Chapter 1 Overview: Multiple Knox Versions v One Solid Official Narrative

1. Court-Accepted Events Of 5-6 November 2007

This is an overview of Knox’s so-called “interrogation” at Perugia’s central police station, the subject of the first ten posts.

It led to her arrest and three years served. To make this picture really firm we will quote a lot of the testimony at trial. The Case Wiki carries all of these transcripts, many in English translation, and more. 

Senior Inspector Rita Ficarra testified that she arrived back at the police station late on 5 November, and finds her way blocked by a cartwheeling Knox.

She rebukes Knox, who testily responds that she is tired of the investigation. Rita Ficarra tells Knox to go home and get some sleep. Knox testily refuses, and remains there.

Shortly after, Ficarra suggests to Knox that if she really wants to help, she could add to the list of possible perps - men who Meredith knew and who might have visited the house.

As the defenses themselves acknowledge during their cross-examinations of key investigators present on the night, this was an informal recap/summary session, a simple checking of facts with someone who might or might not be of help.

This could have been done on a street corner or in a house by a single officer. It was not a witness or suspect interrogation.

Knox eagerly agrees. So they begin on the list.

This goes slowly because of language problems, until an interpreter, Anna Donnino, arrives. In total only Knox and four others (three of them women) are present.

Knox builds a list of seven people and adds maps and phone numbers (placed in evidence) in a calm proceeding. These were the names: Peter Svizzero, Patrick, Ardak, Juve, Spiros, Shaki and “a South African [Guede]” who played basketball near the house.

At several points in the evening Knox is provided with refreshments. No voices are ever raised, no bathroom breaks are refused.

Inspector Napoleoni and a couple of colleagues are seeking facts from Sollecito in a separate wing. Shown conflicts between what he has said and what his phone records show, Sollecito backtracks and declares that Knox went out alone, and made him lie.

Knox is gently informed of this, and nobody reports any immediate reaction. Knox defense lawyers in cross examination do not go there at all.

Suddenly, to the considerable surprise of all present, Knox has a yelling, head-clutching conniption (the first of several that night) when they observe a text she had denied sending, saying she would see that person later.

Knox explains that it was Patrick, who they had never heard of, along with a torrent of yelled accusations. As described at trial, various efforts are made to try to help Knox to calm down.

Despite warnings she should not do so without a lawyer, Knox insists on a recorded statement which says she headed out to meet Patrick that night after he texted her. She accuses Patrick of killing Meredith. 

Knox is put on hold, given more refreshments, and made comfortable on some chairs so she might try to get some sleep.

A second session ending at 5:45 is intended as merely a formal reading of Knox’s legal status and her right to a lawyer, with Dr Mignini presiding.

Having again been strongly warned that she should not do so without a lawyer present and no questions can be asked, Knox nevertheless insists on a spontaneous statement culminating in a second recorded statement.

This also says she went out to meet Patrick that night, also accuses Patrick of killing Meredith, and now also hints Sollecito may have been there. 

Just before noon, now under arrest and about to be taken to Capanne Prison, Knox insists on writing out at length a third statement this time in English.

She gleefully hands it to Rita Ficcara who of course cannot read it as she as no English. In the statement, Knox included this damning remark without any mention of having been coerced: “The questions that need answering, at least for how I’m thinking are… 2. Why did I think of Patrik?”

Knox’s lawyers have never ever substantially challenge this version. At trial they accept that there was no interrogation, leave standing that Knox insisted on all three statements, and dont ever pursue Knox’s claims that she was coerced.

In July 2009 at trial Knox herself tried to challenge this scenario in face of days and days of prior testimony. Of course she was disbelieved. For the calunnia framing of Patrick Lumumba Judge Massei sentenced her to a year more than Sollecito, later amended by Judge Hellmann to three years served.

The Supreme Court overruled her appeal. For her false claims she is a felon for life with the possibility of more years inside.

2. The Knox-Promoted Alternative Version

This will be the subject of many later posts. Though her precise claims vary and often contradict one another, Knox herself has on and off since November 2007 tried to portray otherwise the cause of her conniption and her false accusation of Patrick for the death of Meredith.

For example read this post of 11 February 2009 which was about two weeks before the Knox “interrogators” were cross-examined at trial, and several months before Knox herself took the stand.

Her defense team furthered this version in the annulled appeal in 2011, and she did so in for example her April 2013 book, her December 2013 email to Judge Nencini, her appeal to EHCR Strasbourg, some TV and newspaper interviews, including one with the Italian weekly Oggi and now her further appeal to the Supreme Court. 

This version has been blown up by a number of others in internet posts, articles, TV interviews, and books. Among others propagating it have been Raffaele Sollecito (in his book), Doug Preston, Saul Kassin, John Douglas, Jim Clemente, Paul Ciolino, Michael Heavey, Greg Hampikian, Chris Halkidis, Mark Waterbury, Doug Bremner, Candace Dempsey, Nina Burleigh, Steve Moore, Bruce Fischer, and many posters on the Knox sites and on Ground Report.

  • Here is Steve Moore claiming that around a dozen cops in rotating tag teams of two assaulted a starving and sleepless Knox over 20/30/40 hours, threatened her, and refused her a lawyer throughout.

  • Here is Saul Kassin claiming that Knox was interrogated over the entire night of 5-6 November, until she was finally broken and a coerced “confession” emerged - even though the “false confession” actually framed Patrick and was in reality a false accusation. That Kassin ignores.

  • Here are several former profilers actually expanding upon the same claims in a book with (today) 60 five-star reviews.

And yet Knox’s own Italian lawyers specifically denied her accusations! No complaint against the police was ever lodged.

And of course Judge Massei, the discredited Judge Hellmann, and Cassation all disbelieved the claims and Knox served her three years.

But still the hoax keeps rolling on, on TV and books and websites.

3. The Intended Course Of Our Interrogation-Hoax Series

Hopefully we will get this done in 20 posts. Starting in the next post is trial testimony, the first from Inspector Ficarra, newly translated by the professional translator ZiaK.

Rita Ficarra presided over the first recap/summary with Knox (again, a recap/summary is not an interrogation) on 5-6 November and was later present when Knox was read her rights.

We’ll then post more newly-translated trial testimony of other police present at the central police station on the night, and what the magistrates in 2008 and 2008 and trial and appeal judges from 2009 to 2014 made of this.

Then we enter the alternative universe of the numerous conspiracy claims, extending to Sollecito’s 2012 book and Knox’s 2013 book, her lengthy email to Judge Nencini in 2014, and so to her appeal to Cassation, pending as of this date.

4 A Guide To Posts In The Series

This list of posts is updated each time a new post in the series is added.

Click here: The Knox Interrogation Hoax #1: Overview Of The Series - The Two Version of the 5-6 Nov 2007 Events

Click here: The Knox Interrogation Hoax #2: Trial Testimony From Rita Ficcara On Realities 5-6 Nov

Click here: The Knox Interrogation Hoax #3: More Defense Pussyfooting Toward Rita Ficcara, Key Witness

Click here: The Knox Interrogation Hoax #4: More Hard Realities Fron Rita Ficcara, More Nervousness From Defense

Click here: The Knox Interrogation Hoax #5: Key Witness Monica Napoleoni Confirms Knox Self-Imploded 5-6 Nov

Click here: The Knox Interrogation Hoax #6: Sollecito Transcript & Actions Further Damage Knox Version

Click here: The Knox Interrogation Hoax #7: Testimony Of Witness Lorena Zugarini On The Knox Conniption 5-6 Nov

Click here: The Knox Interrogation Hoax #8: Testimony Of Interpreter Anna Donnino On Events Night Of 5 November

Click here: The Knox Interrogation Hoax #9: Officer Moscatelli’s Recap/Summary Session With Sollecito 5-6 Nov

Click here: The Knox Interrogation Hoax #10: Challenge To Readers: Spot The Two Landmines For Lawyers & Knox

Click here: The Knox Interrogation Hoax #11: Why Prosecution And Defenses Never Believed Knox’s Version

Click here: The Knox Interrogation Hoax #12: Proof Released That In 5-6 Nov Session Knox Worked On Names List

Click here: The Knox Interrogation Hoax #13: The First Two Pre-Trial Opportunities Which Knox Flunked

Click here: The Knox Interrogation Hoax #14: The Third Pre-Trial Opportunitty Which Knox Flunked

Click here: The Knox Interrogation Hoax #15: Dr Mignini’s Knowledge Of Knox “Interrogation” Explained To Media

Click here: The Knox Interrogation Hoax #16: The Fourth Pre-Trial Opportunity Which Knox Flunked

Click here: The Knox Interrogation Hoax #17: Sollecito April 2008 Before Supreme Court Again Coldsholders Knox

Click here:The Knox Interrogation Hoax #18: The Final Pre-Trial Opportunities Which Knox Flunked


Chapter 2: Trial Testimony From Inspector Rita Ficcara On Realities 5-6 Nov

1. Overview of this hoax series

Knox turned up at the central police station unwanted late on 5-6 Nov 2007 and briefly helped police with a list of seven names. Her version of this has morphed into a gigantic hoax.

One highly consistent version of the brief chat was testified to by all those officials present, and accepted by all courts including the Italian Supreme Court. Knox has served three years in prison for it and the US Embassy saw nothing done wrong.

And then there is Knox’s endlessly shifting version, inflated opportunistically and erratically by herself and wannabee experts over nearly seven years now. Knox has done so in numerous interviews, in her 2013 book, on her website, in her email to Judge Nencini, and in her “appeal” to the European Court of Human Rights. And the PR shills have done so on websites, on TV, in books, and in attempts to lobby the US federal government.

This version was repudiated several times by her smart Italian lawyers (though not by her foolish American lawyers) and they did next to nothing to try to verify it when questioning those officials at trial.

See a longer summary in Post #1 here.

2. The Testimony Of Inspector Rita Ficarra

Inspector Rita Ficarra was the one who initiated and led the discussion with Knox up to when Knox made her first statement, the first implicating Patrick Lumumba. 

What follows is the cross-examination of Inspector Ficarra by the prosecution and all four cross-examining defense lawyers.

It would have been a really huge gain for the defenses at trial - a not-guilty verdict would have been almost guaranteed - if they had rattled Rita Ficarra and had her admit to Knox’s coercion. Especially by the supposed alternating tag teams. Especially of a Knox without food, drink, sleep, or breaks for the bathroom.

But note that in their cross-examinations NOT ONE defense lawyer even tried to go there. In their questioning of Rita Ficarra, that mundane scenario of the two brief sessions we describe above seems a given - their own sticking point.

Here “GCM” is Judge Massei. As the defenses fully acknowledged, this was merely a recap/summary, a simple checking of facts with someone who might be helpful which could have been done on a street corner. It was not a witness or suspect interrogation. Claims that it was are a key part of the great hoax.

This English translation of the relevant part of Rita Ficarra’s testimony on 28 February 2009 was by main poster and professional translator ZiaK. Her full translation will appear soon on the Meredith Case Wiki.

Prosecutor Mignini Leads Testimony

Giuliano Mignini [GM]: Carry on. We have arrived at the evening of the 5th.

Rita Ficarra [RF]: The evening of the 5th, then, I returned to the Questura around 2300 hours, with another of my colleagues, and I found - when the lift/elevator door opened – I saw, I met Amanda. I saw that she was with other of my colleagues. In effect, the door of the lift/elevator opens on a lobby that is [situated] even before [you reach] the entry to the offices of the Flying Squad: there’s quite a big space.

My astonishment was that I saw, I found her there, and I found her doing – demonstrating – her gymnastic abilities: she was doing a cartwheel; she had shown the back arch, she had done the splits, and it seemed to me, sincerely, a bit out of place, that is to say given the circumstances, the moment and the place. For which [reason] I admonished her, and I even asked her what she was doing there.

She, and my colleagues also confirmed this, said to me that she had come because they had called Raffaele Sollecito, he had been invited that evening to give another recap, and she had accompanied him.

Judge Massei [GCM]: You said this to her in English or in Italian?

RF: In Italian. I reiterate that she speaks Italian, with me she speaks only in Italian. I do not understand a word of English, so … My colleagues confirm that there was Sollecito who was there in another room and in that moment the Deputy Commissioner Napoleoni and other colleagues were listening to him. And continuing to speak, the girl told me that she was rather shocked at the fact, annoyed at the fact that she had been called and recalled several times by the Police and [that] she was totally tired.

At that point, I also admonished her because I said: you’re tired, yet nonetheless you came this evening, when nobody has invited you: you could have gone to rest. And furthermore – I said – you don’t understand that we are talking about a murder, of a person that you say was your friend, [who] lived in the same house as you, it happened in your house. If the Police call you, put yourself in our shoes: we need useful information.

GCM: So there’s this …

RF: More than anything else ... Yes, in the end I had a quiet talk because I was trying to make her understand that our intention was to to seek [her] collaboration: for me, she was a precious witness precisely because she had been close to the victim, she had been – she lived – in that house, they had gone to pubs/clubs together.

And so I explained to her that the reason for which she had been called and recalled several times, it was because I was [sic.: NdT: typo? “ero” instead of “erano” = “there had”] emerged some significant contradictions between what she had declared and the subsequent information that other subjects had given us, that there had even emerged some lies in the end, [which were] nonetheless ascertained by the person who had carried out the crime-scene inspection, who had been on the scene of the crime, or at least in the vicinity.

I said: we are asking for collaboration. I, from the first time that I heard her, I always insisted on knowing what the victim’s associations might be, whether she knew which people had known her [i.e. the victim], with friendly relationships, with mere acquaintanceship, who had been to the house, above all subjects who had been to the house there.

GCM: Yes, activities to which ...

RF: Activities, this I say because I [will] then explain why she gave me the names, named a few persons in the end, that is to say, in the end she understood, she said. I also explained to her that some of the lies that at the beginning might be understandable, such as the fact of saying “No, I don’t use drugs”, in the end…

GCM: [You/One] cannot report, obviously, on the declarations …

RF: Yes, but if I don’t say this, it will not be understood why then [later] she told me many things in the note.

GCM: Yes, it can be said in relation to the investigations, to the investigation activities that were subsequently executed.

RF: Yes, exactly.

GCM: Only in this limit and in this limit, that is, they are not useable when you refer to [speech] from …

RF: Yes, to understand why she told me things that I was not quick enough to write afterwards; they had necessarily/therefore to be written in the later note. I’m coming to this to say that, on that evening, therefore, she understands [sic: RF uses present tense] my intentions and says to me: “Ok, I now will tell you the names of other persons” because I invited her myself to look at her mobile phone, at the phonebook/contacts list, I say [sic, i.e. “said”]: “Bring someone to your mind [i.e. = “remember”]. It’s not possible that no-one ever entered this house, or only two people. Call to mind who might have known her”.

So she runs through her mobile-phone contacts list and starts to look at a series of numbers, and then she remembers and says to me “Look, it’s come [back], there were another four-five people that I know who knew her, some of these actually came to the house, some of them I brought myself”. She gives me the references of telephone numbers and for some she also gives me references of where, in particular of Patrick Lumumba, she gives me the particulars of where, of the area where he might live.

She says to me that she even worked with him and from there she tears, that is to say she makes me this little drawing on a big notebook pad she always had with her, after which she tears it out for me and so it was then “acquired” [NdT: as an exhibit], in short, I attached/appended it to the note.

At that point I say to her: “for me it is important then that we write these [names etc down], that therefore, since you are waiting [NdT. i.e. for Raffaele], let’s go do a follow-up to the recap that you have already given me, have already submitted to me”. So I go to the office, that is to say, I go into the office room, and we begin to write. 

GM: Listen: before continuing, she wrote a note?

RF: Yes.

GM: The note: you can, I believe you can consult/examine/refer to it.

GCM: Yes, certainly, it is permitted to consult/examine/refer to her records.

GM: I am referring to everything that that note reported.

RF: Yes, I’ve already said that, in effect… The note of 6 November, at 2000 hours, I made it in the evening because having then not slept for two days, I went [straight] to bed in morning when I finished. Morning and afternoon.

The first part I’ve already related and it gives me indications about these boys, about non-Italians, about a certain PJ Peter Svizzero, who had seemingly been several times in their home and who lived nearby the area of via della Pergola 7.

Patrick, of the [sic] owner of the pub, Le Chique [sic], where she herself worked, I’ve already said, she gives me the mobile-phone information.

Then she speaks of a certain Ardak, a North African citizen, and gives me the mobile-phone information.

A certain Juve, an Algerian citizen, who worked occasionally at the Le Chique [sic] pub and who apparently lived in the vicinity of the home of another of the victim’s friends, of Sofie [sic], also for him she gives me the mobile information.

Spiros, a young lad of Greek nationality, for whom she givers me only the mobile-phone information.

Shaki [Hicham Khirir], a Moroccan citizen who works in a pizzeria, frequents the [same] pubs [as those] frequented by all the girls of the victim’s group, and [is] also friends with Sofie [sic].

She furthermore reports about a black South African boy, short, who plays basketball in the Piazza Grimana court, [and] who on one occasion had apparently visited the home of the boys who lived underneath the apartment.

GM: Was “South African” an exact term?

RF: No, no. In fact, I wanted to explain that she didn’t recall the particulars of this boy, or at least she did not tell me about them, so I said to her that if she recalled also any boy who had been in the home of the neighbours, of the students who lived below, because we had found out from these other boys that there had been a meeting between them; one evening they had had a little party in their home and that they had [sic], in which there was also [sic], in that circumstance there was also Amanda and Meredith.

And she said to me: “Yes, it’s true, I remember that boy. But I know neither his name nor can I give you his telephone number because I never saw him again. I can’t say anything else.” This is what she said to me, therefore she was ...

GM: But she said South African or [Côte d’]Ivorian?

