Raffaele Sollecito ‘doesn’t want to pay’ for Amanda Knox’s ‘peculiar behavior’

wenn21039118

Earlier this week we discussed the ongoing situation with Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, and how he’s stuck in Italy for a retrial. Sollecito is really starting to distance himself from Amanda, but he has not changed the basics of his story. He’s really just saying that he too has questions about Amanda’s behavior but that he personally did not do anything illegal or anything. Now, in a new interview with People Mag, his lawyer has come right out and said it: Sollecito is distancing himself from Amanda.

The united front that Amanda Knox and her ex-boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito have shared may be fading as he tries to separate his case from hers for their next appeal.

“He stands by his testimony regarding the events of that night and the next day, but he needs for the Italian courts to understand that any evidence against Amanda is not applicable to him,” Sollecito’s American attorney tells PEOPLE.

The attorney adds: “Yes, he is distancing himself from Amanda’s case, because he’s facing 25 years in jail and he’s in Italy, and there’s not a scintilla of evidence against him.”

Knox, 26, and Sollecito, 29, spent four years in an Italian prison for the brutal stabbing murder of Meredith Kercher before a higher court voided their conviction in 2011. The case appeared before an appellate court, and the pair were convicted again last month. She was given 28 ½ years; he was given 25 years. They are both appealing the conviction.

In a recent interview on CNN, Sollecito said there is no evidence to support a conviction.

“There is nothing against me and nothing very strong against Amanda,” Sollecito says. “And in my case, I really did nothing wrong, and I don’t want to pay for someone else’s peculiar behavior.”

Attempts to reach Knox were unsuccessful. She has long maintained that Sollecito was forced to experience her nightmare solely because of his association with her. On Feb. 11, she wrote on her blog: “The only reason he has been dragged into this is because he happens to be my alibi. He is collateral damage in the unreasonable, irresponsible, and unrelenting scapegoating of the prosecution’s grotesque caricature that is ‘Foxy Knoxy.’ ”

The case is expected to conclude next year before Italy’s highest court.

[From People]

John Q. Kelly, Sollecito’s lawyer, also told Reuters: “It’s imperative that the Italian courts consider Raffaele’s case separate from Amanda’s case. By necessity, he has to distance himself and his case from Amanda and her case. The facts and the evidence with regard to each of them is entirely different.” Sounds more like this is all part of a nuanced legal argument rather than “Sollecito hates Amanda Knox now, he thinks she’s a murderer!” It’s interesting to note that Sollecito’s case doesn’t get better if people think Amanda really is a killer. It’s not either/or with Amanda and Raffaele. If Amanda’s case looks bad, then Sollecito looks bad.

wenn21041691

wenn20311071

Photos courtesy of WENN.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

58 Responses to “Raffaele Sollecito ‘doesn’t want to pay’ for Amanda Knox’s ‘peculiar behavior’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. smee says:

    That’s kinda shizzy, but I get it. She’s “safe” in the U.S. and never going back and he needs to do whatever to stay out of jail. He should have gtfo when he could have. Being a fugitive seeking asylum would be way better than counting on a fair trail in the Italian legal system.

    The worst part of all of this, the actual killer is already in jail and this is just a bunch of balderdash.

    • Seapharris7 says:

      I tend to agree. The prosecutor guy pushing this has apparently had a history of pressing false charges. The crazy kinky sex story he spun seemed highly unlikely but it helped him get more publicity

    • Nerd Alert says:

      I agree. When an entire corrupt police force is trying to convict you of murder, you do anything you have to in order to stay free, especially if you are not a murderer.

      • TG says:

        But when Amanda lied to police and blamed it on her boss at the bar so she could go free everyone was ready to burn her at the stake. Why is it okay for Sollicito to now start casting shade on Amanda’s story just so he can go free? If he really feels that way he should have done that the first time around, not now. I agree that he should be tried separately though. I also don’t think it is right to ever lie and blame it on someone else just to save your own skin, but then again I have never been in that situation. I guess those are the moments when you find out what you are made of. I also noticed his version is just changing slightly, he isn’t outright accusing Amanda of murder, he is just casting doubt about a few hours she spent without him and I wonder why he did’t wonder about that a long time ago. I also wonder if Amanda’s absence helped convict them both. I think they saw it as her thumbing her nose at them so they were going to convict her regardless and they could hardly let him go free and not her.

