Raffaele Sollecito’s changing alibi

On November 4th, 2007, as the police in perugia were in day three of the murder investigation, the Sunday Mirror in the UK published an article by reporter Kate Mansey. According to her article, Mansey happened to run into Raffaele, who told her about the evening of the first and the morning of the 2nd, when Meredith was found murdered.

According to this version of events from Raffaele, he and Amanda went to a party on the evening of November 1st:

Raffaele had spent the night at his own house on the other side of the city with his girlfriend, Meredith’s American flatmate Amanda Knox, 22. He said: “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.”The next day, around lunchtime, Amanda went back to their apartment to have a shower.”

It is not known if the perugia police were aware of Mansey’s article and Raffaele’s stateements in it; but this version of Rafaelle and Amanda’s actions on November 1 clearly contradicted with whatt Raffaele had already been telling them. The Italian Police may have been watching international reports, like the Italian press was. In fact, the “foxy knoxy” reporting started in the UK; this was not the Italian media attaking Amanda, but the Italian media were reporting on what had been published in the UK media. The UK tabliods found Amanda’s MySpace profile and published headlines about “Foxy knoxy” in the first few days after the murder.

On day three of the investigation, Raffaele had already been into the station and given a witness statement on Nov 2nd.  In that statement to the police, Raffaele said that he and Amanda walked into town on the evening of the 1st before returning back to his house, something not mentioned in Mansey’s article.

On November 5th, day four of the investigation, the police call in Raffaele to the station to answer some further questions, where he will give his third version of what he and Amanda did the night of Nov 1st.

Arguments for the defense

I do not hold any firm views on whether the pair are innocent or if they were involved. As various details in the case get reviewed, they generally fall into either support for the defense, support for the prosecution, or inconclusive. I also attempt to not make the dichotomy of guilty vs. innocent; in this case the two sides are either innocent, or proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the pair were involved. One article I’d read indicated that under Italian law, there is little distinction made between accomplises and those who commit the actual crime; if proven, they’re all equally guilty in the eyes of the law. I’ll have to go back and see if I can find that, or find another reference that supports that argument.

What follows are some preliminary thoughts of a case for the defense, based on what I’ve read up till now. I’m not putting them forth as what I believe- just an interpretation of what I’ve read that could be built to argue for the defense.

I have no doubt that others more familiar with the details can provide a counter-story. In coming days, I’ll work on an argument for the prosecution that would counter these claims.  I’ll also extend this to look at the other testimony and evidence provided.

There are some things that are uncontested. Its uncontested that Knox & Sollecito were getting high the night of the muder. The next day was a holiday; they apparently had plans to go out of town

In arguing for the defense, the conflicting statements of time can easily be explained by the effects of the drugs; simply, you lose track of the passage of time. The conflicting stories about when something happened are thus easily explained away as confusion about time resulting from the use of the drugs. Depending on the usage and the quality of the drugs, this effect can be quite pronounced.

Continue reading