RF: South African in the sense that I wanted to mean of a dark colour, that is a person, excuse me, not …

GM: Go on…

RF: South African. [It’s] nothing. Then she confided other things to me, because I had in fact - as I said earlier Mr President, that otherwise I couldn’t explain what she reported to me in the note – she had told me several times that she had never seen …

GCM: Excuse me please. She had never seen? These will not be useable, but let’s hear.

RF: In short, she never saw or smoked joints, had never used drugs, but here instead she says, contrary to what she had told me, she says to me that yes, a few times I’ve used, or at any rate I’ve used …

GCM: But only that which you have …

RF: She tells me this, I say it in the note, she tells me herself.

GCM: Yes, in the note, in this conversation…

RF: She tells me also who supplied it in this circumstance.

GCM: In the informal conversation.

RF: In that conversation, exactly.

GCM: Before the taking [down] of information.

RF: Yes.

GCM: Please.

RF: And so, she says to me that she had used substances such as hashish together with her boyfriend Raffaele. She says to me that, according to what he had confided to her, he had also used other substances in the past, but that for the moment, to her knowledge, it was only the fact that he used hashish.

GM: To narcotic substances, obviously, of various types.

RF: Yes, of the type… She tells me of hashish type, in the past, she says that he seemingly confided that had used other substances but even stronger, stronger substances.

GM: Cocaine, for example?

RF: Other substances.

GM: I ...

RF: yes, types [such as] cocaine, yes, yes, yes. I wrote that, in fact. And nothing that actually [NdT: or “currently”] instead he used only, that they together used smoke [sic – NdT: slang for “hash”].

GM: Here we go, and ok. So then she continued. What did you do… Ok, then ...

RF: Then what happens? I acknowledge/admit that Knox, following the notification of the order for arrest issued by the Public Prosecutor, actually immediately after, that it was notified to her and that its content was translated into English by the interpreter, she gives me, that is, she asks me to give her a pen and papers because she intends to write.

In my presence she did this, [and] that [i.e. presence] of the interpreter, there was Colantoni in the late morning and there was Inspector Sergio Ragni, because we were in their office. We gave her pen and paper and she began to write, honestly I didn’t understand what … What was her intention?

She asked me: “please give me a pen and paper” and says to me: “I want to give you a gift”, where by “regalo” I understood that she meant a pardon, she meant “I want to give you a thing, I want to give it to you please, I would like that you read this before accompanying/taking me to jail, so that you can have clearer ideas about what I’m thinking and about what I have already told you, and if you have any questions to ask me, you read it”.

She said to me and together with all the other policemen/women, “this way, if you have any questions to ask me because you have doubts, please ask me them first”. Justly I, apart from the fact that it was written in English, and then they were calling for me at the [very] moment she handed it over, precisely, traded [sic: NdT: “commercial” in Italian. Perhaps typo for “commensurato”? i.e. “at the very moment”] of being taken to jail.

Already they were stressing to me that it was late and we could not tarry any longer, so she gave me that sheet and pointed out to me that she would have [liked to have] delivered it to the judicial authority, because it was this [authority] that was proceeding: I could not do anything more. So this was the evening of the 5th, but here, this is it, the contents of my note. Then here, the recaps/information that she gave me earlier however should be incorporated.

GM: In fact, let’s go back to the evening of the 5th.

RF: On the evening of the 5th, after having made these declarations to me about these people who might in some way have known Meredith, might in some way have had something to do with the victim, I say to “so, let’s go in and write down the content, what you’re telling me”.

GM: Do you remember what time it was, more or less?

RF: Well, look, we had called the interpreter first/earlier, so then I started to chat with her informally at 11 when I arrived, so therefore not before one-thirty [i.e. 0130 hours], perhaps enough time ...

GM: So it was in the very early hours of the 6th?

RF: Yes, in the very early hours of the 6th, the time it took for the interpreter to join us, and we started to write.

GM: Listen, how was Amanda? I ask you [what was] her behaviour, how she was behaving, shall we say, in the various ...

RF: I repeat, I already said it earlier, about how I was astonished already when I was coming out of the elevator/lift by what I saw, and I had already admonished her. I admonished her even more so because I saw that in the preceding days she had had - contrary to all the other people that I saw there, who were all sad, all afflicted - I had always seen her either skipping around or flirting with Raffaele, smothering each other with kisses [NdT: i.e. smooching/snogging].

She had been admonished more than once for this behaviour that did not seem fitting for either the place or the situation.

GM: So, even while you were listening to her, she was as unworried/unconcerned as she had been?

RF: I told you that she was doing cartwheels…

GM: No, no, that was when you arrived. But I’m saying, even when, shortly after midnight, you had started to hear her [NdT: i.e. listen to what she had to say]?

RF: She was very calm, she was calm because we had a quiet chat, I said “Since you came here yourself, no-one called you, you’re giving me extra information, let’s write it down properly, because there could be very important details for us”. She had understood very well that ...

And she was calm, she says [sic]: “Yes, yes, ok. let’s wait for the interpreter that way we avoid misunderstandings”, and that is what we did. The problem [is] that at a certain point, the problem, that is to say, the fact that at a certain point there was a colleague from the SCO [NdT: “Servizio centrale operativo”, Central operations service], who came from the place where they were listening to Raffaele Sollecito.

And then after that came the Deputy Commissioner Monica Napoleoni, who says to me that Sollecito had said different things, that in effect he was no longer giving an alibi to Amanda, and therefore to ask Amanda, since I was recording [NdT: in the sense “writing down what was said”] her - [or] I had started to report/write down - to ask what the latter had done that evening in particular, in other words, to focus on that evening more than on anything else: we were interested in the hour more or less preceeding ...

Giulia Bongiorno [GB]: Mr President, until now we, obviously, we have not opposed each other because what was being referred to was an information [note], etc., if [i.e. perhaps] now we start the analysis of the memoranda we are “punto e daccapo” [sic. NdT: probably “punto e a capo”, i.e. “start a new paragraph”].

RF: No, I am not hurting [sic] any of those that ...

GCM: Yes, yes, excuse me. You cannot report, unless it is necessary/useful, “we are closed in this”?? [sic. NdT: possible misunderstanding from verbatim typists? possibly “if in this there were”?] in the event that there were declarations made they would not be useable.

GM: With these clarifications/explanations, you illustrate that which happened, without of course reporting the content of the declarations, save for if these are indispensable for making us understand…

RF: So, they called me to tell me that there were contradictions and I heard her [i.e. what she had to say] about these contradictions.

At the time when she was heard, she was asked to show us her mobile phone in order to check just in case whether in the memory there were messages that referred to appointments that evening, and we were able to see, myself and the other colleagues who were present, [while] scrolling through that mobile phone, that there had been easily, that there were various messages from the days preceding the 1st.

We even saw that there were messages with the victim from the 31st [October] that they should meet in some way or another, or at any rate they made a semi-appointment to see each other later, and then there were no others [messages].

GM: The evening of the 1st? The evening of the 31st?

RF: Of the 31st. On the day of the 1st, then, there was only one message. I remember that it concerned the night, around 0145 hours between the 31st and the 1st, with a subject with whom [she] said they would meet up, that they should meet up on the stairs of the Duomo, and then there are no further messages and we found a message sent around 2000-2030 hours it seems to me, around that time but at any rate it is in the files because we also photographed the mobile phone with the message where the name of Patrick appeared, and there was this message that said… Can I report it?

GCM: Yes, did you see it?

RF: Yes, certainly I saw it. We saw it together. It said “Certainly”...

GM: We saw it or else I will show you it if ....

RF: Yes. “Certainly. See you later. Good evening.” [Certo. Ci vediamo più tardi. Buona serata.]. It was the only [message] of that evening, and we asked who this Patrick was, and this seemed to us an appointment, see you later, certainly, in response to another [message]. We did not find any messages received around that time, so we did not find the message to which she was responding.

We found only that one sent by her. She, in the moment in which was, she was given the mobile into her hand, so it was said who is this person, so did you go out later or not, she said the name of Patrick Lumumba and gave the declaration that then ...

GM: And what behaviour did she then adopt/assume?

RF: She suddenly put her hands to her head, burst out crying and said to us “It’s him, it’s him, it was him, he killed her”. It was the only time that I saw her cry.

GM: This behaviour, did she then continue like that during the course of that morning, by now we were at what time?...

RF: No, she was as if she was giving vent in that moment, she cried, she began to say that he was crazy, he was crazy.

LG: No, that’s not possible, excuse me…

GCM: No, the question ...

GM: I was still talking about the behaviour.

GB: The behaviour is [described] in all the reports.

GCM: No, the behaviour, what was it?

RF: But this is not in the reports.

GCM: Sorry, the behaviour, what was it [like]?

RF: The behaviour was that she brought her hands ...

GCM: Were there fits of crying, were there ...

RF: Yes, yes. She brought her hands to her head, she started to “sgrullare” [NdT: Tuscan dialect: = either “shake” or “hit”] her head, she started to weep, she burst out crying and said that it was him.

GCM: Please.

LG: And suspends the report.

RF: I suspended the report obviously so that she could say what she said to me.

GM: There you go. And after that, what happened?

RF: After that, that morning, she then at a certain point said to me that she needed to rest because she was tired, and I left her rather than take her down to the cells below.

GM: Did she make any further declarations?

RF: I suspended the report, we took the declarations together with you, Doctor [Mignini], she maintained the same behaviour, and also there she began again to cry then.

GM: So we have arrived [at the point] after the “hearing” [i.e. the questioning], the spontaneous declarations, she wanted to sleep, wanted to rest?

RF: Yes, she wanted to rest. She said to me that she was tired, wanted to rest, felt a bit ill. We made her take something warm from the bar, it was already the early hours, it was well into the morning in short. I joined some chairs/seats together for her, I made her rest/lie down.

I tried to close the door so no-one would enter, because otherwise there was too much coming and going of people since they were going about preparing other reports/files, so at a certain point we were left [with] just me and Inspector Ragni, who arrived in the morning, and we did the reports, the arrest reports, we did them in there while she was resting.

GM: After which?

RF: Afterwards, when she got up, I took her to the bar to eat something and I was even admonished for that, because I took her without, that is I calmly [took her] here and there even though she was already under arrest.

GM: Do you recall, shall we say, that night between the 1st and then the spontaneous declarations and then the order for arrest, who and what was with her, other than you, whether there were other subjects that spoke with us, how they behaved? Did [she] undergo/experience violent [sic: NdT: “violente” in Italian, probably typo for “violenze” = “violence/force/assault”] by any chance?

RF: Absolutely not.

GM: Was she intimidated, threatened?

RF: No. I, as I said earlier, I came in that evening and there were some colleagues from the Rome SCO, I was with Inspector Fausto Passeri, then I saw come out, that is come out from the entry-door to the offices of the Flying [Squad] the Assistant Zugarini and Monica Napoleoni, who appeared for an instant just outside there, then we went back in calmly, because the discussion we had with her was quite calm.

Everything that she asked [for] we gave it to her, I repeat, she was treated with firmness and severity whereby by “severity” I mean that she was admonished in the moment when circumstances called for admonishment. She was treated with kindness and courtesy by all, because nothing was denied to her that she wanted.

In fact I made her sleep, I took her down for breakfast, I took her back [NdT: down to the canteen] before she left for jail to eat something because it was late by then. It seems to me that nobody in there treated her badly, absolutely [not].

GM: Listen, then after that there was the arrest, after how much time?

RF: The arrest happened after midday, she, immediately after the notification of arrest, after having read the contents in English, was there saying to me: “Please, can you give me some paper, I must write [something]”/

GM: Listen, this “memoriale” [NdT: a report/a note/a memoir] of the 6th, do you know if there were checks carried out, what was done in relation to this “memoriale”?

RF: Look here, on the che… the “memoriale”  was in English, so surely it was … I gave it to the Murder Section, so to the Deputy Commissioner Napoleoni, who looked after sending it to the judicial authority with the related translation, clearly, the translation in Italian, the checks were surely carried out.

GM: In relation to Lumumba’s position?

RF: Yes. What should I say?

GM: Whether you know [sic]. Do you know whether the checks were carried out regarding this “memoriale” on Lumumba’s position?

RF: That night?

GM: No, subsequently.

RF: Subsequently, yes. I even did some myself. I went to carry out a search at Lumumba’s house, I went to carry out a search at the pub. We heard/questioned various witnesses on the possible opening or closing of the Pub during the incriminated [sic] evening.

GM: So that memoriale gave you the prompting/cue/idea/starting point for carrying out these investigations on Patrick?

RF: Certainly, because …

[Dr Mignini’s questiong moves on to what happened next]

Defense attorney Maori [LM] crossexamins

LM: I heard, in your answers to the Public Prosecutor, you were very precise, accurate, so you had a photographic vision/image of that situation, and so on the basis of these you have also prepared very detail reports and service notes.

So, how many times did you see Miss Amanda from the moment when you [NdT: or also “she”] actually arrived at the Questura?

RF: I already said it earlier, I saw her on the 2nd when I heard/questioned her, in the afternoon, on the 3rd.

I don’t remember clearly whether it was the 3rd or the 4th that I accompanied her at the instruction of the judicial authority to Via della Pergola. Then at any rate, the 2nd in the afternoon, I heard her again, then on the 3rd…

At any rate, when I saw her I always took minutes/wrote a report with her[NdT: RF actually seems to use “verbalizzare” in the sense “talk with” or “question”, but I have used the correct translation as “report on/take minutes on”], except on that occasion…

LM: The 4th?

RF: No, the 4th, no. I did not take minutes/write a report on her the 4th.

LM: And also on the 6th, you saw her.

RF: And the night of the 5th, so between the 5th and the 6th.

LM: For how long did you remain together with Amanda, in the sense of [being] in the same room?

RF: Quite a bit.

LM: So you saw the person of Amanda Knox for quite some time?

RF: Yes.

LM: Did you see that the latter had any wounds or had any scratches or ...

RF: No.

LM: Or some ...

RF: Where?

LM: I asked you if she had any wounds or any scratches and you answered no. Thank you.

RF: You’re welcome.

Inspector Ficcara’s testimony continues in Post #3.


Chapter 3: Defense Response TentativeToward Rita Ficcara, Key Witness

1. Overview of this hoax series

Knox turned up at the central police station unwanted late on 5-6 Nov 2007 and briefly helped police with a list of seven names. Her version of this has morphed into a gigantic hoax.

One highly consistent version of the brief chat was testified to by all those officials present, and accepted by all courts including the Italian Supreme Court. Knox has served three years in prison for it and the US Embassy saw nothing done wrong.

And then there is Knox’s endlessly shifting version, inflated opportunistically and erratically by herself and wannabee experts over nearly seven years now. Knox has done so in numerous interviews, in her 2013 book, on her website, in her email to Judge Nencini, and in her “appeal” to the European Court of Human Rights. And the PR shills have done so on websites, on TV, in books, and in attempts to lobby the US federal government.

This version was repudiated several times by her smart Italian lawyers (though not by her foolish American lawyers) and they did next to nothing to try to verify it when questioning those officials at trial.

See a longer summary in Post #1 here.

2. Continuing the cross-examination of Rita Ficarra

In our hoax series second post we quoted two cross-examinations of Rita Ficarra by Sollecito’s lead lawyers. Here we quote two more, by two of Knox’s lawyers, Luciano Ghirga, and Maria Del Grasso.

Here “GCM” is Judge Massei. As the defenses fully acknowledged, this was merely a recap/summary, a simple checking of facts with someone who might be helpful which could have been done on a street corner. It was not a witness or suspect interrogation. Claims that it was are a key part of the great hoax. 

This English translation of the relevant part of Rita Ficarra’s testimony on 28 February 2009 was by main poster and professional translator ZiaK. Her full translation will appear soon on the Meredith Case Wiki.

Defence Attorney Bongiorno [GB]

GB: Inspector, with respect to all these names that Amanda gave you, and that you reported in this note with your signature, what type of checks were carried out?

RF: On these people? There were made, I know, checks on every one of these people, however not personally by me.

I was, for example, charged with the person who then was [revealed as] Rudy Guede. I was charged with pinpointing, with identifying this person that we all know [NdT: ironic] who had had contact in some way with Meredith, because he had been, one evening, to the house of the students because he gravitated around the area of Piazza Grimana, and just like [with] him, I had [sic], I was charged with finding other subjects who gravitated around that place.

So much so indeed, that I then - if you see the subsequent oral evidence recaps/summaries - I found other subjects: someone who clearly indicated/suggested to me who that person was, and that enabled us to arrive at the identification of Rudy Guede.

GB: Yes, in fact, on Rudy there was effectively a whole thread/line of investigations and we know how that ended up.

RF: Yes. So I can report on that to you because I did it myself, and I was engaged in that type of checks myself.

GB: In reality, my question was, since in this note, as you recalled earlier, there were indicated so many names, Peter, Ardak, Juve, Spiros, Shaki.

RF: Spiros, for example, I myself heard/questioned him on [his] recap/summary.

GB: There you go. I wanted to understand what type of checks and investigative leads/threads had opened.

RF: I can tell you that Spiros, for example, I heard him myself, on [his] recaps/summaries, oral evidence.

GB: After having heard/questioned him, did you carry out checks, did you verify anything?

RF: Certainly, yes, Attorney. I didn’t do them myself, and I cannot report [on them] because, as I have already said to the President, I am part of a section of the Flying Squad that is not the Homicides section. I limited myself to helping - I and others - to helping colleagues of the Homicides section at the time when the event occurred, because we all collaborate.

GB: Do you know who carried out the checks, in fact?

RF: It was certainly Deputy Commissioner Napoleoni who did them, with the men of her squadron.

GB: So we will find checks…

RF: And the men also of the SCO.

GB: On all these, on all these ...