      • ScotiaNov says:

        @TG, there is a huge difference between Amanda Knox blaming an innocent man, who was jailed based on her life , and Raffaele simply trying to distance himself from Amanda. Raffaele has not come out and blamed Amanda, claiming that she is guilty.

        I don’t know why the Pro-Amanda crowd keeps defending her, she is not a nice person and she has a checkered past. She used drugs in Italy. Also, although it was not anything serious, she had been in trouble in the USA before she ever went to Italy. She was cited for vandalism in the USA, involved in some rock throwing incident. Sure, not serious like a murder, but how many normal 21 year olds go around doing this?

        Just keep defending her…..whatever.

      • Nerd Alert says:

        @TG

        Yes, it’s okay for him to lie. Amanda is free in the US and he is trapped in Italy awaiting ANOTHER trial, and if anyone understands that, it’s her. He’s desperate now, and it really is a shame he couldn’t flee. If I were in his shoes and I were innocent, I would be doing anything I could to escape the insanely corrupt Italian justice system, which makes a habit of prosecuting scientists for not delivering weather/earthquake warnings on time. Not to mention their penchant for tampering with evidence time and time again. I’m pretty sure the REAL killer (Rudy) is getting off pretty easily, but who can tell with their corrupt system? I sure as sh!t would lie in order to level the playing field. Yes, 100%.

        Who is guilty here? The Italian police and justice system! They’ve completely discredited themselves over a period of decades to the point where nothing they do or say can be trusted. Why have faith in their form of justice? Why play it straight when you have no choice but to go up against an army of corruption? Is it worth telling the truth to lose 25 years of your life, even when you’ve told it time and time again? I think if we’re being honest, it’s easy and acceptable to throw someone under the bus who will never face the same consequences as you. If I were Amanda, I’d give him the green light.

      • Irishserra says:

        @TG: Because casting shade as a practical maneuver and outright blaming someone for murder are two very different things. I agree with you that it is not okay to lie to save your own skin but desperation makes people rationalize things they might not otherwise. Sollecito’s attorney is recommending this position and he is a very desperate young man who understands that in this situation, public opinion has been moved by emotion rather than the facts and he had better start appealing to that emotion if he wants a chance at freedom. He assumes (arguably rightly so) that the long-term damage to Amanda Knox will be minimal in comparison to the situation he finds himself in.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        TG, Amanda did not blame her boss. Patrick’s name came from the POLICE! They told her he did it. They told her to imagine that he did it and that she was there. She refused. They kept pressing, telling her to imagine that he had done it, to imagine that she had been there and heard the crime. After hours and abuse, she gave in and gave them a hypothetical.

    • bravocueen says:

      Not to mention that the real killer will be out of jail in a very short time since he took a plea.

      • fairyvexed says:

        I can hardly wait till the offenderati show up to get angry at Knox implicating an innocent man under duress while ignoring the fact that the murderer got his sentence cut numerous times for implicating an innocent woman. He’s served, what? Six or eight years? What a bargain.

    • CharlotteS says:

      Just because some people think she’s a bad person doesn’t mean she deserves to spend her life in jail .

  2. GoodNamesAllTaken says:

    I was going through some stuff when this case came out and paid very little attention to it. I would be interested to know if cb posters think she is guilty. From what I have read this year, the case against both of them seems shaky.

    • Krista says:

      I think that she is innocent and that the prosecutors are he’ll bent on putting Amanda in jail. Aka a witch hunt, even though the real killer is already in prison.
      My hunch is that she was probably was a partier (foxy knoxy) but that this whole situation has scared her straight and humbled her in a huge way. To that point that she seems too introverted and “weird”.
      It would be nice if everyone involved could get on with their lives. Especially Meredith’s family.

      • fairyvexed says:

        “Foxy knoxy” is a nickname she was given when she was six—–because she was so quick and smart while playing soccer. That pretty much sums up the whole case there.

      • Krista says:

        Fairyvexed, seriously? I had no idea. Ugh you’re right.

