede’s footprints went straight from Meredith’s room to the front door of the cottage. There is no physical evidence indicating that Guede went into either Filomena’s room or the bathroom used by both Knox and Kercher. “…Rudy, who, on leaving Meredith’s room (according to what the shoe prints show), directed himself towards the exit without deviating or stopping in other rooms” (Massei, pg. 379). Guede could not have staged the break-in or cleaned the cottage after the murder. Moreover, the clean-up and staged break-in benefited Knox and Sollecito more; accroding to Judge Massie, “...without which, lacking signs of forced entry at the door, Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito would have been the first under suspicion” (Massei, pg. 88).



False claim # 8: Peter Van Sant, 48 Hours Correspondent – “Why would Amanda Knox lie to police [regarding her signed confession]? Well it turns out that her ‘so called’ confession came after an all night 14 hour interrogation in which she was denied food, water, sleep, and legal representation” (minute 1:06 above).

FACT: Shame on you Peter Van Sant, 48 Hours Correspondent! Her questioning began at 11:00p.m., on the 5th and ended at 5:45a.m., on the 6th (Nov.), far from 14 hours. Moreover, Knox confessed to being in the house during the murder after only 2-plus hours, at which time she implicated Patrick Lumumba of being the murderer.

False claim # 9: Private investigator, Paul Ciolino – “Amanda and Raffaele never laid eyes on Rudy [Guede], never met with him, and never hung out with him—didn’t know him” (minute 2:34 above).

FACT: This is probably the most ridiculous statement of them all. This guy is a private investigator? He should keep his findings private! This program was aired on 19 June 2009, just seven days after Amanda testified at her own trial. Not only did Knox and Guede know each other, they met on more than one occasion, even smoked weed together—as testified to much earlier in the trial by all three Italian boys who lived downstairs from Meredith and Amanda. With just minimal research, Mr. Ciolino could have read the trial transcripts before completely discrediting himself and making himself look foolish.

Here’s the actual court transcript:

Carlo Pacelli (CP), Patrick Lumumba’s lawyer: Did you know Rudy Hermann Guede?
Amanda Knox (AK): Not much.
CP: In what circumstances did you meet him?
AK: I was in the center, near the church. It was during an evening when I met the guys that lived underneath in the apartment underneath us, and while I was mingling with them, they introduced me to Rudy.
CP: So it was on the occasion of a party at the house of the neighbors downstairs?
AK: Yes. What we did is, they introduced me to him [Rudy] downtown just to say “This is Rudy, this is Amanda”, and then I spent most of my time with Meredith, but we all went back to the house together.
CP: Did you also know him, or at least see him, in the pub “Le Chic”, Rudy?
AK: I think I saw him there once.
CP: Listen, this party at the neighbors, it took place in the second half of October? What period, end of October? 2007?
AK: I think it was more in the middle of October.

False claim # 10: Edda tells Linda Byron that Amanda hasn’t changed her story, in an interview with KING 5 News. Linda Byron: “Did she [Amanda] change her story?” Edda Mellas: “No, no. For this whole year they have maintained the story what they did that night. They stayed at Raffaele’s, they made dinner, they watched a movie. That’s it, that’s the story.”

FACT: Both Knox and Sollecito each gave three different alibis.