RF: Certainly. I remember some of them. I remember Spiros, I remember Shaki, who was the Moroccan or Algerian citizen, I don’t know that [sic, i.e. whether] he was indicated also by other girls, known.

GB: However you cannot tell me the threads/leads. Ok.

RF: I cannot tell you, myself.

GB: With regard to Lumumba, I want to know only one thing. Other than Amanda’s declarations, what objective elements were present in order to proceed then with Lumumba’s arrest? - SMSs and Amanda’s declarations - I want to know what are the other elements.

RF: I know that there were other checks carried out, sincerely, Attorney, I am an executer of orders. There was an [order for] arrest from the Public Prosecutor, it’s not as though I can criticize [NdT: also “examine”] the reasons [for it].

GCM: Excuse me. The Attorney is asking: there were the declarations of Amanda Knox, the message on the mobile phone taken, [were] there other elements… She is not asking for an evaluation/judgment.

RF: No. The other elements were those that the Public Prosecutor highlighted earlier, that on the scene…

GCM: No, with regard to Lumumba.

RF: Yes, on the crime scene, from the outset it was clearly a sexually-motivated crime, the declarations by Amanda in some way gave us to understand that the person that she had indicated had a sexual interest with regard to the victim, there had been the declarations that said in effect, in corroboration with the mobile phone, that there had been an appointment, that they had seen each other.

GCM: So the little message [SMS], yes.

RF: There and then, however, I don’t know then [what] the reasons ...

GCM: That ...

RF: The reasons for the arrest.

GB: I meant to say this: given that - let us forget the declarations and the SMS - were there, I don’t know, any papillary prints, blood, attributed to Lumumba, that is, was there any element, even objective? This is what I’m asking you.

RF: How could we say that about prints in that moment?

GCM: Excuse me, what seems to you, it was illustrative/as an example, the indication made…

GB: That is to say, if there was any other element other than these two?

RF: I don’t know.

GB: You are not able to say.

RF: No, I am not able to say.

GB: You said that, precisely, when you went to seek that wild cat, and then the cat remained there, and you said: “Ok, if someone wants to return to give food to the cat, they can return”. Did anyone return to give food to the cat?

RF: I don’t know that.

GB: Thank you.

RF: I repeat that at a certain point, I took myself off/left, I went back to my section to do the activities of my section, so I cannot say much about the progress/development [of the investigations]: I can report if they task me, if they say to me “Please, do this check for me, please”. I reiterate to you, I was concentrated on the subjects who gravitated around Piazza Grimana, on the identification of those subjects. Thus the investigative developments were the task of the section, therefore, of other investigators.

GCM: Good. Thank you. Please.

Defence Attorney Luciano Ghirga

LG: Ok. Describing/recounting the night between the 5th and the 6th, you say that you encountered Amanda at 2300 hours approximately, in a place near the elevator, that she was doing gymnastics and you admonished her. What do you mean? Who was present besides Amanda in that moment?

RF: As I have already reported, there were a few SCO colleagues, there was myself, who exited …

LG: A few colleagues…

GCM: Let’s let the witness finish and then …

RF: Three colleagues.

GCM: And then we will ask for clarifications.

RF: Then, with me, there was Chief Inspector Fausto Passeri, then at a certain point Zugarini Lorena came in through the doorway to the Flying Squad offices, and Deputy Commissioner Napoleoni, at a certain point, opened the other door that gives access to the corridor, to the biggest lobby, and there was even deputy Commissioner Rapetti, as I recall, that evening.

LG: So colleagues of yours.

RF: All colleagues.

LG: And you admonished her because you found ...

RF: I admonished her because it is neither the place nor the right moment for doing certain things, but over and above the place, it was the moment [that was ill-chosen] more than anything.

LG: We are at the 5th, at 2300 hours approximately, the 5th of November at 2300 hours.

RF: Yes.

LG: Ok. Then you took her with you?

RF: Yes, into the office.

LG: Because, at least from the note that you fully reported, you took her with you and out came … “Tell us something, if you …” in short, out came the names?

RF: Yes.

LG: But also lies came out, [as] you call them yourself.

RF: Yes.

LG: And you admonish her another time, is it so?

RF: No, I she ….

LG: You said yes, you admonished her yes.

RF: Yes, but I admonished her in a good-natured way, I don’t even know what rebukes I used to her.

LG: What does “rebuke” mean? you used that term.

RF: Yes, I admonished her because, I told you [NdT: can also mean “her”] at the beginning, if I find someone who is doing twirls in the waiting room of the Questura…

LG: No, we’ve [already] done this.

RF: It is for the same reason, because I told her that in this way one makes oneself hard to believe. It was almost a maternal rebuke, I say: if you tell me lies the first time they might be understandable, if [you do so] the second [time] I say to you that there are both testimonial and fact-checking circumstances that demonstrate that you have told a lie: don’t insist on the same lie, because it might be little, but it makes you scarcely credible for your subsequent affirmations.

LG: We can clarify the concept better ...

GCM: We have clarified, please Attorney.

LG: The lies consisted in the use ...

RF: I cannot report on ...

LG: The lies, according to what you have reported, consisted in admitting that ...

RF: The use of narcotics, exactly.

LG: If it was a use of substances ...

RF: Yes.

LG: Something that earlier ... This is the episode that she reported to you [NdT: or possibly typo: “che Lei ha riferito” = “that you reported”].

RF: Yes yes yes.

LG: Eventually the recaps/summaries of 0145 hours begin, because God willing there is the opening time of these ...

RF: Yes.

LG: While this interrogation - let’s call it thus - was in progress, some colleagues arrive ...

RF: It was not an interrogation, Attorney.

LG: They are called recaps/summaries. Had it [sic] already begun when your colleagues arrive and say “Sollecito no longer gives an alibi to Amanda”? Were these interrogation operations already in progress?

RF: The recording/writing down of the witness recaps/summaries.

LG: And colleagues arrive from somewhere else?

RF: Yes, from the office where they were hearing/questioning Sollecito.

LG: You ask Amanda what she did that evening, is that so?

RF: Exactly, yes yes.

LG: So Amanda’s telephone was taken or handed over spontaneously, would you like to specify whether she gave it ...

RF: She was asked to show us her mobile phone in order to carry out checks, and she spontaneously gave it to us, and together with her, that is to say, near to her, we began to scroll…

LG: No. It was handed over without any problem.

RF: Yes yes.

LG: So then the little message to Patrick emerged, is that so?

RF: Along with the others, that one emerged too.

LG: This Patrick is the same Patrick about whom [reference was made] in the note that had been made earlier?

RF: Yes.

LG: The owner [of] the Chique where Amanda worked, etc., etc. ... Can I ask ...

RF: I had already written, perhaps I didn’t explain myself well…

LG: You wrote it [the note] earlier/first.

GCM: Excuse me, Attorney.

LG: No no no.

RF:  I wanted to specify that she had made [NdT, i.e. said/given] that series of names of persons of which [it is spoken in] the note. I was starting to write and I had started with Patrick because he was the owner of where she worked, when then, that is to say, I didn’t have time to write because otherwise you would have found also all the subjects that I wrote in the note, it was in that moment that the information reached me that there were contradictions, that she no longer had an alibi, [that] I should ask what she might have done at that hour and ...

GCM: And so there was the request for the mobile phone.

RF: Yes.

LG: And then Patrick’s name emerged.

RF: Yes.

GCM: Excuse me Attorney, we are at what the witness…

LG: From the little message [NdT: i.e. SMS] Patrick [NdT: i.e. Patrick’s name] emerged in that moment?

GCM: Even from before that, in any case, Lumumba emerged.

RF: It emerged even earlier.

GCM: That is what I am saying.

LG: I asked, me: it is the same Patrick as is mentioned in the note?

RF: It is the same Patrick, yes.

LG: Perfect. So Amanda, what did she do? Did Amanda’s manner change?

RF: At first she remained amazed.

LG: This discussion on Patrick, since we do not have a question in any report, [it is] all ADR, ADR, ADR [NdT: “ADR” in a “Sommarie informazione” means “A domanda risponde” = “in answer to a/the question”], what type of question you asked her, if you remember it, since you have such precise/accurate memories.

RF: We asked her what that message meant, because from looking at the message it was a message of reply to another, because otherwise I don’t write to you certainly, [is that not] correct? What was the tenor of the message, if that meant an appointment [was made], if therefore she had gone out after that message or if she had remained at home, besides saying who is Patrick and having the confirmation of who he was.

LG:  This type of ….

GCM: Please, Attorney.

LG: [It’s] Ok like this. This type of dialogue between you and Amanda always took place as [if] in great harmony, in great calmness, or else speak, tell the truth, it’s better for you, was there some kind of … Not threat, I would never allow myself [to say that]. How [it] come about, did this type of … Given that the questions are not known.

RF: I have to make a simulation… I already said it, we carried out….

GCM: Whether she remained calm, whether there were, I don’t know, crises.

RF: I’ve already answered that everything took place calmly, actually, after …

LG: You said calmly.

RF: It happened calmly.

LG: So calmly that you had to interrupt the questioning/report.

GCM: Did you suspend the questioning/report?

RF: I stopped the questioning/report because there are indications of guilt. If someone tells me that they are in the house of the crime, excuse me, Attorney, what [else] should I do?

LG: But I …

GCM: Excuse me.

LG: Calmly/Tranquilly [sic] that indications of guilt emerge and of what type that suspend/interrupt the questioning/report and make Amanda at the disposition of the judicial authority [sic. NdT: this sentence makes no sense in the Italian]

GCM: Excuse me, excuse me.

LG: Is it so?

GCM: But she was ... Excuse me, Attorney. She was describing/portraying the behavior, such as it could be remarked/observed externally .This is what we’re at.

RF: In the moment when she saw the message initially, it is as though she were astonished. Can I give my impression? Well, if I cannot give it, then we cannot continue. I [will] give my impression and you will understand…

LG: You cannot do that.

RF: Then…

LG: You made it the same, you, because ...

GCM: Excuse me, please Attorney.

LG: And the questioning/report was suspended/paused…

RF: For a moment she is not looking [NdT: also “you are not looking”].

GCM: Please, let’s avoid overlapping each other with our voices, maybe let’s leave that question to rest for a bit…

LG: The Public Prosecutor arrives…

GCM: Excuse me Attorney, we’re there, the suspension/pause…

LG: We have suspended/paused the questioning/report and Amanda was made available …

FM [sic – i.e. Maresca]: She was answering.

GCM: She was answering, but she has already answered.

LG: But now …

GCM: Attorney, Attorney, if there are other questions, please.

LG: Look! [Now] I’ve been interrupted, me.

FM: Excuse me, she was answering.

LG: Excuse me, it is I who have been interrupted, not me who interrupts. Certainly there are other questions.

GCM: Can we close this parenthesis [NdT: i.e. “interval”], perhaps? Excuse me. Earlier she/you made a reference, it seems to me that I recall that at a certain point Amanda Knox burst out weeping, as connected with this.

LG: Yes, this too.

GCM: Can you pinpoint this moment…

RF: I was pinpointing, and I was interrupted. I am saying it. If you make me [NdT: or also “let me”] also give my impression, you will understand better what I want to say.

GCM: No, no, no. The impression [sic. NdT, typo: should be “non l’impressione” = Not the impression]. The crying …

RF: In the moment when she was [sic], she saw, the message from Patrick on the mobile phone, for a moment she stayed there looking at it, and then I can’t tell you my impression that she gave me in that moment, her manner, after which she burst out weeping and accused him of being the perpetrator of the murder and of having been, herself, there in the house of the crime that evening, together with him.

LG: We have reported everything. Very well.

GCM: Excuse me, Attorney, this, well, please. [sic]

LG: The Public Prosecutor arrives, what happens? Was a defence [lawyer] appointed to the young lady?

RF: The defence [lawyer] for the girl had been requested, even though probably ...

LG: But I asked you if he/she had been appointed.

RF: He/she had not been appointed.

GCM: But Attorney, excuse me Attorney, you have every possibility ...

RF: He/she was not appointed because there wasn’t one.

GCM: ... to make all the questions you want, however let’s let the witness finish when the questions are asked, otherwise it is useless to ask questions.

RF: The lawyer was not appointed because there was no lawyer.

LG: You know that on this point there is a ruling [made] by the Cassation… I ask, if you know, if you don’t know we will try it in a different way…

FM: No, Mr President, there’s opposition. It is we who make the evaluations/assessments about the Cassation, and not the witness.

LG: Then I will repeat the question, since I did not understand clearly the answer. Was a court-appoint lawyer/legal aid lawyer or a personal/private lawyer?

FM: She has already answered.

GCM: Please, let’s not interrupt. Please Attorney.

LG: Was he/she appointed or not, this Attorney?

RF: He was not appointed because there were none. If you look at the sequestration [arrest?] report, my next one [NdT. i.e. report] of that morning, I acknowledge that she could be assisted by a defence [lawyer], and she renounced that option, but if she renounced it, it is because there were none, and it is understandable because she is not Italian, not …

GCM: Ok.

RF: That is to say, the one who appoints.

LG: I wanted to ask a question. All these quote-unquote courteous activities - a hot tea, the brioche/cake - they took place, if I have understood correctly, after the spontaneous declarations given to the Public Prosecutor, and before the notification of arrest, or after the notification …

RF: Look! They took place even the day before.

LG: I’m asking you that. No, you say she was tired, I put the seats, I made her rest …

RF: Yes, she was tired afterwards, this after ...

GCM: Wait, wait for the question to be finished.

LG: This type of activity - so commendable - did it take place after the spontaneous declarations to the Public Prosecutor had finished, or not?

RF: Before and after.

LG: After the notification, you said that it was late in the morning.

RF: Yes.

LG: After the notification of arrest? If you remember.

RF: She at a sandwich.

LG: I am asking you after the notification of the arrest or before, if you recall?

RF: But what?

GCM: Excuse me, this behaviour, she has said that she ate a sandwich, after the notification of the arrest or before …

RF: I don’t remember clearly whether the sandwich was ...

GCM: But after the notification of the arrest, do you recall something/anything?

RF: Of after the notification I remember that she asked me immediately for the sheet, paper and pen, however it even be that she stopped at a certain point because it was late.

LG: In fact, I made a mistake, you are right.

RF: Furthermore, I remember that in any case she, that is to say, we had to waste time before accompanying her to the jail in any case, because there were the doctors to carry out the inspection, she had to do a urine test and she couldn’t manage because she had done it [NdT: i.e. urinated] earlier, because she had drunk tea and other things, and so we had gone down to get water, I remember. Now I can’t place [that], whether it was 5 minutes to 12 or 1230 hours, but I think that this doesn’t change very much.

LG: I will ask you a final question.

GCM: Please, Attorney.

LG: Because it seems to me. At any time were the handcuffs, or anything of the sort, put on [her] in the Questura?

RF: Absolutely not. I repeat to you that I was rebuked because I took her to the bar without handcuffs with respect to ...

LG: Clarify this then ...

RF: This comes back to my mind, it makes me remember, thank you Attorney, that I took her after the notification of the arrest.

LG: Clarify for everyone, for the Court, for the lay judges, the manner [NdT: i.e. the way things took place] of the little sheets [of paper], the expression I want to make you… That is, the “memoriale”, the first “memoriale”: were the little sheets [of paper] requested before being translated in jail, after the notification of the arrest and before the translation in jail, the expression that Commissioner Napoleoni and also you reported – “I want to give you a gift” – how did… If you have doubts, ask me first, but anyway Amanda said these words in the moment when …

RF: Yes, when she asked me for the sheets. The interpreter was also there…

LG:  Both of you used the same sentence: “I want to give you a gift”.

RF: Yes, she said “I want to make you a gift”, we understood there [sic. NdT: typo? “lì” (there) instead of “li” (them)] as gift.. I said “what gift are you giving me?” [NdT: or “what a gift you are giving me”]. As a gift, it was meant/understood as “I want to give you a thing”, but then the fact that she said to me “I want to give it to you so that you can read it before taking me to jail, so that you, if you have other questions to ask me, you [can/will] do that…”

LG: This is everything I wanted to know. Thank you.

Defense attorney Maria Del Grosso

MDG: I wanted to know, if you remember it seeing as the closing time of the recaps/summaries is not given, how much time, more or less, Amanda was heard for?

RF: When?

MDG: The first questioning/report.

RF:  The first questioning/report finished late.

MDG: Do you recall is it a case of 0100 hours, 0200 hours?

RF: No, more [i.e. later], more, because first we had the general chat on what she had seen… To me, in that moment, more than writing [what] interested me was understanding whether there were clues, whether there were elements [on which] one could immediately carry out checks, and so communicate to my colleagues what there was to be done.

MDG: It sufficed, the answer that you gave me. How many times did you admonish Amanda, because it seems to me that I understood that she had been rebuked for her behaviour with Raffaele, she had been rebuked for the cartwheel, she had been rebuked on other occasions.

RF: Amanda was rebuked every time that the circumstances were not appropriate for her behaviour and I tell you what those are, Attorney: they are the times when she was found kissing/cuddling/smooching with Raffaele along the corridor the very day in which the cadaver was found: tell me yourself whether it seems suitable, in an office of the Questura, with a dead body still inside the house, if this one [NdT: i.e. Amanda] should continue to smooch/kiss and cuddle?

MDG: Mr President, that is an evaluation/assessment.

GCM: Very well, Excuse me please, we are only at the answers.

MDG: I said how many times, not…

RF: It was the first.

GCM: Then without going on to give a reason.

MDG: I did not ask for an assessment of the expediency/suitability or otherwise of the rebuke.

RF: Very well Attorney. Well, that was the first time, and then the second that [was] when I found her outside the elevator/lift, giving a demonstration of her abilities, and she continued to chuckle/snigger and to skip [about].