      • fairyvexed says:

        Krista, yes, that shows you how the prosecution side twisted everything. I think it’s a useful way of assessing what someone has read—–or not read. The prosecution/Nadeau side will use that nickname salaciously.

    • Angie says:

      According to Prof. Alan Dershowitz, A Harvard law professor and successful criminal defense attorney, there was enough evidence against them both to warrant submission to the jury. Of Amanda he says he does not know if she is guilty, but absolutely would never want his son to start dating her.

      • Erinn says:

        Smart guy!
        I tend to think she may be innocent of comitting murder, but I don’t think she’s perfectly innocent either. The whole case is kind of fishy, and I think she’s leaving out information possibly.

      • fairyvexed says:

        Alan Dershowitz is kind of a scumbag with a big ego. I wouldn’t trust him further than I could throw him. He also seems to take particular relish in defending men who attack women—-and he likes to attack those women as a cheap way of defending his clients. He doesn’t gave a client here—or does he?—– but there IS a woman he can go after.

      • Sarah says:

        Alan Dershowitz has repeatedly demonstrated he doesn’t know the basic facts of the case. I, too, am a lawyer and am often dismayed when seeing my fellow lawyers speaking publicly on cases I have researched. Those who will appear on television quite frequently haven’t done the research they should have before giving an opinion. On this case, Dershowitz has failed. He talks about Amanda’s DNA being on the “murder weapon” without having any clue that the actual murder weapon has never been found.

        The pair of them had nothing to do with this murder. All of the prosecution’s purported evidence falls apart with the slightest examination.

    • smee says:

      I recommend reading this article – I think it gives a very fair and accurate account of what actually occurred and is concentrated on Meridith (the victim) and the details of the crime (not just conjecture about Amanda’s “weird” behavior afterwards)

      http://www.salon.com/2014/02/09/amanda_knox_what_really_happened_writing_toward_the_actual_story/

      • Krista says:

        Thanks for linking to this!

      • reba says:

        Thanks smee
        I agree 100% with Katie Crouch. I wish all the best for Raffaelle. I wish all the best to Amanda as well because even though she may succeed in life, it has to be hell (a kind of prison) to live without ever being able to fully clear your name.

      • Jenny says:

        Not to be mean Smee, but how could you possibly post that link as an accurate portrayal of “what actually occurred” and not conjecture, when the piece you linked to is admittedly complete conjecture, written by a novelist as a fictional account loosely based on the facts of this case. You just lost ALL credibility and I am sorry I wasted my time reading that article.

        This is what really grinds my gears about posts on this topic; most posters are so “sure” of what happened, either way, but all they have to back up their opinion is just more conjecture and name calling of the other side. *Sigh*

      • Nymeria says:

        @ smee – This article was not only poorly written (“Knox, along with Raffeale Sollecito, Knox’s boyfriend of a few days, were [sic] convicted in 2009″) but implausible, based on the few facts that aren’t disputed. The author conjectures that Guede broke into the house alone, and was just finishing up his lovely fecal contribution to the household when he heard Meredith come home a little after 8 p. m. He then made his way to her bedroom, his entrance eliciting from Meredith a scream. This scenario makes no sense, as the glass from the broken window was scattered both under and atop the clothing in Philomena, one of the roommate’s, room. Further, trying to throw a rock through the wooden trellis outside Philomena’s window would have required Olympian skill, though it’s possible he had a lucky shot. It still wouldn’t explain the odd placement of broken glass in Philomena’s room, nor the lack of anything actually stolen from her room. As for Meredith’s scream, neighbours testified to hearing a scream a little after 11 p. m., not 8.

        Katie Crouch, the Salon author, also says that we should “Forget Knox’s strange early morning errand of getting a mop to clean under Raffaele’s sink. Forget the kissing at the crime scene. Forget the yoga in the police station and Knox’s accusation of an innocent man while she was under interrogation in a language she barely understood. That all belonged to the story after the murder.” Well, sorry, sister, but we might as well forget about O. J.’s glove and bronco chase, because, hey, those things happened after the murder! What kind of logic is this?

