I don't know what to make of it. Is it as Machiavelli says or is it his awkwardness of speech and appearance before a camera or maybe some of the two?
If deliberate on his part I would say it is his gradual falling away from Amanda. If the appeal conviction is confirmed it will be interesting to see what, if anything further, he will say.
I copy and paste for you this comment that I posted on TJMK and PMF (some points about Sollecito’s performance at Porta a Porta):
1. About the question: what does he say 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 what he says that interrogation is
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 it was only his experts who 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. From his interview it seems Knox
didn’t tell him about it.
8. Overall one perceives Sollecito
puts some 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, I never refused 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.
* * *
About point 6. TheConte on PMF wrote this comment:
(...) This was the point where RS lost all possible credibility for me (or would have if he had had any to begin with!) I've just finished watching the interview (my main feeling is that Stabbetta was let off very lightly indeed). Why didn't Vespa push him on whether Amanda was with him the whole evening and night or not?
When asked by Vespa if Amanda went out that evening or night there are only three possible answers:
1) Yes
2) No
3) I don't know/can't be certain etc.
Instead Sollecito ums and ehs for a bit not making any sense and then says that when he and his lawyers looked at the court documents more closely they realised there was a lot of evidence that shows that Konxy wasn't at Sollecito's for at least some of the time that the two claimed they were both in his flat. He then implies that he has come to the conclusion that it is better not to talk about whether she went out or not as that gives him more options and makes his defense stronger!
Who can trust or believe somebody that is not interested in telling the truth, nor even their best truth, but is going to go with the version of events that makes the best defense strategy (AND is stupid enough to admit this on national television!!!)