GCM: The second time you have already spoken about. And then was there another occasion?

RF: If in the same circumstance when I told her that – I already reported that I rebuked her in a maternal manner to tell her that we had understood that she had said some lies, even …

GCM: That’s enough like that, please.

RF: Three.

MDG: You also rebuked her with reference to the SMS found in her mobile phone [that had been] sent to Patrick Lumumba?

RF:  What should I have rebuked her about there?

MDG: What did you say to her?

RF: I asked her who he is, why she had send him that message, if …

GCM: Excuse me, answer yes or no.

RF:  No.

MDG:  Because earlier you spoke of contradictions.

GCM: Excuse me, we are at the answers of the witness, please Attorney, so you said no about the message.

MDG: What did it mean for you, the SMS sent to Lumumba, in the moment when you read it?

RF: For us, it could signify an appointment that evening, after the time of sending of the message – which was around 2030 hours – because if one says “certainly”, answers a message and says “we’ll see each other later” [NdT: the literal translation of “ci vediamo più tardi” is “We will see each other later”, usually understood as “See you later” in English], “Good evening”.

MDG: Did you ask her: “why did you never tell us about this appointment”?

RF: No, we asked her what it meant and whether there was in fact, or not, an appointment – and with whom.

MDG: Do you know the meaning of the expression in English “see you later”?

RF: Yes.

MDG: What does it mean?

RF: We will see each other after, later.

MDG: In the sense that one is giving [NdT: i.e. arranging/setting up/confirming] an appointment?

RF: No, I know that it means we will see each other later.

GCM: Maybe the witness is not ... One can give various interpretations to the expression, for goodness sake…!

RF: It was written in Italian.

GCM: This cannot be the subject of a question to the witness, please.

MDG: So you never suggested names to Amanda?

RF: Names, no.

GCM: Excuse me, Attorney, the question?

MDG: Have you ever suggested names to Amanda?

RF: No.

MDG: Because a little earlier you reported, with reference to the indication of Rudy, that it was on [your/her] initiative that Amanda spoke of Rudy.

RF: To remember that subject, I asked her what he was called because we had not yet identified him in that moment, we did not know who he was. We knew he was called “the Baron” by the boys below, from the flat/apartment below, but we did not know his identity.

MDG: Did Amanda know the nickname “the Baron”?

RF: No. Amanda did not give us any indication. She said that she did not exactly remember.

MDG: Did you report/record [in writing] everything that Amanda related?

RF: I reported/recorded [in writing] in the note what she related to me that night; I report/record [in writing] the things that relate to me.

MDG: Yes yes. But I am talking also about the recaps/summaries; did you report/record [in writing] everything related by Amanda?

GM: There is the report.

MDG: I am asking since first the witness referred to declarations that were not reported/recorded [in writing], I wanted to understand…

RF: Un-reported/un-recorded [in writing] declarations are in the note.

MDG: No, in the same context, Mr President, otherwise I would not have asked it.

GCM: The situation was different. Were there other similar/analogous conversations that were not reported/recorded [in writing]?

RF: No.

MDG: I am referring to the context of the undertaking in recaps/summaries, not outside of that.

RF: No, in the context, no.

MDG: I have no other questions.


Chapter 4: More Hard Realities From Rita Ficcara, Nervousness From Defense

1. Overview of this hoax series

Knox turned up at the central police station unwanted late on 5-6 Nov 2007 and briefly helped police with a list of seven names. Her version of this has morphed into a gigantic hoax.

One highly consistent version of the brief chat was testified to by all those officials present, and accepted by all courts including the Italian Supreme Court. Knox has served three years in prison for it and the US Embassy saw nothing done wrong.

And then there is Knox’s endlessly shifting version, inflated opportunistically and erratically by herself and wannabee experts over nearly seven years now. Knox has done so in numerous interviews, in her 2013 book, on her website, in her email to Judge Nencini, and in her “appeal” to the European Court of Human Rights. And the PR shills have done so on websites, on TV, in books, and in attempts to lobby the US federal government.

This version was repudiated several times by her smart Italian lawyers (though not by her foolish American lawyers) and they did next to nothing to try to verify it when questioning those officials at trial.

See a longer summary in Post #1 here.

2. Continuing the cross-examination of Rita Ficarra

Below is the examination of Inspector Rita Ficarra by Carlo Pacelli, Patrick Lumumba’s lawyer. Very tough stuff. Chronologically, this preceded the defense cross-examinations in posts #2 and #3 and may well have dampened them.

Here “GCM” is Judge Massei. As the defenses fully acknowledged, this was merely a recap/summary, a simple checking of facts with someone who might be helpful which could have been done on a street corner. It was not a witness or suspect interrogation. Claims that it was are a key part of the great hoax.

This English translation of the relevant part of Rita Ficarra’s testimony on 28 February 2009 was by main poster and professional translator ZiaK. Her full translation will appear soon on the Meredith Case Wiki.

Public Prosecutor Mignini

GM: Just one thing, Amanda, when you/she submitted the report/record, did the report/record in front of you, when she gave the spontaneous declarations, was she forced/compelled to give them, or was she, did she do it spontaneously?

RF: No, she did it spontaneously.

GM: Do you recall who was present at that moment?

RF: I was certainly together with her.

GM: Was there the interpreter?

RF: There was the interpreter, certainly, there was Donnino. Then there was present other staff who had reported/recorded [in writing] together with me the preceding oral evidence recaps/summaries, Zugarini and Ivano, only that maybe they were going in and out, then at a certain point they went out to give greater tranquility/calmness to the drawing up of the deed/case file, in short.

GM: I have no other questions.

Civil Party, Attorney Maresca

FM: Just one question, if I may show – it has already been acquired by the Court – the manuscript that was written/drawn up by Amanda Knox and handed over to the Inspector, if you are able to recognize it.

RF: Yes. It’s the one that I have, me. I don’t understand a word, but it is that one. Yes, because I have a copy of it, I made a photocopy.

GCM: So it is this?

RF: Yes yes.

FM: It is already acquired in the case/court files. This handing-over, did it happen spontaneously on the part of the accused to yourself?

RF: Yes.

FM: I have finished. Thank you.

Defence Attorney Bongiorno

GB: In the context/case of this note of 6 November 2007, did you also describe this cartwheel, these “oh-so-particular” behaviours?

RF: To whom?

GB: Since you were making a note in which you described these conversations that you had …

RF: Certainly. But we speak between ourselves and the others of the other squadrons, we speak. I described it, certainly.

GB: Then explain to me …

RF: No, you have to tell me to whom I should have described it.

GCM: No, excuse me, ask Attorney Bongiorno thus for the purposes of the transcription…

GB: I arouse a bit of hostility in effect…

RF: No, I don’t understand…

GB: There is a note in the context of which you describe this pre-recap/summary conversation with Amanda and give a series of details, behaviours, all that. Since it doesn’t seem to me that I see, it seems to me that this circumstance of the cartwheel - which we are now giving significance/importance to even from a procedural/trial point of view – is not noted therein, I was asking myself the reasons for this missing indication, that’s all.

RF: The reasons because it is a behaviour, she had already been quietly admonished for that behaviour, then in the end …

GB: That is to say, you did not consider it relevant for ... Since there is a series of indications of Amanda’s behaviour there …

RF: Yes, I understood what were the indications that were useful [for] the activity of the investigations. In a note, I report those that are the indications or the elements that are useful for advancing the inquiries: if I were to report about the cartwheel, what advancement to the inquiries would that have?

GCM: We have understood the meaning of the answer.

RF: I say, it might have a meaning today, when I say it for … But not yesterday, not in the note.

GCM: Excuse me, look, the questions that are posed are only in order to acquire information, even if to you they may seem perhaps …

RF: To me they seem a bit strange.

GCM: Useless, superfluous, however to us … So they are always useful.

LM: If the parties are all in agreement, I would like to request the acquisition of the note signed by Inspector Ficarra of 6 November 2007 at 2000 hours.

GM: It is already acquired for the case/trial file, Mr President.

GCM: Nonetheless, if there is no opposition, we can acquire it, yes. Its production has been requested and it has been acquired for the purposes of useability, on the consent of all parties. If there are [any] questions.

Defence – Attorney Del Grosso

MDG: I wanted to know only if Mr Patrick Lumumba, if you know, was arrested before or after the writing of the “memoriale”.

RF: By “arrested”, what do you mean? The notification of arrest, or that he had been physically taken first?

MDG: Both those circumstances.

GCM: If you know it.

RF: Since it was other colleagues who went to seek him, while I had … I don’t recall, honestly, I don’t know how to place it [in time] because I don’t recall. Maybe I had the door closed and I didn’t see the precise moment in which he came in.

MDG: You did not proceed with [deal with] the notification of arrest with regard to Lumumba?

RF: The notification, yes.

MDG: Then at least with reference to the notification you can tell us.

RF: In reference it was first the one for Amanda, if I don’t remember wrongly, but I don’t remember well.

GCM: The Attorney is asking [if it came] first with respect to the drawing-up of that writing [NdT: i.e. the “memoriale”] by Amanda Knox, or else after?

RF: If I don’t recall clearly the notification of arrest for Lumumba, how can I manage to remember whether it came first or afterwards?

GCM: She doesn’t remember it./You don’t remember it.

RF: I don’t remember it.

MDG: No other questions.

Judge Massei

GCM: I wanted just to ask you: earlier, you spoke of one of your investigation activities with regard to the route [taken by] Meredith the evening before.

RF: Yes.

GCM: If you could say what route, what it was you reconstructed.

RF: I, like others, we redid the same route several times, so we left from the house of the girls where Meredith had been to dinner during the evening before going back home, so we did the route to go down, now I can’t indicate the exact names of the roads, until we arrived at the little stairs, also to calculate also [sic] the time, in short, that it took and see if there were places/pubs open at that time, if there could be subjects, [and] where, [and to] seek to understand also the siting of any videocameras, and we arrived then at the end, in fact, near the little basketball court where, moreover, we sought, as I have already said, to identify subject that might give evidence of the presence, even in the past, of …

GCM: The travel time?

RF: What?

GCM: Travel time.

RF: About 10 minutes, it seemed to me.

GCM: There are no other questions, so …

FM: Mr President, the Inspector’s note was already acquired nonetheless with the “memoriale” of the 6th; it is a duplicate.

GCM: Ok, we will acquire it; in any case, we will only re-read it at the declarations given by the witness for … [Ficarra] is dismissed. It is 12 and three quarters. We could hear a witness before ending the morning, thus continue until one and three quarters, or 1400 hours, then we’ll have a break from 1400 hours to 1430 until 1500 hours, roughly. Thank you, good day. Unless there are different needs.

Lumumba Attorney Pacelli

CP: Listen, if I have understood properly, Miss Amanda came to the Questura [Police Station] the evening of the 5th without having been sent?

RF: Without having been called.

CP: Did she say to you the reason for which she had gone to the Questura?

RF: She had accompanied her boyfriend, because they never quit each other [i.e. they are always together], because it had already happened previously that she had been called on her own, and Sollecito – they called us from the guard house, saying that he was creating problems, they were not able to detain him/hold him back because he absolutely wanted to come up to be with her – and [then] when they were both above, they were always together clearly – bah, well, they’re boyfriend-and-girlfriend, [it’s] understandable.

CP: Thus, when you, following the investigative activity that you had carried out during the course of the day, came back to the Questura, you found her already in the Questura?

RF: Yes, I found her there in the little waiting room that is just before the offices of the Flying Squad.

CP: Do you recall more or less at what time you came back, Inspector?

RF: At 2300 hours. It was late.

CP: Listen, afterwards, then, you had this quiet conversation in the terms which you recalled for us? [For the prosecutor, see post #1]

RF: Yes.

CP: After which, you take on Miss Amanda for the recap/summary. In that circumstance, other than you, who was present in the room?

RF: Assistant Chief Zugarini and a colleague from the Rome SCO, Ivano - I don’t remember the surname of this [person], since we don’t always work together, I don’t remember well. Ivano Raffo, that’s it, and then there was the interpreter, Donnino.

CP: Anna Donnino?

RF: Yes.

CP: In this circumstance, and I am referring to the recap/summary of 0145 hours, was Amanda by any chance beaten/punched?

RF: Absolutely not. I’ve already answered [that] to the Public Prosecutor.

CP: Was she hit with punches and with slaps?

RF: No, absolutely not.

CP: Was she mistreated/manhandled?

RF: No.

CP: Was she threatened?

RF: No.

GCM: Excuse me, Attorney, they have already made…

CP: No, it’s to say that the Perugia Questura is not Quantanamo, Mr President.

GB: Bah, well, let’s avoid ...

GCM: Excuse me, please.

CP: In the circumstance, Inspector, were the circumstances and the facts that were reported by Miss Amanda suggested by one of those present?

RF: Excuse me, who knew Mr Patrick Lumumba?

GCM: So the answer is no, you did not know him?

RF: We did not know him, we asked her who this Patrick was.

GCM: Please, Attorney.

CP: Thank you, Inspector. Listen, still [with regard to] this circumstance, had someone - and in particular for a par of factual circumstances - suggested to Amanda that Patrick had had sex, had had sexual relations with poor Meredith before killing her?

RF: Absolutely not. There are declarations, oral testimony,  that she gave spontaneously. No-one ...

CP: Still with regard to this factual verification, was there someone who had compelled, suggested to, Amanda to declare that she had heard Meredith scream, shriek?

GCM: If there were suggestions/prompting in the declarations.

RF: Absolutely not. Absolutely not.

CP: Listen, Inspector, I am asking you ...

RF: Yes, you are being a Attorney, and rightly so.

CP: You certify/testify to me what happened. So all this that you reported/recounted as a point of fact and of circumstance, Amanda reported [them] to you spontaneously, on her own initiative?

RF: Yes.

CP: Listen, coming to the summaries/recaps, after which you said that you suspended [proceedings].

RF: I closed the hearing/questioning because there were indications…

CP: And you took steps to call whom?

RF: The judicial authority.

CP: Very well, to whom she made once again these ... 

RF: She again made the same spontaneous declarations in this case, in the presence of myself and of Dr Mignini.

CP: In the ways that you described above?

RF: Yes.

CP: Also in this circumstance, was she struck/beaten?

GCM: She has already said.

CP: In the manner [described] above, ok?

RF: As above, ok.

CP: These are elements of fact. I ask if at 0545 hours she was beaten, Mr President.

MDG: This is a tanquam non esset [NdT: “as if it did not exist”] act

CP: No, but what tanquam non esset? It is acquired as physical evidence.

GCM: We are only at [the stage of] questions.

CP: No, no, Mr President. Mine is a question, so I will repeat and reword it: was she struck with punches or slaps?

RF: Absolutely not.

CP: Thank you Inspector. Afterwards, in the appending of signatures by Miss Amanda with regard to the recaps/summaries both of 0145 hours and that of 0545 hours, was Miss Amanda struck with punches and slaps, I repeat when ...

RF:  Absolutely not.

CP: Was she compelled/forced ...

RF: She was not compelled/forced by anyone.

GCM: Attorney, this reiteration of questions ...

CP: No, but ...

GCM: Excuse me a moment. You recall also clause/provision 198, so she has already replied, and in any case we are at this, at the answers that she has given us, because otherwise it becomes ...

CP: Question [sic] in point of circumstance of fact for clarifications that were needed with regard also to the interrogation rendered by Miss Amanda, in short.

GCM: No, no. The questions. Let us turn to the premises/preliminary remarks.

CP: After which, on the factual level, shall we say, of actions/gestures, how did Amanda behave in these circumstances?

GCM: She has already reported something [on this].

RF: I have already reported, but in what circumstance?

CP: Immediately after ending the hearing of 0545 hours, the one given before the Public Prosecutor, just to ...

RF: No, she was calm, I told you that she asked me if she could rest because she felt a bit tired.

GCM: You already reported that.

CP: Coming to the afternoon, in effect, the arrest happens, and Miss Amanda is notified of the arrest warrant.

RF: Yes, around midday.

CP: And it seems to me, I want to make a specification/clarification because it seems to me that there was a slight confusion between the 5th and the 6th. In effect, the request for sheets [of paper], Amanda made that [request] to you on the afternoon of 6 November, the sheets for writing?

RF: Excuse me, the notification of the arrest warrant occurred on the 6th, it took place at midday?

CP: Yes.

RF: But midday and two minutes, I tell you that she asked me for the sheets, the interpreter was still there, Colantoni, who had replaced Donnino, who had been there during the night.

CP: Yes, I thank you, because it seemd to me that…

RF: It was in that moment when she had [been] read, in English, the reasons for the arrest, immediately after she said to me “please, give me a pen and some sheets, because I must write?” and we gave her a pen and sheets to write [with].

CP: It was for my historical record, in the sense that she made a note around 2000 hours on the day of the 6th, in this note she reports facts from a conversation of the evening ...

RF: I necessarily went [away] to sleep, indeed!, after two days.

CP: And this circumstance in the afternoon of the 6th.

RF: I returned in the evening and I did ...

GCM: Have we clarified, are there other questions, Attorney?

CP: Yes, I have one. I believe, however, that someone has preceeded/pre-empted me, I think [it was] the Public Prosecutor.

GCM: [Only] questions for the purpose of [obtaining] answers are of interest.

CP: It [the question] was referring, Inspector, to the ... There you go, look, I am showing you the print of the SMS sent by Amanda’s mobile phone to Lumumba on the date of 1 November 2007 at 2032 hours, if you recognize it, it was in a ...

GCM: But is the same, Attorney?

CP: I think so, I haven’t checked that, Mr President.

GCM: It is still the same.

RF: It’s only that one. There is only that one.

GCM: Is it this one, Attorney? The Public Prosecutor has already shown it, and the witness ...