        Crouch’s thesis, that Knox & Sollecito are innocent, hinges on the argument that Knox & Sollecito are innocent because it would make no sense for them to have left Sollecito’s cozy man-cave – where they could do whatever they wanted and ignore the outside world – just to go bump off a roommate. Well, duh. Just because that would have made more sense than going to Knox’s house and participating in the murder of her roommate doesn’t mean that they didn’t choose the illogical route.

        Bottom line, no one will ever know precisely what happened that night. All we have are a very few agreed-upon facts, and Occam’s razor.

      • Krista says:

        Woah! Haters gonna hate. Smee didn’t write that article. Even though it’s conjecture it still hashes out the unknown events in all practical way.

      • Irishserra says:

        I didn’t get any further than the first few paragraphs simply for the fact that the article is so poorly written. Anyone want to summarize?

    • Birdie says:

      There were lengthy discussions about this and lots of people think that she didn’t murder her, but that she knows much more than she says. Maybe because Knox was high or something else was going on. In my opinion, we will never know if she is guilty because of the horrible job the italian authorities did and the basis for her second conviction is laughable.

      • winosaurusrex says:

        wonderful point of view and very succinctly put. Thank you for that @smee.

      • Tellie says:

        I never thought Amanda actually committed the murder, but I think she participated in it, or something of that nature. So perhaps she does feel she is “innocent” in a way, but she is not really. And I know that just being weird, a slut and drug user doesn’t equal “murderer” but its not a stretch to think she could have been violent.

    • Irishserra says:

      It is shaky evidence. Amanda Knox is undoubtedly an arrogant person with mediocre intelligence and little common sense or empathy (a combination long held to be synonymous with “American” – even if unfair at times) and Sollecito has been deemed guilty by association.

      The initial evidence against the pair was determined to be laughably inadequate – tainted and misinterpreted – which eventually was taken into consideration and led to freedom for Knox and Sollecito.

      The solid evidence against Rudy along with his history of obsession with Kercher and his criminal past were sufficient to put him where he belongs.

      Knox was not well liked by Meredith or her friends well before Meredith’s murder and their contentious relationship was ultimately the seed that was used to grow the motive to initially convict Amanda Knox. The lack of love lost between the two girls, along with Knox’s low EQ undoubtedly contributed to the lack of empathy shown by Knox, which further compounded the idea regarding Knox’s possible motive.

      • Lex says:

        Hhahahah what on earth… “Amanda Knox is undoubtedly an arrogant person with mediocre intelligence and little common sense or empathy”

        Undoubtedly???!??!?!

        Please read back over this and understand how ridiculous you sound…………………….

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      Thank you so much to everyone who answered. Interesting case. I think I’m falling in with the people who think we will never really know.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        I have tried leaving you links, but they never post!

        There are two sites, both bias in their own ways, but I think it is good to hear both sides. The pro-Knox site is called Injustice In Perugia dot org. The site that is supported by Meredith’s family and is anti-knox is True Justice dot org.

        Also there are articles about how the court appointed experts that were brought in after the first trial found 54 instances of mistakes by the crime scene investigators. They also found, for example, that what the prosecution said was Kercher’s blood on a knife in the first trial was actually rye bread.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        Thank you, Tiffany. That was very helpful and thoughtful of you!

        They thought rye bread was blood? Yikes.

  3. LB says:

    It’s a smart strategy. I don’t blame him one bit.

  4. Jenny says:

    For the most part posters seems to have very strong feelings on this case one way or the other. I don’t really know, but the long hair was much more flattering on her. That’salligot *shrug*

  5. Seapharris7 says:

    To me, based on EVERYTHING I’ve read – I still cannot feel confident either way. At least not as sure as I was of the guilt of OJ, Scott Peterson, Drew Peterson, or Casey Anthony. But like Oj’s, you can poke holes in how evidence was obtained. Amanda acted bizarre, but I’d be willing to believe there were drugs involved more than I would have thought she murdered someone. I think it’s insane they are being tried again.

  6. winosaurusrex says:

    Personally I think she’s innocent of the murder. The evidence put Rudy Guede (sp?) away but the prosecutor thought that it must have taken more than one person to murder Meredith. Rudy got a deal and implicated the others.

    I have long held suspicion that Amanda may have a mild form of Aspergers which explains her “odd” behavior.