CP: Thank you, I have not other questions.


Chapter 5: Key Witness Monica Napoleoni Confirms Knox Self-Imploded 5-6 Nov

1. Overview of our series on the Knox interrogation hoax

This is a brief summary. Please read the full series here.

Approximately 10 posts will be devoted to the 2009 trial testimony, including Amanda Knox’s, which did her no good, and then another 10 posts to the escalating hoax propagated by Knox and the conspiracy nuts.

Here is a new example just posted by fervid new conspiracy nut Lisa Marie Basile in the Huffington Post.

We should remember that Knox was interrogated for many hours without food or water. She was slapped and screamed at in Italian—a language she barely understood at the time. When the police found her text message (which said the English equivalent of “goodnight, see you another time”) with Lumumba, they psychologically tortured her and coerced her into confessing that he was involved in the murder.

If her text message was sent to anyone else of any race, the same would have occurred. She named him because they named him. More so, false confessions aren’t rare. According to the Innocence Project, “In about 25 percent of DNA exoneration cases, innocent defendants made incriminating statements, delivered outright confessions or pled guilty.”

What total nonsense. None of Lisa Marie Basile’s “facts” here are correct. That leaves nothing of her absurd “she’s innocent but beautiful” theory still standing. This is what actually took place.

2. How Knox helped police with recap/summary 5-6 Nov

Late on 5 November 2007 Senior Inspector Rita Ficarra arrives back at the police station, to find her way blocked by a cartwheeling Knox. She mildly remonstrates. Knox testily responds that she has become sick and tired of the investigation, though she has really been little put-out.

Rita Ficarra suggests she go home and get some sleep. Knox refuses, and stays put.

After a short while Rita Ficarra suggests to Knox that if she really wants to help, she could add to the list of who Meredith knew and who might have visited the house. Knox happily agrees. So they begin on the list.

The entire official team is three often-commiserating ladies, and one man, who holds Knox’s hand.  As the defenses fully acknowledged, this was merely a recap/summary, a simple checking of facts with someone who might be helpful which could have been done on a street corner. It was not a witness or suspect interrogation. Claims that it was are a key part of the great hoax.

During the session, Inspector Napoleoni and a couple of colleagues are seeking facts from Sollecito in a separate wing. Shown conflicts between what he has said and what his phone records show, Sollecito backtracks in a heartbeat and throws Knox under the bus.

Meanwhile Knox calmly produces seven names. No voices were raised until, to the considerable surprise of all others present, Knox has a yelling, head-clutching conniption (the first of three that night). This happens when they come across a text she had sent to someone though she had said she sent no texts. This text said she would see this unnamed person later, at an indefinite time.

Knox in turn throws Patrick under the bus, and later Sollecito. A torrent of accusations against Patrick explodes. The discussion is brought to a halt. Several hours later, Dr Mignini arrives at the police station, and in a second session presides over a reading of Knox’s rights.

At both sessions Knox herself insists on keeping everyone captive while she writes it all out. See the first statement here and the second statement here.  Both times, she is warned she should have a lawyer by her side first. Both times she declines.

In the noon statement Knox included this without any mention of having been coerced: “The questions that need answering, at least for how I’m thinking are… 2. Why did I think of Patrik?”

Here is the relevant part of Inspector Monica Napoleoni’s testimony at the 2009 trial. It was kindly translated by ZiaK. GCM is Judge Massei, who often ensures focus and clarity.

Prosecutor Dr Giuliano Mignini

Dr Mignini [GM]: There, so 6 November, the house was therefore subjected to sequestration, so there were ...

Monica Napoleoni [MN}: Yes, the house, after it was subjected to sequestration, there was Amanda in the Questura when we got back, since the material that was sequestered/confiscated, a lot of it was hers, apart from the keys to the house of the boys on the floor below, that the boyfriend left with Meredith the keys to below, we notified the sequestration to Amanda, at any rate we sequestered the whole building.

GM: There we go; the night between 5 and 6 November. You remember, no?

MN: Certainly.

GM: There now, can you tell us what happened?

MN: We went ahead with the checks. Obviously, of all the depositions [of various witnesses], as [I] said. No indications of responsibility appeared against [any] others. We took photos from the Internet of the party, for example, of 31 October. We identified the people who we saw in the photos with Amanda. We had begun a series of activities also of telephone interception, obviously.

GCM: Excuse me, in photos with Amanda

MN: Pardon me, yes, with Meredith, yes. We had begun an activity of phone interceptions, in short, against numerous people, also to understand what had happened that night. We had also known, through the consultation of the phone read-outs, for example, that Amanda and Sollecito had had their cellphones inactive that evening. One from 20:35, perhaps Amanda from 20:35 and Sollecito from 20:42. And there was, shall we say, this void of telephone traffic [for] Raffaele Sollecito until 06:02 of the morning.

GM: Of the 2nd [November], therefore?

MN: Of the 2nd. And Amanda, on the contrary, until 12:03, 04 or 07 [PM], I don’t remember [exactly], at any rate when she began trying, shall we say, to catch sight of [sic] or to seek to call Meredith. I don’t know what the first call was. And that, honestly, it seemed strange to us, because Sollecito had always declared that he had woken in the morning, that he had been awoken by Amanda ...

GB: President, excuse me, we are again starting the usual…

GCM: Report the declarations only, where they are ...

MN: Well, how should I do, then?

GCM: ... indispensible to do them for the subsequent investigations.

MN: I wanted to say that if Raffaele had slept until ten-thirty or eleven in the morning, how on earth had his telephone been switched on at 06:02?

GCM: So you carried out these investigative activities on the telephone printouts?

MN: That’s why, in the meantime, we had ...

GCM: On the printouts, in relation to these declarations.

MN: Certainly, but on kind of a lot of people, also, obviously, with respect to these declarations, so for that reason even this fact did not add up. Obviously, during those days,  we were always there, we were continuously calling witnesses. That is to say, the English girls, we called them many times. The flatmates, we called them continuously, because [for] every detail we wanted to have a crosscheck, that is, bit by bit, as we advanced with the investigations, it’s normal that we need to re-hear/re-question the witnesses and see if we can manage, in short, to understand/grasp something.

GM: The evening of the 5th [November].

MN: Ah, indeed. In fact, we had decided to call Raffaele Sollecito this time. We had telephoned a colleague from the SCO, it seems to me he called him. Raffaele said he was out to dinner with Amanda, and that he would come to the office after dinner. In fact, he arrived after 22:00 hours, I don’t recall the exact time.

Amanda also came that evening, the evening of the 5th. We said to Amanda that she could go home to rest. Since, during those days, she was always saying, always complaining that she wanted to rest, wanted to eat, we said: “Look, you’ve eaten, you can go and rest yourself. If there’s a need, we’ll call you”.

Instead, she was very nervous, and insisted on staying there, and we kept her ... well, not even in the waiting room, [but] in the entry-hall of the Flying Squad [offices], that is to say, before entering the Flying Squad [offices], outside the lifts, there are some chairs there. The girl sat herself down there.

And I began to examine Raffaele in an S.I.T. [NdT: “sommarie informazione testimone” or brief witness questioning/recap, not full interrogation], together with two colleagues from the SCO in Rome. Then, I remember for example one fact, the same that had struck me [then], that I think I went to get a little bottle of water, something, [and] while I was going out I found Amanda who was doing the splits and cartwheels, in the Questura offices. It’s obvious that all these behaviours, all the contradictions, that is to say, we re-called …

GCM: So she was doing…

GM: What time was this?

MN: Well, it would be about 11:00 [p.m.]

GM: There you go. And then?

MN: Then we ...

GM: Behaviour of Amanda and Raffaele, but especially of Amanda, the night of 5 to 6 [November] in that period?

MN: For one thing, I point out that it wasn’t me who heard her for the minutes/written record, but it was other colleagues [Rita Ficarra plus several] who heard/questioned her. However, it’s obvious that we… some [of us] left, some entered, some were walking by, that is to say. This is normal. She [Amanda] always had an exaggerated manner.

GCM: In this manner, you said, she was doing the splits, cartwheels, there you go.

MN: She was doing the splits, doing cartwheels.

GCM: Others…?

MN: That is to say, she was laughing. She didn’t have the behaviour of a person ...

GCM: Please.

GM: But this behaviour, did it then change? How did it change, and when did it change?

MN: No, that, however ... Afterwards, I again say…  that is to say, I saw her at intervals, however I was not there while they were taking her minutes/written record. A few times, I maybe went in to get, to bring a coffee, to bring something, however it was not me who was present there the whole time.

GM: However you saw that at a certain point she had begun to cry, you said?

MN: It was already almost at the morning.

GM: Towards what time did that happen?

MN: Well, Raffaele Sollecito’s minutes/written record, I think – because we also gave him quite a lot of causes [sic: should be pauses/breaks?] – I think we finished with him around three-thirty, three-forty. [With] Amanda, on the contrary, it finished much later. Yes, I also saw that she was crying in the anti-theft office, in effect, where they were examining/questioning her.

GM: Do you remember how she was treated by the staff, whether there were …?

MN: Amanda was treated very well. Amanda, she was …

GM: ... violence, of ...

MN: But absolutely not! Amanda was given something to drink several times. She was brought hot chamomile, she was taken to the bar of the Questura to eat. First she was given brioches from the little [vending] machine. That is all to say, Amanda was treated well.

GM: So, you, later, you continued the investigations, and never returned to Via della Pergola, no?

MN: No, I ...

Civil Party Attorney Pacelli

CP: Lumumba defence. Listen, I’m referring to the evening of 5 November, precisely, when Amanda came to the offices of the Questura. At what time did she arrive?

MN: They had been out to dinner, she and Raffaele, so for that reason they arrived around 22:15, 22:20 – after ten o’clock for sure.

CP: After 22:00.

MN: Yes. Certainly.

CP: She remained, therefore, the whole evening, the whole night of the 5th obviously…

MN: Yes, yes.

CP: Also the morning of the 6th. During that period of time, does it seem to you that Miss Amanda was beaten/struck?

MN: Absolutely not. I already explained that earlier.

CP: Yes, no, but I however am in cross-examination. I am asking detailed, precise questions, and I have very few.

MN: No, absolutely not.

CP: Was she, by any chance, therefore, manhandled/beaten up, threatened or insulted?

MN: No, she was treated well. Obviously with firmness, because it’s not as though we were at the cinema, in short, or at the circus – even if someone else might think that, we don’t.  With firmness, but with courtesy she was …

CP: These methods of treatment, how did they translate into practice? With what behaviour/actions [were they carried out] in actual fact? Earlier, you recalled that they actually brought her something to eat…

MN: It’s true. That morning, I remember that Inspector Ficarra actually took her to the bar to eat as soon as it opened. But before [that], we have little [vending] machines on the ground floor, and she was brought water, she was brought hot drinks, she was brought a snack. But also Raffaele, he was given something to drink, it’s not as though they were kept … absolutely.

CP: Yes, yes. But thus we have a firm manner, but with great regard and respect?

MN: Absolutely, yes. Because at any rate we were dealing still with young folk of twenty years of age, that is to say, we never forgot this.

CP: Thank you. Thank you, Doctor [NdT: “Doctor” refers also to graduates, and is a term of respect, not necessarily implying a medical or PhD degree]. I have no other questions, President.

Defence Attorney Bongiorno

GB: You said, precisely, that Amanda was treated very well, taken to the bar, chamomile, etc.

MN: It’s true.

GB: During these interrogations in the Questura, I wanted to know, as regards Sollecito, who had these extremely long interrogations: was Sollecito also taken to the bar? Did he eat?

MN: Sollecito was not taken to the bar, because I did not take him to the bar. However, Sollecito was given … he requested water, [and] he was brought water. He was given numerous pauses/breaks.

GB: Was it said to Sollecito, at a certain point, when you challenged/impugned/questioned him… obviously the interrogation, as we know, went on an extremely long time ... that he could have recourse to a lawyer?

MN: I took him in for the recaps/summary information, and I did not suspend/interrupt the minutes/written record against him.

GB: You didn’t think that a lawyer was necessary?

MN: In that moment, no.

GB: How long did this interrogation last?

MN: We started at 10:40 until three-forty approximately.

GB: Were there objections [NdT: “contestazione” can also mean “formal notice”, e.g. of a charge] in the course of the interrogation?

MN: No, I did not make any objections/[formal notices]. We asked him simply to tell us what had happened that day.

GCM: Excuse me. When you say “10:40”, do you mean 22:40?

MN: 22:40, yes.

GB: So during the course of the interrogation, he did not ... reach/join [the status of] suspect by clues/evidence?

MN: He was not?

GB: You did not make any objections/formal notices?

MN: When we hear someone for recaps/summary information, that is to say, it is normal that we ask them questions, it’s normal, that is to say …

GB: Questions, yes. I was asking you if you had made any objections/formal notices.

MN: I asked why on earth he had told us up to that point things that did not correspond to the truth.

GB: And after you asked this question, did you not consider that for Raffaele it would … it was necessary to call a lawyer for Raffaele?

MN: Well, Raffaele Sollecito, already from when he came to the Questura at any rate, no-one ever prevented him from telephoning or from doing what he wanted.

GB: I’m not asking you if he was prevented. You know that it is provided ...

MN: No, I no ...

GB: Excuse me. Let me finish. You know that it is provided by law that when there are objections/formal notices or [if] recaps/summary informations turn into interrogations, the minutes/written record must be halted. The subject must be given the possibility, especially if it is the middle of the night, to have the possibility [sic] to call a lawyer and to have a consultation. You are telling me that there were objections/formal notices made, but you did not consider [it necessary/expedient] to stop the minutes/written records.

MN: I am telling you that I took Raffaele Sollecito for minutes/written records [NdT: the witness often uses the term “verbale”, which is literally “minutes/written record”, in the sense of “to question/questioning”] without making any objections/formal notices to him, or asking him things, as one normally does to all the witnesses, and I closed the minutes/written record, concluding the SIT [“sommarie informazione testimoniale”]. That is to say, in that moment I did not object/make a formal notice of anything to him.

GB: However, you asked him the question that you told me earlier, if he was saying things that were not true?

MN: But one asks this of everyone. That is to say, it’s not that it was asked only of him. I don’t understand.

GB: How much later after this interrogation was Raffaele’s detention/provisional arrest made?

MN: It was made the same morning.

GB: What new elements were there with respect to those interrogations?

MN: In the meantime Amanda Knox was being examined for minutes/written records over there, and there are … the contradictions between them were too [far] out.

GB: And these contradictions ... on the basis of these contradictions, you never called the lawyer, neither for the one, nor for the other? Is this correct?

MN: I was not with Amanda Knox, but I don’t believe that she was prevented from calling the lawyer. You must ask this of Inspector Ficarra, not of me, because I was not there in that moment.

GB: The objective elements, starting from the declarations, on the basis of which Raffaele Sollecito was arrested: do you recall that there was a print [footprint] amongst these elements?

MN: He was subjected to provisional arrest/detention by the Public Prosecutor, not arrested.

GB: Provisional arrest/detention by the Public Prosecutor. Do you remember the print?

MN: For me, the objective elements are all the contradictions and, shall we say, the false alibis that Raffaele, together with Amanda, gave us until they were separated.

GCM: The Attorney is asking: was there, at any rate, a print?

MN: There was a print that was held to be compatible with Raffaele Sollecito by the Laboratory of Forensic Police of Foligno.

GCM: Yes. That’s what you asked, no?

GB: Yes, and I also wanted to know: these contradictions that you’ve talked so much about, so were they contradictions that were given during these minutes/written records that we are talking about, these minutes/written records when there was no lawyer…

MN: Taken from the first second when we had begun to hear/question them, and going onwards from there. Because it was scarcely believable all the stories that they told us, and Raffaele knows very well that he told me things, spontaneously, without me having requested/pressed him, for that matter.

GB: On the basis of all [sic]... You are talking to me of contradictions. I am asking you: since there were these contradictions, that you actually hold to be so important that they then led to the provisional arrest/detention, because this …

MN: But the decree of detention/provisional arrest does not come from the Judicial Police.

GB: You are telling me of contradictions from the beginning to the end.

MN: It’s true.

GB: Since you are not talking about a contradiction at the very last hour, that is to say at five in the morning, but from the beginning to the end, I am asking myself why a lawyer was not called.

MN: I repeat that the provisional arrest/detention was from the Public Prosecutor, and not the Judicial Police.

GB: No, I’m asking you why the lawyer was not called during the minutes/written record.

MN: Because I did not consider [it necessary] to do so because I closed [the session] as recaps/summary information. The gravity of the fact emerged when Amanda Knox was also heard/questioned, who was examined up to 01:45, it seems to me, of the morning. It’s obvious that afterwards my colleagues reported to me what was happening over there.

GB: Very well. Listen, is there a report in which you speak of Amanda’s cartwheel?

MN: No, me personally, no.

GB: Did someone make a report with this cartwheel of Amanda’s?

MN: The report on the cartwheel, in short, it did not seem necessary to me to make one. However, regarding strange and suspect behaviours there is always …

GB: Since, in one of the preliminary hearings you reported it as one of the most significant elements.

MN: It did not seem normal to us.

GCM: Excuse me. Yes, at any rate, there was no annotation.

MN: No.

GCM: We are only doing questions and the answers. Please.

Defence Attorney Ghirga

GCM: Please Attorney.

LG: One very last question: at the same time you say that the night of the 6th, between the 5th and the 6th, “Amanda was treated well, at 4 in the morning – [as] this timetable shows – she was even, shall we say, quote-unquote refreshed, she began to cry”…

MN: No, I didn’t indicate that at 4, at any rate.

LG: She began to cry at 4. If you want, I ...

MN: However I have never indicated a timetable.

LG: Nonetheless, when you pinpoint the time, shall we say, [of] this … You report about Amanda and say that, at a certain point, I have it written, at 4 in the morning it indicates, she was calm….

GCM: Yes, please, please.

LG: And that she was nonetheless treated well, when [you] place [this], and then this “treated well” emerges with a tea, it seems to me. Can you place this [event] in time?

MN: Yesterday, at the Public Prosecutor’s request, I answered this, however I also specified that Inspector Ficarra dealt with this matter. I recall exactly how Amanda was treated because we were going in and out, however I can’t give you times of [her] collapse/breakdown, of when she started to cry. I saw her cry, but I don’t recall having been able to give this timetable yesterday. At 4, I don’t remember.

LG: You said that Amanda was in an antitheft room.

MN: She was in the antitheft office.

LG: And that is on which floor? I don’t know this.

MN: Still on our floor, the Flying Squad is the only one. There is a main door, and then there are various offices.

LG: On the same floor where shortly before, shortly afterwards, we shall see, Raffaele Sollecito was also interrogated?

MN: Yes, in a different wing, in effect.

LG: It is in the antitheft room - but perhaps I’m wrong, so don’t get mad straight away – that you saw either the splits or the cartwheel and …

MN: No, it was in the entry-hall before coming into the Flying Squad [offices], at the exit from the lifts.

LG: So at the lower floor?

MN: No, on the third floor one comes out of the lift, on the left there’s the entry to the Flying Squad. Before that there’s a pre-entry, with little armchairs.

LG: So we’re at the entry-hall of the third floor, where the Flying Squad is.

MN: Yes, but not inside the Flying Squad. There’s another door.

LG: Is this the anti-theft room?

MN: No, the antitheft office is an office where the antitheft squad is, and then advancing there’s the Flying Squad on the left.

LG: But when you, I believe in order to get a bottle of water, go into a place where Amanda is, you see…

MN: No, I was passing to go get the water, yes…

LG: If you could clarify this for us better.

MN: I was passing to go get a little bottle of water from the little [vending] machines, by necessity I must exit from the Flying Squad, and I tell you again that she was in the entry-hall, there by the lifts.

LG: Alone?

MN: No, there were colleagues.

LG: Your colleagues?

MN: Colleagues, it seems to me, from the Rome SCO.

LG: She was with policemen, and she was doing a movement, which movements were different, a cartwheel and a split are not two things, so if you remember you were this precise.

MN: I remember.

LG: What was she doing?

MN: For sure it struck me: she did both a splits and a cartwheel.

LG: Both of them. She was doing gymnastics.

MN: Eh.

LG: Thank you.

GCM: There are no further questions.

Defence Attorney Maria del Grosso

MDG: With reference to the night of 5 November, do you remember at what time Dr Mignini arrived?

MN: No, I don’t remember.

MDG: And how long did the gathering of information from Amanda Knox by your colleagues go on? How much time?

MN: Look in the minutes, I did not do it.

MDG: And there is no minutes, there is no time of closing.

MN: So then why are you asking this of me…

GCM: If you remember.

MDG: If you remember, Doctor?

MN: No, I don’t remember.

MDG: If you remember. If you don’t remember, not ...

MN: No.

Prosecutor Dr Giuliano Mignini

GM: Listen, do you recall Amanda’s “memoriali” [NdT: written notes (plural)], do you recall the first “memorial”?

MN: I remember that Inspector Ficarra said to me, after the execution of the detention/provisional arrest, that Amanda had asked her for blank sheets [of paper] because, word for word, she wanted to give a gift, wanted to write things. And I remember too that she was given these blank sheets [of paper], she wrote for some time, so much [time] that I even requested Inspector Ficarra to go [away/home?] because we had to accompany the detainees to jail. At any rate, Amanda was made to finish writing, and she gave to the Inspector this …

GM: Were other “memoriali” sequestered?

MN: Yes, later in jail.

GM: At what times?

MN: It seems to me that with the report of 29 November [there were] diaries and manuscripts of Amanda’s [that were] sequestered in jail.

 


Chapter 6: Sollecito Transcript & Actions Further Damage Knox Version

1. Breaking News From The Sollecito Appeal

It is in effect being reported (see below) that the Sollecto team have asked Cassation to concede that back in 2008 they - Cassation - maybe made a mistake in the law.

That, the Sollecito team said, directly caused a disadvantage to their guy. And they may very well be right. If Cassation agrees, it may leave Knox with no further effective fight.

2. What Happened When Knox Was “Interrogated”

To fully understand this, it will pay you to have read this series which includes major new translations by the professional translator ZiaK. And especially Part 2 of the previous post.

You will see repeatedly confirmed by those who were there these key facts:

(1) Amanda Knox turned up at the Perugia central police station late at night, unwanted and grumpy, and was advised to go home and get some sleep.

(2) Inspector Ficarra later said if she really wanted, she could help, she could build a list of possible perps, in a recap/summary session (not an interrogation).

(3) For maybe 45 minutes, starting at 12:30 am (when the interpreter arrived), Knox quite calmly listed seven names along with maps drawn.

(4) Knox was then quietly told Sollecito had contradicted her alibi (see his newly translated statement below). Knox had no immediate reaction.

(5) Soon after, Knox had a wailing conniption, which really startled the four others present, when Knox saw an outgoing text to her boss she had just said wasnt there.

(6) Police did what they could to calm her down, and she insisted on writing out three statements (see below) in supposed elaboration in less than 12 hours.

(7) She was warned she should have a lawyer each time, the second warning by Dr Mignini, but each time she shrugged off this advice and pressed on.

(8) In the noon statement Knox said this, with no mention of having been coerced: “The questions that need answering, at least for how I’m thinking are… 2. Why did I think of Patrik?”


3. More About Knox’s Three Statements

Cassation ruled in April 2008 that the first two statements could not be used to indict Knox at the murder trial, but all three could be used to argue her framing of Patrick.

All three of Knox’s voluntary statements of 5-6 November say she was at her house with Patrick; the main thrust of the third statement (handwritten when she knew Patrick was being held nearby and may have proved her a liar at any minute) was to spread the accusations around a bit more, and drop Sollecito also in the soup

But the voluntary 1:45 and 5:45 statements also include these damning claims:

Statement 1:45: “I responded to the message [from Patrick] by telling him that we would see each other at once; I then left the house, telling my boyfriend that I had to go to work.

Statement 5:45: “I wish to relate spontaneously what happened because these events have deeply bothered me and I am really afraid of Patrick, the African boy who owns the pub called “Le Chic” located in Via Alessi where I work periodically. I met him in the evening of November 1st 2007, after sending him a reply message saying “I will see you”. We met soon after at about 21.00 at the basketball court of Piazza Grimana. “

See the possible opportunity for Sollecito’s team via the new appeal here? That’s one supposed “proof” that he wasn’t there (or at most came late, to explain his footprints and DNA).

And see the really big problem for Knox? She says she went out from Sollecito’s place on the night - and quite specifically says he did not come along.

4. Dr Mignini’s View On Cassation Ruling

Dr Mignini has several times observed that Cassation misunderstood that Knox herself had insisted on all three statements, ignoring advice he and investigators gave her.

But he did not think it was a make-or-break issue, and to him Cassation is almost invariable respectful and benign. And many Italian legal precedents say yes, in those circumstances those statements really should have been permitted exhibits at the main trial.

5. Now Sollecito Team Agrees With Mignini

1) Read the excellent new report by Andrea Vogt here (her Update of 19 June 2014) which in part quotes the Sollecito appeal saying this:

“The trials lacked an adequate review of the “individual” role of Sollecito, generating instead a sense of his guilt due to…  a “confession” made by her, which never mentioned him at the scene of the crime. 1a) That declaration should be used as a favourable element showing Sollecito was not at the scene of the crime, not as a piece of evidence that confirms his guilt.

2) Also read the new report by Barbie Nadeau here [with the caution by Popper in Comments below] which in part says this.

Now, for the first time in this seven-year long, painfully epic case, Sollecito wants to be judged independently from Knox—if not on the case as a whole, at least on the issue of the so-called “false confession.”


6. Sollecito’s Statement Early 6 November 2007

Perugia Police Headquarters

Flying Squad General Affairs Area.

SUBJECT: Witness statement of person informed of the facts given by SOLLECITO Raffaele, already identified.

On November 5th 2007 at 22:40 in the offices of the Flying Squad of the Perugia Police Headquarters. Before the undersigned of the Criminal Investigation Dept. Deputy Commissioner MONICA NAPOLEONI, Chief Inspector Antonio FACCHINI Vice Superintendent of Police Daniele MOSCATELLI, Assistant Chief Ettore FUOCO is present the above-mentioned who, to supplement the declarations made [November] in these Offices, in regards to the facts being investigated, declares as follows: [*A.D.R. = Question Answer = QA]

QA I have known Amanda for about two weeks. From the night that I met her she started sleeping at my house. On November 1st, I woke up at around 11, I had breakfast with Amanda then she went out and I went back to bed. Then around 13:00-14:00 I met her at her house again. Meredith was there too. Amanda and I had lunch while Meredith did not have lunch with us.

QA Around 16:00 Meredith left in a hurry without saying where she was going. Amanda and I stayed home until about 17:30-18:00.

QA We left the house, we went into town, but I don’t remember what we did.

QA We stayed there from 18:00 until 20:30/21:00. At 21:00 I went home alone because Amanda told me that she was going to go to the pub Le Chic because she wanted to meet some friends.

QA At this point we said goodbye and I headed home while she headed towards the center.

QA I went home alone, sat at the computer and rolled myself a spliff. Surely I had dinner but I don’t remember what I ate. Around 23:00 my father called at my home number 075.9660789. During that time I remember Amanda had not come back yet.

QA I browsed at my computer for another two hours after my father’s phone call and only stopped when Amanda came back presumably around 1:00.

QA I don’t remember how she was dressed and if she was dressed the same way as when we said goodbye before dinner.

QA I don’t remember if we had sex that night.

QA The following morning around 10:00 we woke up, she told me she wanted to go home and take a shower and change clothes.

QA In fact at around 10:30 she went out and I went back to sleep. When she went out that morning to go to her house, Amanda also took an empty bag telling me she needed it for dirty clothes.

QA At around 11:30 she came back home and I remember she had changed clothes; she had her usual bag with her.

QA I don’t know the contents of her bag.

QA I remember we immediately went to the kitchen, we sat down and talked for a while, perhaps we had breakfast. In that circumstance Amanda told me that when she got to her house she found the entrance door wide open and some traces of blood in the small bathroom and she asked me if it sounded strange. I answered that it did and I also advised her to call her housemates. She said she had called Filomena but that Meredith was not answering.

QA At around 12:00 we left the house; passing through Corso Garibaldi we arrived in Piazza Grimana, then we went through the Sant’ Antonio parking lot and reached Amanda’s house. To walk there it took us about 10 minutes.

QA As soon as we got there she opened the door with her keys, I went in and I noticed that Filomena’s door was wide open with some glass on the floor and her room was in a complete mess. The door to Amanda’s room was open and I noticed that it was tidy. Then I went towards Meredith’s door and saw that it was locked. Before this I looked to see if it was true what Amanda had told me about the blood in the bathroom and I noticed drops of blood in the sink, while on the mat there was something strange - a mixture of blood and water, while the rest of the bathroom was clean.

QA I went to the kitchen and saw that everything was in order, then went around the rest of the house, I went to Laura’s room and noticed it was tidy. In that moment Amanda went inside the big bathroom, next to the kitchen and came out frightened and hugging me tight telling me that earlier, when she took the shower, she had seen feces inside the toilet, while now the toilet was clean. QA I just took a rapid glance at the bathroom trusting what Amanda had told me.

QA At that point I was asking myself what could have happened and I went out to find Meredith’s window to see if I could climb to it. I went outside with Amanda and she tried to climb to it, I immediately stopped her telling her to not do it because it was dangerous. I then told Amanda that the best solution was to break down the door, I tried to kick it and shoulder it open but I didn’t manage to open it. Then I called my sister on her cellphone and asked her what I should do since she is a Carabinieri lieutenant. My sister told me to call the Carabinieri (112, the Italian emergency number), which I did, but in the meantime the Postal Police showed up.

QA In my previous statement I told a load of rubbish because Amanda had convinced me of her version of the facts and I didn’t think about the inconsistencies. I heard the first statements that she made to the Postal Police who intervened at the place.

QA She always carried a big bag that she also had the night of November 1st.

The investigating officials acknowledge that the deposition ends at 3:30 (AM) of November 6th 2007.


7. Our Analysis Of What RS Signed

Chimera (who is currently working on identifying all of the lies in Amanda Knox’s book) offers these notes.

QA Around 16:00 Meredith left in a hurry without saying where she was going. Amanda and I stayed home until about 17:30-18:00.

QA We left the house, we went into town, but I don’t remember what we did.

Really? Some alibi.

QA We stayed there from 18:00 until 20:30/21:00. At 21:00 I went home alone because Amanda told me that she was going to go to the pub Le Chic because she wanted to meet some friends.

QA At this point we said goodbye and I headed home while she headed towards the center.

In both books, you and Amanda claimed to have spent the evening together.

QA I went home alone, sat at the computer and rolled myself a spliff. Surely I had dinner but I don’t remember what I ate. Around 23:00 my father called at my home number 075.9660789. During that time I remember Amanda had not come back yet.

You don’t remember what you ate, yet both you and Amanda remember vividly the pipe leaking, although you contradict each other on if it happened before.

QA I browsed at my computer for another two hours after my father’s phone call and only stopped when Amanda came back presumably around 1:00.

A false claim: In both books, Knox and Sollecito admitted they turned the phones off

    (a) In Honor Bound, Sollecito says the phones were turned off so they could fool around undisturbed.
    (b) In Waiting to be Heard, Knox says she turned her phone off so Patrick couldn’t text back if he changed his mind about her working.
    (c) In the December 2007 questioning, Knox says she turned her phone off because it had a limited charge, and she didn’t want to drain it prior to the Gubbio trip.
    (d) In the trial, defence lawyers spent much time disputing that the phones were ever turned off.

A false claim: It was shown that the computers were not active.  Sollecito also claimed to be emailing many people.  Odd, as this would be a solid alibi ....

    (a) Not a single person came forward to say that they received anything from Raffaele.
    (b) Raffaele doesn’t name a single person that he emailed.
    (c) Not a single sent email was ever traced to his computer at that time period.

QA I don’t remember how she was dressed and if she was dressed the same way as when we said goodbye before dinner.

(Unless the police specifically asked him this), why would Raffy bring up Amanda’s clothes?  Were they blood soaked?

QA I don’t remember if we had sex that night.

You were a virgin until Amanda, and you don’t remember having sex?

QA The following morning around 10:00 we woke up, she told me she wanted to go home and take a shower and change clothes.

QA In fact at around 10:30 she went out and I went back to sleep. When she went out that morning to go to her house, Amanda also took an empty bag telling me she needed it for dirty clothes.

QA At around 11:30 she came back home and I remember she had changed clothes; she had her usual bag with her.

You remember the bag in clear detail, but not if you had sex?

In Knox’s statement (one of them), she says she doesn’t remember if she read or made love, but in WTBH, insists they slept together.

QA I remember we immediately went to the kitchen, we sat down and talked for a while, perhaps we had breakfast. In that circumstance Amanda told me that when she got to her house she found the entrance door wide open and some traces of blood in the small bathroom and she asked me if it sounded strange. I answered that it did and I also advised her to call her housemates. She said she had called Filomena but that Meredith was not answering.

Amanda asks you if finding blood is strange?

You immediately went into the kitchen and talked, but don’t remember having breakfast?

Funny, why not mention the mop?

QA As soon as we got there she opened the door with her keys, I went in and I noticed that Filomena’s door was wide open with some glass on the floor and her room was in a complete mess. The door to Amanda’s room was open and I noticed that it was tidy. Then I went towards Meredith’s door and saw that it was locked. Before this I looked to see if it was true what Amanda had told me about the blood in the bathroom and I noticed drops of blood in the sink, while on the mat there was something strange - a mixture of blood and water, while the rest of the bathroom was clean.

QA I went to the kitchen and saw that everything was in order, then went around the rest of the house, I went to Laura’s room and noticed it was tidy. In that moment Amanda went inside the big bathroom, next to the kitchen and came out frightened and hugging me tight telling me that earlier, when she took the shower, she had seen feces inside the toilet, while now the toilet was clean.

QA I just took a rapid glance at the bathroom trusting what Amanda had told me.

Is this normal in Italy for people to not flush smelly toilets, or just these two?

You noticed Filomena’s door was open and was a complete mess, but you didn’t notice the broken window coming in?

And at what point did you ‘‘realize’’ or ‘‘conclude’’ nothing had been taken?

You noticed blood in the sink, but on the bathmat, was it an ‘‘orange’’ like described in WTBH?  Or more like a footprint?

But in your recent Porta a Porta interview, did you not tell Bruno Vespa that Amanda didn’t even mention the blood?

QA At that point I was asking myself what could have happened and I went out to find Meredith’s window to see if I could climb to it. I went outside with Amanda and she tried to climb to it, I immediately stopped her telling her to not do it because it was dangerous. I then told Amanda that the best solution was to break down the door, I tried to kick it and shoulder it open but I didn’t manage to open it. Then I called my sister on her cellphone and asked her what I should do since she is a Carabinieri lieutenant. My sister told me to call the Carabinieri (112, the Italian emergency number), which I did, but in the meantime the Postal Police showed up.

This might have been plausible except for that ‘‘minor’’ detail, of Amanda telling the postal police Meredith locking her door was no big deal.

And that ‘‘minor’’ detail, that phone records show the call was made well after the Postal Police arrived.