    I hope Meredith’s family finds away to heal and celebrate Meredith and her life, but I find the Italian legal circus a joke and don’t think high profile cases especially stand a fair shot at all. I know the US’s legal system is flawed, but it seems to me you have a better shot at a fair trial then being tried over and over and over ad infintium.

  7. ScotiaNov says:

    Raffaele is probably sorry that he ever associated with Amanda Knox at all.

    The fact is, she does seem disconnected and strange when she is interviewed. There is some evidence against her, and she gave conflicting stories about her whereabouts on the night of the murder. She has never had a solid alibi for what she did that evening. Amanda also blamed an innocent man for Meredith’s murder, he was jailed for 2 weeks until he was freed because he’d been working at his bar that night of the murder. She was also a drug user, which doesn’t help her credibility.

    Amanda has blamed everything on the interrogation tactics of the Italian police, and also claimed that any evidence against her was fabricated, or the result of shoddy police work. Its like she tries so hard to explain everything away. Even Raffaele seems to question whether or not she is innocent.

    Although I do not think Amanda actually murdered Meredith, I think she was involved in some way.

    • sapphoandgrits says:

      There is no evidence against her, none. Zero. Nor against Raffale. There is a boatload against the man who raped, murdered, and robbed Meredith, the man who stated Amanda Knox wasn’t involved, the man who is in prison for the murder and who will be given work release this year. THAT is the scandal of Ms. Kercher’s death, and what her family should be raging against.

      Raffaele is also upset Amanda wouldn’t marry him a few months ago. I really wish he had stayed in the DR instead of returning to Italy.

      • ScotiaNov says:

        Amanda’s DNA was found on the murder weapon. That is some evidence right there.

      • winosaurusrex says:

        yea….minimal amount of DNA on a knife from her own house-whose blade did not fit the wounds on Meredith’s body. That DNA?

        I dare you to run all the knives in your house for DNA. Let me know how many of those come back with NO DNA from those who use them.

      • Vanessa says:

        And considering the massive amount of DNA evidence against Guede found in the room (skin cells, fingerprints, bloody palm print, etc), I find it very unlikely that she could have been in the room during the murder and left without leaving behind any DNA.

      • Sarah says:

        ScotiaNov, it wasn’t the murder weapon. It was too big to have caused the wounds. Also, the killer (Rudy Guede) set the knife down on the bed at one point, leaving a bloody imprint. The knife everyone’s been talking about is bigger than that imprint.

        The knife that is part of this case was simply one of many knives in Raffaele’s kitchen drawer. This was the only one that was tested. It was literally plucked out of his drawer. Why this knife? Because an investigator thought it looked “too clean.” Simply put, this knife had nothing to do with anything. The reason Amanda’s DNA was on the handle is because she had used it while cooking at Raffaele’s apartment.

        The actual murder weapon has never been found. Presumably, Guede ditched it somewhere on his route to Germany, the country he fled to the day after the murder.

      • fairyvexed says:

        Nymeria, there are facts and there are theories. And then there’s bullshit. The bleach and the bucket have never even been shown to exist. Where is the receipt entered into evidence? Where are the photos? If the prosecution had such evidence, would they keep it secret? (Ominous music!) Where?

        This stuff leaves a trail. You have no trail. You have Barbie Nadeau’s bitchery and the prosecution’s sexist fantasies. That’s it.

  8. Merritt says:

    The whole focus on the two of them seems to stem from the fact that she acted “strange”, as though there is a set way to act when your roommate is murdered. So I don’t think it is strange that he is saying that her allegedly strange behavior should affect him. I don’t think he is throwing her under the bus as much as people are implying.

  9. Pumpkin Pie says:

    Something that was said in connection to Raffaele kind of bugs me, apparently he asked his father to lie about his whereabouts that night, say that they were together. That didn’t sit well with me. Also, buying bleach at 8am, in that context, sounds bizarre as well. I admit I didn’t follow the whole story (I hate to say story, sorry about that) but I do think both Raffaele and Amanda have something to hide. I don’t know what.
    I do look forward to hearing what Raffaele has to say next. It doesn’t mean that I want them to be guilty.