QA In my previous statement I told a load of rubbish because Amanda had convinced me of her version of the facts and I didn’t think about the inconsistencies. I heard the first statements that she made to the Postal Police who intervened at the place.

QA She always carried a big bag that she also had the night of November 1st.

You are asked about inconsistencies in your alibi, and your immediate response is to say Amanda told you rubbish?

You told the police first that you were at a party with Amanda, then a story that you were together at your place.  Now you say it is rubbish, and you were on your computer (even though that was proven false).  At the Massei trial you stay silent, at the Hellmann appeal and your book tour you say you were together.  Later, at the July 2014 press conference, and February 2015 Porta a Porta interview you say Amanda was with you in the evening, but not the night.

You didn’t see the inconsistencies?  It is Amanda’s fault you keep changing your story?

In your book ‘‘Honor’’ Bound, you complain that if ‘’... we, [You or Amanda], deviated one iota from the version you broadly agreed on, it could mean a life sentence for both of you’‘.  Gee, nice proofreading job, Gumbel.

You tell the police that Amanda always carried a big bag?  Really ‘‘Honor Bound’’ aren’t we? That bag has never been found and Knox has never explained where it is. Knox might have carried a large knife in it, and bloody items the other way.  No wonder she ‘‘broke up with you’‘.

So, this is the first whack you’ll take at Amanda?  Let’s just hope she doesn’t retaliate by making up some story about you having ‘‘fish blood’’ on your hand.

Conclusions: I think this statement alone is enough to render most of his book total B.S, not that there isn’t a lot more to do so too.

 


Chapter 7: Testimony Of Witness Lorena Zugarini To Knox Conniption 5-6 Nov

1. Place In Series Arc Of This Post

This translated transcript continues the testimony of Inspector Lorena Zugarini quoted in the post directly below.

It is a further description from the fourth of about eight police staff who testified to Knox agreeing to help out with a list of possible perps and then melting down at the central police station on 5-6 Nov.

We’ll have one more eyewitness post and after that what the oversight judges made of this in 2008. Thereafter, Knox’s disbelieved claims on the stand at her trial in 2009 when she tried to deny framing Patrick, and accused the police of crimes, and the reasons why all the trial and appeal judges from 2009 to 2014 concluded she had lied, and all the many witnesses had told the truth .

Then we enter an alternative universe, that of Amanda Knox herself (really) and the many Knox addicts mainly in the US who amazingly have shrugged off all of this rock-solid arc, and have pushed the interrogation hoax to its present ludicrous shape and size.

Those alternative-universe posts should put the shrill conspiracists on the put-up-or-shut-up spot and determine whether Knox continues on the same futile, damaging tack.

6. Testimony of Inspector Lorena Zugarini At Trial

To the co-prosecutor at trial Dr Mignini Inspector Zugarini describes her role in the summary/recap session in which Amanda Knox built her list of seven possible perps.

Yet again the main thrust is that Knox was being treated pretty nice, and that if anyone dropped her in it, it was Sollecito and Knox herself. 

Inspector Lorena Zugarini was there along with with Rita Ficarra (see posts 1-4) and Anna Donnino (see posts 5 and 6) and Ivano Raffo from Rome who, Rita Ficarra testified, held Knox’s hand to calm her down.

This also is new translation by the professional translator ZiaK. “GCM” who often seeks clarifications is Judge Massei.

Prosecutor Dr Giuliano Mignini

Dr Mignini:  Did you question Amanda by any chance?

Lorena Zugarini:  Yes.

GM:  Therefore? [sic: typo “quindi” instead of “quando” = “when”]

LZ:  The 5th.

GM:  Did you do anything particular from the 2nd to the 5th other than these routine investigations, crime-scene investigation, I don’t know ...

LZ:  No. Granted, one couldn’t go inside the house because there was the Forensic Police, so we, as the Flying Squad, we are not supposed to enter until the Forensics have finished, always because of the question of contamination of evidence.

GM:  The Forensics, when [did] they finish the initial operations?

LZ:  Initial - if I’m not wrong - the 6th; either the 5th or the 6th.

GM:  So on the 5th, you heard Amanda?

LZ:  I was there, in the Questura [Police station] because very few hours of the night, not days, but very few hours of the night, and like me also other colleagues - especially those who were from the Section that was more or less, shall we say quote unquote, in charge of the murder issue - we almost stayed overnight in the Questura, except for two or three hours at night, when we’d go home.

GM:  Do you recall when Amanda arrived?

LZ:  So on Amanda, I remember that Raffaele Sollecito was called and invited to come and be heard/questioned. They told me that Raffaele was out to dinner, that he’d been given the possibility of finishing dinner, of eating, etc. etc., and to then come to the Questura. And I remember that along with Raffaele there was also Amanda, and honestly, I said to myself: “But how on earth is it that these two are always together?”  Because we, on that evening ... that is to say, we, our staff, we had called only and exclusively Sollecito.

GM:  So you were together with Rita Ficarra that evening?

LZ:  I was there in the Questura - when Raffaele was called, Rita Ficarra wasn’t there [yet].

GM:  So you were present when Amanda arrived?

LZ:  Yes, I was present when Amanda arrived, and Raffaele Sollecito. Raffaele Sollecito was taken up to a room that was ..., he was to be heard/questioned by other colleagues if I’m not mistaken, also by Deputy Commissioner Napoleoni. After which, Amanda was made to leave the room, and I personally accompanied her to the outside of the Flying Squad [offices], to where there were seats, and she was made to sit [NdT: also “made comfortable”] there. Then after [doing] that thing, I instead returned back inside the Flying Squad [offices].

GM:  And so you carried out, you heard/questioned various people that evening, no?

LZ:  I heard/questioned more than one person. Raffaele Sollecito, I didn’t hear/question him, me, because there were already colleagues who were hearing/questioning him. I was there inside the Flying Squad [offices], [where] maybe I was reading the recaps/summary informations of the others, or else I was looking for a moment at the case files.

GM:  Do you remember when… When Inspector Ficarra started to hear/question Amanda, you were - shall we say - in the Flying Squad [offices]?

LZ:  I was there, in the offices of the Flying Squad. I was going out of the Flying Squad [offices], together with the Deputy Commissioner, in order to go down[stairs] to the little machine that we have; a drinks and snacks machine. We wanted to go down[stairs] to get something, and I saw that Amanda was talking with some colleagues from the SCO. What she was saying, I have no idea. And in the meantime, I saw Inspector Ficarra come out of the lift on the third floor, that gives access to the Flying Squad [offices].

GM:  So you went down[stairs]. And then?

LZ:  I went down[stairs]. In the meantime, however, I noted that Amanda, while she was there, was an extremely relaxed person, and I even felt very upset/ill because at a certain point she suddenly did the splits there in the corridor. She did the splits and did a cartwheel, saying “I’m doing a sport”. She said it in English, but in English I don’t know it, me. Translated into Italian, like I know it, it’s a sport that she climbs on rocks with bare hands and no ropes, without anything. In order to show what level of training/preparedness she had. Then I went down[stairs] and I went to get something to drink, in fact, and then we came back up and [Amanda was] together with Rita Ficarra, because Amanda was stating the [names of] people who probably would have visited the house on Via della Pergola, whom she and whom Meredith ... [in short, those] who might have known her…

GM:  So, excuse me, let me understand; so you were coming and going in the various rooms?

LZ:  Yes, I was coming and going because in that moment Raffaele Sollecito was inside one room with [some] colleagues, and I didn’t think it was expedient/advisable to enter.

GM:  Did you stop [in] then, at a certain point, while Amanda was being heard/questioned?

LZ:  I went down[stairs], as I’m coming back, to reconfirm, having got the drink, I went back up and I noticed that Amanda was talking with Inspector Ficarra outside [the offices], and that she was saying to her “I’ll tell you the people”. And right there and then, she wrote them down herself in a notebook, on a sheet [of paper] that she had with her. Afterwards, together with Rita, with Inspector Ficarra, then, when we saw the facts/information, we said “Ok”, we said [agreed we needed] an office where we [could] go to hear/question Amanda for a moment, and take her recap/summary information, since in any case she had to wait for Raffaele.

GM:  Without telling us the content of the declarations, obviously, [can you] if checks were carried out on the cellphones?

LZ:  Well, so, Amanda, she had her cellphone with her still, because there was no reason to need to take it from her, and Amanda handed over her cellphone to a colleague from the SCO, after Amanda said “I’ll write down the names with the telephone [numbers] of the people who probably could have known Meredith too”.

GM:  So she handed over the cellphone to the individual from the SCO. Who was that [individual]? Do you remember?

LZ:  I don’t remember because there were various colleagues [around] from the SCO.

GM:  So this [individual] belonging to the SCO, what did he do?

LZ:  He took the cellphone and went out for a moment. I don’t know where he went because I remained inside the room. Shortly afterwards, he came back, and together with Amanda they started to scroll – Inspector Rita Ficarra and the colleague from SCO – they started to scroll through the messages and they asked her “This one, who is it? This other one, who is it?” and Amanda was answering.

GM:  [And] then?

LZ:  After, at a certain point, this [officer was] still taking [down] the report/minutes, since the message was reached that, if I’m not mistaken, was from Patrick, that there was written Patrick above it, she was asked who is Patrick, and there [at that point] Amanda …

GM:  If I can just show [her] the … [shows cellphone screen image].

LZ:  Yes, that one there.

GCM:  She was shown the copy of the message taken from the cellphone.

GM:  SMS.

LZ:  [The] SMS on Amanda’s cellphone.

GM:  And then?

LZ:  Yes, she was asked for explanations regarding [the] “Certainly, see you later, good evening” [“Certo, ci vediamo più tardi, buona serata”]. We asked her who Patrick is, and in that moment Amanda shed tears – whether she was crying sincerely [in earnest] I don’t know – however she shed tears.

GM:  Did she make any gestures/movements?

LZ:  Yes. She put, I remember that she hiked up/drew up her legs, she crouched on her chair, put her hands around her head, on her ears, and started to say “He’s bad/mean, he’s bad/mean”, to shake her head, she said: “I remember hearing Meredith who was screaming, and Patrick who was hurting her”.

GCM:  One cannot report on the declarations made unless… Please.

LZ:  I beg your pardon.

GM:  What thing…

GCM:  So she had this behaviour?

LZ:  Yes.

GM:  You saw this behaviour?

LZ:  Yes.

GM:  So then what happened? What did you [all] do?

LZ:  At that point, Inspector Rita Ficarra decided to suspend the minutes/written record because the position had changed a bit, because she said to us “I was …” – Ah! I cannot…

GCM:  Yes, you cannot. So she was changed, and you suspended the minutes/written record, and …

LZ:  Yes, we interrupt [sic] the …

GM:  They were in accordance with Article 63.

LZ:  We interrupt [sic] the minutes/written record. I personally said to her if she wanted ...

GM:  Because indications of guilt had emerged?

LZ:  Yes, exactly. I said [sic] to her if she wanted the presence of a Lawyer, [to] which she said “No, I don’t need one”.

GM:  Can you describe for us what you did after, that is to say, what happened afterwards? Did she continue to cry? What did she do?

LZ:  I repeat, I can’t say whether [she was] crying: she was shedding tears: a behaviour that was still strange. She had a moment of, if I may say this, of crisis, seeing this type of message and [us] asking who this person was, after which I left the room …

GM:  Bu you, excuse me, did you ask “But why does he frighten you? Why are you crying?” Did you ask her that?

LZ:  Yes, certainly that was asked of her. She, [in answer to] such a question, said to me: “I remember that inside, that I was inside the kitchen”.

GCM:  Enough. On this, obviously, you cannot report, unless it is necessary/helpful. So you asked explanations about the behaviour…

LZ:  Yes, for me it is helpful/necessary because I didn’t understand such a type of behaviour on [NdT: i.e. “in response to”] a completely normal message.

GCM:  And you asked for an explanation.

LZ:  Yes. I said to her: “What on earth? What is happening? Who is [NdT: my emphasis] this person?”

GCM:  In the scope of the interrogation?

LZ:  Yes. Because until 5 minutes earlier, she was a completely normal person.

GCM:  So you asked for explanations of this behaviour. Ok.

LZ:  [Until] 5 minutes earlier she was completely normal, [and] then when she saw this message, and at the question “Who is this Patrick” she flew off the handle [NdT: “escandescenza” is actually a fit of rage, with violent words and menacing gestures”, I don’t know if the witness used the word in the sense of “fit of rage”, but this is the meaning of the word she chose.]

GCM:  These fits of rage, what did they consist of? [Did] she shed tears and shake her head?

LZ:  Yes. She drew her legs up, [and] put her hands on her head.

GCM:  Hands on the ears?

LZ:  She put her hands on her head, [and] started to do like this.

GCM:  She was shaking her head.

LZ:  She was shaking her head, and said to me “To me, this person …”

GCM:  You cannot. That is to say, you can report the declarations made only if they were useful, and to give us an indication about the subsequent investigative activity.

LZ:  For me, personally, I repeat, it was a moment in which I see this message, that is I ask [what] the presence of this message [means], and I see a reaction of this type, I ask myself “What on earth What has just happened?” [sic: NdT: Zugarini also speaks often in the present tense.]

GCM:  And she gave the answer that she [NdT: also “you”] gave.

GM:  Had you Did you, in the investigations that you carried out, had you conjectured [the occurrence] of a sexual assault?

LZ:  I personally, yes, because she [NdT: i.e. Meredith] was naked.

GM:  Because she was naked. But what are the elements that made you think of sexual assault? On what basis did you carry out investigations…? You said that one element was the fact that the young woman was naked.

LZ:  Yes.

GM:  What other elements? I mean, these declarations, shall we say, were they the cause for carrying out investigations on a sexual assault?

LZ:  I’ll go back to reassert that, from the moment when she was shown a message and a reaction of a person to the question “But for what reason are you doing these things? Why are you reacting in this way to this message?, she says to me “I see this person who is doing evil, and I hear my friend Meredith who’s screaming”; in all honesty, we also had a doubt, in short.

Maria Del Grosso [Knox lawyer]:  President, I am trying to reiterate the objection, because here there’s a continuous… it’s a continuous violation.

GM:  However it is impossible…

GCM:  Because the Prosecutor’s question concerned at a certain point [whether] the investigations also turned towards a hypothesis of sexual assault, and she gave him a positive answer saying that yes, because the body was naked, [so] there are other elements too…

LZ:  Other elements of people who knew – especially Meredith’s English friends, who Meredith visited in a regular way, who said to us that Meredith, from what they told us, was a very serious person, who did not give absolute familiarity/intimacy, that is to say, she did not give much familiarity/intimacy… naturally being a girl, and being also a [burdened/serious] type of girl, the young men who gave recaps/summary information said that… that they also, if one can say this, tried it on with her, to which she absolutely never gave them any encouragement…

GCM:  So on the basis of these [pieces of] information the investigations were directed towards …

LZ:  Yes, also the recaps/summary information of people, of people who were heard for recaps/summary information.

GM:  After this, to when the minutes/written record was interrupted, between the interruption of the minutes/written record and the presentation… to the spontaneous declarations: how much time passed?

LZ:  I didn’t understand [you], excuse me.

GM:  Between the moment when the minutes/written record was halted by Inspector Ficarra to the moment when I heard her [give her] spontaneous declarations, how much time passed?

LZ:  That, honestly, I can’t tell you, because from the moment when Patrick Lumumba’s name came out, and we knew that he was in fact the owner of a pub located on Via Alessi, etc. etc., I personally went together with other colleagues …

GM:  So you left …

LZ:  I left Amanda. Also because, to be honest, I didn’t really discuss it earlier, but I had, shall we say, a bit of an exchange of ideas with Inspector Rita Ficarra, because Inspector Rita Ficarra went down[stairs] several times with Amanda to get drinks from down there, from that same little [drinks-and-snacks] machine in the Questura.

GM:  Listen: can you recall for me whether she was subjected to aggressions, to pressure, to blows?

LZ:  Absolutely not! Even if I remember perfectly that, still with Inspector Rita Ficarra, I said to her “We’re talking about a girl [who’s had her] throat slit”, and the owner [NdT: in the feminine] of the actual/current bar that is located within the Questura [premises] was made to come up with a hot drink and little baked goods that were brought to Amanda, and I made a joke that not even in 20 years of [being in the] Police had any colleagues ever brought me these kinds of things like that, in the [same] way as Amanda was being treated.

GM:  So therefore you were present then for the [written] spontaneous declarations?

LZ:  Of Amanda?

GM:  Of Amanda.

LZ:  No. The minutes/written record was interrupted…

GM:  Was there an interpreter?

LZ:  Yes, the interpreter. In fact, Amanda’s recaps/summary information were even taken with a bit of delay because, if I’m not mistaken, Inspector Rita Ficarra came back to the Questura, or at any rate she came out of the lift of the Questura, at around about 23:00 hours, and if I’m not mistaken the minutes/written record began around 01:00 a.m.: around about 01:00 the minutes/written record was taken in the waiting for an interpreter of the local Questura, Anna Donnino, to come from her house to the Questura to be able to take Amanda[‘s declaration], even though she [Amanda] spoke in a fairly passable Italian.

GM:  So you, in effect, lose contact with Amanda, and you deal with ...

LZ:  From the moment when the minutes/written record was interrupted…

GM:  [So when] the minutes/written record is suspended, you begin, you participate in the search for Patrick.

LZ:  I participate in the search for Patrick.

GM:  And then what other activity did you carry out?… [continues on other subjects]

Patrick Lumumba Attorney Pacelli

CP:  Just a few clarifications on the questioning by the Public Prosecutor, to follow up on a question that Dr Mignini made a short while ago, with regard to how your investigations turned to the, shall we say, sexual aspect, or as if to the sexual backdrop of the crime, because in fact, in answering the Prosecutor, you said “I had formed my own personal opinion of a sexual backdrop, seeing the body of the poor victim semi-naked, or at any rate, naked.