    • Sarah says:

      There was no bleach purchase at 8 am. This is one of the fake “facts” about the case that has so thoroughly taken hold, people believe it as gospel truth despite it being pure fabrication. Some 10 months after the murder, long after Italian and British tabloid media had established “Foxy Knoxy” as an evil she-devil, a store owner got paid by a reporter and suddenly remembered seeing Amanda in the cleaning aisle of his store that morning. There has never been one shred of evidence to substantiate this claim and more reason to doubt the store owner than I’ve mentioned. This claim was nothing more than a guy trying to cash in on the cottage industry that had sprung up around this case.

      • Nymeria says:

        Most pro-Knox writers agree that there was a bleach purchase, and that a mop & bucket were on the porch of Knox’s house the day after the murder. However, they do hilarious logical gymnastics to explain these facts away. See the amusing Salon story for examples of such gymnastics.

      • Vanessa says:

        There’s even video of evidence collection at Raffaele’s house that shows the receipts collected and the only one found after the murder was for pizza. I think a receipt for bleach was found dated for the previous March, a good 7 months before the murder. There are a lot of “facts” going around for this case, making it difficult to determine what was real evidence and what was made up to sell a story.

      • Pumpkin Pie says:

        Sarah & Vanessa, thanks, that’s good to know

        Oh and I forgot to say, the court has to explain its decision, that’s due a couple of months from now

      • fairyvexed says:

        “Most” “pro – Knox writers, Nymeria? Did you poll them? And there was no bleach and no receipt but now that you said that I can tell what and who YOU have read and what you want to believe.

      • Nymeria says:

        @ fairyvexed – Yes, most of the pro-Knox writers I’ve read allude to the bleach and the mop & bucket, but find hilarious ways of explaining these bits of evidence away. Still, the many sources that say yes, there was bleach purchased and yes, there was bleach used to clean that house are nothing against your groundless assertion that “there was no bleach and no receipt.” We can all rest easy; fairyvexed has spoken.

        The Knox PR team has done an excellent job of whitewashing her image AND of belittling evidence that counts against her. Case in point.

        Your tone is aggressive. I had nothing to do with this case; I’m merely sharing the knowledge I’ve gleaned from writers both pro- and anti-Knox. It matters not to me whether people agree with my point of view or not; people are entitled to read as much or as little about the case as they’d like, and draw their own conclusions. The more valid conclusions are those that take into account the evidence harped by both sides, but nobody knows exactly what happened that night. Let me say that again: None of us were there, none of us “polled” any writers (oh, for Pete’s sake), and none of us knows for sure what happened or didn’t happen that night. We have a very few agreed-upon facts and Occam’s razor to help us suppose (not know, but suppose) what really happened.

      • Sarah says:

        It’s a good rule of thumb to weed out true reporters on this case from the trashy liars by looking for this bleach thing. Any credible, serious person might mention the store owner making this claim so long after the fact, but will note that none of this was mentioned at trial because it so obviously did not happen.

        As for why Raffaele and Amanda had that mop and bucket out on the front step, Nymeria knows perfectly well what the explanation is. Raffaele had a leaky pipe in his apartment (confirmed by his landlord). Being a rather typical guy, he didn’t have a mop, so they were bringing this one back to his apartment. She’d already forgotten it the first time she left her place that morning, being so weirded out by all the little things that were off. So this time, they just thought they’d go ahead and take it outside while they waited for the police, so they wouldn’t forget again. At that point, they still didn’t know that a murder had occurred.

  10. Nicole S says:

    “It’s not either/or with Amanda and Raffaele. If Amanda’s case looks bad, then Sollecito looks bad.”

    Logically – yes. In the Italian judicial system… eh?

  11. Wow Shock says:

    She and Raffy were the chief instigators. Most people in this thread obviously read only the US news, which has been overtaken by the Knox’s PR spin machine. If you’d read the original court docs, you’d be highly doubtful of her innocence. The crazy prosecutor didn’t have much to do with the actual judgement; the Massei court had its own theories. Besides, it was a different prosecutor who pursued this latest verdict, and a different judge. To start, I recommend you read the webiste murder of meredith kercher dot com. Wonderful website summarising original testimony and documents.
    Paul Callan thinks she did it. Dershowitz said that it’s more likely that she did than not. Julian Ku said he never thought the trial was unfair. These two drug-addled delinquents should be behind bars.