Inspector Lorena Zugarini:  Naked.

CP:  So, to follow up in what was perhaps the Prosecutor’s intentions, I wanted to understand: was it also because of the content of the declarations made by Knox on the night of 5 November that your investigations turned towards the sexual backdrop? That is, was it also because of what Knox said to you that night?

LZ:  I’ll return to reconfirm, Attorney, that from the moment when Amanda – who previously had been [one of the] most calm people in the world, because after we had given her hot drinks, water, she had kept her cellphone with her, and all that – from the moment in which a colleague, together with Inspector Rita Ficarra, showed her the message and from the tone of the message – it is a very normal message as far as I’m concerned, it’s an extremely normal message – [so], not understanding Amanda’s reaction, if until three minutes before she was [one of the] most calm people in this world, not understanding Amanda’s reaction in relation to the message, logically questions were asked of her: “but why do you have this behaviour as soon as you read this message?”

CP:  So after her answers, also because of her answers, you turned towards …

LZ:  When a person says to you: I see, I hear Meredith’s screams…

CP:  Yes, but you were perfectly clear. A final clarification: at a certain point, you go away. However, before leaving, [did] you witness/were you present at Amanda’s declarations of accusation, what Amanda declared with respect to Patrick Lumumba?

LZ:  Absolutely, yes, because I turn again to reassert that if you read the message…

GCM:  Yes, absolutely, yes. Please, Attorney. The question?

CP:  In making these affirmations, before making these affirmations, or while she was making these affirmations, was Amanda struck with kicks or punches or slaps?

LZ:  In the most absolute way [No].

CP:  Was she in any way, by any one of you, forced to make declarations, or … the declarations that she made, some of the declarations, or all of the declarations that she made in that moment?

LZ:  Attorney, I tell you again that what we are doing, it is not an interrogation, [but] what we are asking …

GCM:  Yes, yes. Excuse me, but it’s enough to simply say no.

LZ:  When we ask things of a person, we ask them [sic], it’s logical. Maybe tiredness might take over…

CP:  Were any of the subjects that Amanda made declarations about suggested to her in any way, or were they all carried out on her own completely spontaneous will? There was no suggestion of names, of ways, of circumstances?

LZ:  Me, I never saw Amanda before, before 2 November.

CP:  No, but I’m saying 5 November. Was something of what she had [NdT: “had” as in “posssessed” not as in “was made to”. I.e. it is the Past Simple of the verb “to have] to declare that evening suggested to her?

LZ:  Absolutely not.

CP:  So you can confirm to us that, at any rate, even in those circumstances and for the whole period from 2 to 5, until all her declarations, even until the arrest, she was always treated with respect, with humanity, and with absolute…

LZ:  I repeat again, I made that joke with Inspector Rita Ficarra, even the current owner at that time of the bar inside the Questura, brought her I don’t remember if it was a camomile tea or a black tea, with little pastries and a croissant.

CP:  I have no further questions.

Sollecito Defence Attorney Bongiorno

GB:  You participated in the preliminary hearing, you were present?

LZ:  Yes.

GB:  All the preliminary hearings, some?

LZ:  Almost all.

GB:  Even the one when Stefanoni was heard/questioned?

LZ:  No.

GB:  In the one when Kocomani was heard/questioned?

LZ:  No.

GB:  When we did the pleadings/summation and the prosecutor’s final statement?

LZ:  Some, yes.

Knox Defense Attorney Luciano Ghirga

LG:  ... Listen, now let’s turn to the evening of the 6th when you participated with Inspector Ficarra in the recaps/summary information of Amanda Knox.

LZ:  Of the 5th.

LG:  No, of the 6th, because it is after midnight, [it is] one-forty-five. The night between 5 and 6, that is the beginning of the minutes/written record, and 01:45 hours, so we understand each other, and they are called summary informations/recaps.

LZ:  Thank you.

LG:  No, I didn’t mean anything. You said the 5th, for me it is the 6th, that’s all: it’s not contentious/a contradiction.

GCM:  Please Attorney.

LG:  And then, it’s not actually necessary.

LZ:  No, no.

LG:  Do you recall whether, having begun these interrogation activities, one or other of your colleagues who was participating in Sollecito’s interrogation came in to inform you in some way of the progress of Sollecito’s interrogation?

LZ:  Yes, there was Deputy Commissioner Napoleoni who every so often came there to see how it was going, and the thing that she then told us that Sollecito was not longer giving the big [sic] alibi as far as Amanda was concerned.

LG:  And the operation regarding the SMS message of which you spoke, [that] came about after this information, shall we say, let’s call it information, communication.

LZ:  I believe so, yes.

GCM:  Excuse me on this; did you communicate this immediately to Amanda Knox? This is what the Attorney was asking.

LG:  I have said, this quote-unquote interrogation began …

LZ:  Yes. I beg your pardon, Attorney.

LG:  And a colleague comes, you say that a colleague comes, I don’t know whether it’s Napoleoni, at any rate someone comes …

LZ:  No.

GCM:  Please. Continue, Attorney.

LG:  I am referring to this thing that you precisely reported: Sollecito returned [sic] the alibi to Amanda.

LZ:  Yes.

LG:  Something of the sort. He no longer gives a big [sic] alibi; he removes the alibi, I don’t know: the operations concerning the little message found in Amanda’s telephone, did these occur after this communication?

LZ:  Anyhow I tell you that when the Deputy Commissioner, or whoever entered inside that room on her behalf, it’s not that they spoke in front of Amanda, so Amanda could not hear the content of our discussions. After which, I honestly, I believe that the message was shown to Amanda after the presence of Deputy Commissioner Napoleoni or someone on her behalf.

LG:  Last question, Mr President: these courtesy activities – a hot drink, a croissant, or whatever – did they happen after the conclusion of the two interrogations of Amanda, shall we say?

LZ:  Absolutely not.

LG:  So when did they take place then?

LZ:  Well, they took place either before taking [sic] Amanda for the first time, also because we had to wait for the interpreter, if I’m not mistaken, Anna Donnino, who had to come from home because they had called her from the Questura to bring herself [sic] to our offices because we had, in fact, to hear a girl, in the English language, even though she spoke Italian fairly well: for reasons of our own peace [of mind] and for reasons of Amanda’s ease/peace of mind, the interpreter was called. So during the wait for Anna Donnino to arrive, Amanda was provided with both hot drinks and water, and whatnot.

LG:  And later you don’t recall whether there was another… You said it first, yourself.

LZ:  No, also later.

LG:  Also later?

LZ:  Also later.

LG:  That’s what it seemed to us. Thank you.

LZ:  No no, I have said [that] the lady from the bar – the bar is closed at night in our place; if I’m not mistaken [it closes] around 5, 5-thirty – the bar must have been open already, I already said that the owner of the bar came to bring her chamomile or tea, in short.

LG:  Thank you.

Judge Massei

GCM:  And a last thing: when the circumstance about the alibi came to light, that Raffaele Sollecito thus did not seem, no longer confirmed the alibi, [when] this fact came to light, did you bring it to the knowledge of Amanda Knox, this fact?

LZ:  No, no, absolutely no. Absolutely, not, because ...

GCM:  How was it brought to [your] awareness.

LZ:  I remember that the Deputy Commissioner came there and said to us: “Listen carefully to/Question carefully Amanda, because there are discrepancies on what Raffaele has said, even during the previous days”.

GCM:  As far as you know, [this] was not brought to Amanda Knox’s awareness?

LZ:  As far as I am concerned, no.

GCM:  Very well.


Chapter 8: Testimony Of Interpreter Donnino And Central Police Officer Giobbi

1. What Really Happened on 5-6 November

The introduction to Hoax Post #1 explains what really happened at Knox’s recap/summary session on 5-6 November 2007.

In a sentence: Knox was there unwanted and grumpy, was advised to go and sleep, refused, agreed to build a list of possible perps (she listed seven, including Rudy Guede), spontaneously broke into a wailing conniption over a message she sent to Patrick, was semi-calmed-down and repeatedly provided refreshments, and insisted on writing three statements without a lawyer all of which said she went out on the night of the attack, all framing Patrick, one even pointing at Sollecito.

The headers of all previous posts in this series can be found at the end of Post #1.

2. Testimony Of Interpreter Anna Donnino

Click below to open up Anna Donnino’s testimony kindly translated by Catnip.  She did a lot of the case-related interpretation and translation throughout November 2007. She was present at the recap/summary session with Rita Ficarra on 6 November from around 12:30 am which concluded with a first statement Knox insisted on dictating at 1:45 am.

Anna Donnino was also present at the formal legal-rights session with Dr Mignini on 6 November from around 5:00 am which conclude with a second statement Knox insisted on dictating at 5:45 am. Donnino translated both those statements and the third Knox scribbled around noon. .

The transcript below describes this and other work done also. She was not the only interpreter or translator used by the police in November, but she did the bulk of the work, and she was present at several key sessions.

3. Relevant Testimony Of Officer Edgardo Giobbi

Click below to open up Edgardo Giobbi’s testimony kindly translated by ZiaK. An officer from Rome, he was in the central police station that night. He doesnt make a fully credible witness, as he includes claims about his role that night which we are told are inflated and perhaps beamed at his superiors in Rome.

These exaggerations were skeptically challnged by Dr Mignini. However for what it is worth his testimony backs up certain aspects of the statements of those who actually were face to face with Knox and Sollecito that night. Nobody else testified that Knox was called to the questura and several testified that she wasnt and turned up and insisted on staying on her own account.

ZiaK’s full translation of Dr Giobbi’s testimony can be found on McCall’s Wiki.

***************


4. Transcript Of Interpreter Anna Donnino

Prosecutor Mignini

GM:  What work do you do?

AD:  I am the proofreader/translator/interpreter at the Perugia Police Station.

GM:  For how long?

AD:  For more than 22 years.

GM:  Have you undertaken work in your field of expertise in the investigation into the death of Meredith Kercher?

AD:  Absolutely yes. I have assisted various persons in the course of declarations and I have translated much written material, as well as having provided transcriptions of various recordings.

GM:  You were present during the interview of Amanda Knox on the night of the 5 and 6 November?

AD:  Yes.

GM:  Tell us what happened, when you arrived and what happened, except only, obviously, the declarations, which must not be mentioned or quoted or referred to.

AD:  I remember having received a telephone call from Assistant Lorena Zugarini, the precise hour exactly I’m not able to say, though orientation-wise it would have had to have been before 23:30 because I was already in bed and at the latest I go to bed more or less a little before that time. I had received this call and Assistant Zugarini had told me that I had to come into the Station because my expertise was required. And that’s what I did, I dressed myself and I went to the Station. You have to take into consideration that I don’t live in Perugia, I live outside, I’m about 40 km away, in the environs of Castiglione del Lago, so I didn’t immediately turn up at the Station, I would have taken around three quarters of an hour, however I believe to have gotten there no later than half past midnight and at that point I had started to carry out my work.

GM:  At that point you had arrived and had commenced carrying your work of interpreting in the Amanda Knox interview?

AD:  Exactly.

GM:  Do you remember how Amanda was? How was her behaviour? Then later we’ll get more into the specifics.

AD:  I had been made to enter a room where in fact there was Inspector Ficarra at a small table, another colleague from SCO, I only remember his first name, he was called Ivano, a police officer, and there was Miss Knox seated, I seated myself beside her, I introduced myself, I had said that I was an interpreter and I was there to assist her , to help her understand and initially I saw that she was sufficiently calm, she was answering the questions that were being put to her.

GM:  There was at a certain point a change in her behavior?

AD:  Yes.

GM:  In particular at what moment?

AD:  This moment I recall it especially clearly, it was really stamped in my mind, there was a moment in which Miss Knox was asked how come she had not gone to work and she replied that she had received a message from Mr Patrick Lumumba in which Mr Lumumba communicated to her…

LG:  This is…

GCM:  Yes, if we may, perhaps these are not going to be admissible. This change, at what moment did it happen, and in what did it consist of?

AD:  The change had occurred right after this message, in the sense that the signorina said she hadn’t replied to the message from Patrick, when instead her reply message was shown to her she had a true and proper emotional shock. It’s a thing that has remained very strongly with me because the first thing that she did is that she immediately puts her hands on her ears, making this gesture rolling her head, curving in her shoulders also and saying “It’s him! It’s him! It was him! I can see/hear him or: I know it.[Lo sento]” and so on and so forth.

GCM:  So an attitude…

AD:  An extremely participative attitude.

GCM:  These hands on the head how did you describe them?

GM:  On the head or on the ears?

AD:  On the ears, sorry, I made the gesture to imitate this gesture that she was making and that she made repeatedly during the course of the interview.

GM:  From that moment onwards?

AD:  From that moment onwards. Beyond everything else I wanted to add that the whole thing had occurred with an extreme emotional involvement, a thing that I am not going to forget easily. She was crying while she was making these declarations, she was visibly shocked and frightened and exactly because of this enormous emotional involvement we all of us, me especially, had believed them!

GM:  At a certain point what had happened? The statement had been finalized?

AD:  The statement at that point had been… her, what she had been recounting, had been written down, the statement had been interrupted and she had been, if I’m not mistaken, at that point she was asked if she wanted a lawyer.

GM:  And what was her response?

AD:  She had answered no, I remember that she replied with no.

GM:  You were present in the succeeding phase, when the writing of the statement was completed Amanda was where? You were still with her, or had you separated?

AD:  No, I had always stayed in the room, I hadn’t ever left.

GM:  And what was she doing? What behavior was Amanda showing?

AD:  At the moment there had been this emotional breakdown, she really had also slumped on the chair, we had made her move, we had waited for her to calm herself a little bit and from that moment she had really started to recount, in a, I repeat, rather participative manner, very anxious, very credible.

GM:  Was she in the same room or had she been taken outside?

AD:  Absolutely yes, always inside the same room.

GM:  Was there anyone, some police officer who, himself also, was staying there?

AD:  Yes. I’ll explain Miss Knox was seated at the table, I was on her left and I was translating what she was saying, her questions, her answers, and in front of her there was this… an agent from SCO actually, I remember that he was called Ivano, who through the whole evening had comforted her, had reassured her, I remember perfectly that I was extremely struck by the behavior of this person, by his humanity and by his patience, he was holding her hands and caressing her exactly because he had noted/realized the particularly prostrate/dejected state of the girl.

GM:  How long did this phase last before the other statement came to be made, do you remember?

AD:  Well a bit of time had passed by.

GM:  You remember it… you’ve described it, however I’ll ask it, was she threatened, did she suffer any beatings?

AD:  Absolutely.

GM:  She suffered maltreatments?

AD:  Absolutely not.

GM:  Had types of comfort been offered to her?

AD:  Well during the evening yes, in the sense that I remember that someone went down to the ground floor, it was the middle of the night, so in the Station at that hour there are those automatic distributors, there’s nothing else, someone went to the ground floor and brought everybody something to drink, some hot drinks and something to eat. I myself had a coffee, so I believe that she also had something.

GM:  What happened then?

AD:  After which she was interviewed by you, sir.

GM:  This interview, how did it turn out? Was it a spontaneous declaration?

AD:  Absolutely yes. She had been asked, it was already deep night, we were all tired enough and she was asked if she wanted to make spontaneous declarations and if she wanted to recount what she could remember, what had happened, she said yes because she also wanted to do this last act before going to bed.

GM:  Do you remember the expressions she used when she decided to make these declarations?

AD:  I remember perfectly this continual gesture of putting her hands on her ears, of shaking her head, saying… she was also saying something as regards Patrick, saying: “It’s him! He’s bad”. I also had the impression from her words that she was afraid of him, she was saying this, and she also said, she also said it to me, that she in the course of the night had made this gesture because she was hiding in the kitchen because she was hearing the screams of the girl, the screams of her…

LG:  Although on the spontaneous declarations I ask that…

GCM:  Look here, on this maybe, you aren’t allowed to refer to this.

AD:  The signorina had said this even to me, though.

GM:  The gesture of putting the hands on the ears alludes… and on the ears and not on the head?

AD:  Yes, on the ears.

GM:  Has it got a meaning?

AD:  I look…

GCM:  The gesture only, anyone can offer an interpretation of the gesture later.

GM:  So then she had decided to make these spontaneous declarations.

AD:  Yes, spontaneously.

GM:  You were present as interpreter?

AD:  Yes, absolutely yes.

GM:  You rendered these declarations, you translated them and how was Amanda when you had rendered these declarations?

AD:  Let’s say that her response had been very clear.

GCM:  Let’s put that aside…

GM:  How was she in terms of behavior?

AD:  She was rather exhausted, this yes, she was rather exhausted, she was shocked although she was also as if she were freed of a weight.

GCM:  Pardon me, we are …

CDV:  I would like it recorded that she may refer only to facts, without any kind of coloring nor even less any personal interpretations because we are not here making an evaluation.

AD:  OK, I’ll stop.

GCM:  It can be difficult separating the two things but it needs to be done, the witness must report.

GM:  She continued to cry, she continued to repeat these gestures?

AD:  Absolutely yes, yes.

GM:  Then at a certain point the statement was finished.

AD:  Yes.

GM:  What happened afterwards?

AD:  After she had said to me that she wanted to rest, she wanted to rest a bit and so it was done, in the sense that there was a little armchair, we made her seat herself, I myself had carried over a chair, she had rested her feet on the chair and she had almost fallen asleep for a little while.
GM:  You were always present?

AD:  I was always present, I remained there in the room.

GM:  What happened? She had slept for a bit?

AD:  It seems to me that she had snoozed, not sleeping deeply although she was resting, yes.

GM:  Then what happened? Up until what time did you remain there?

AD:  I remained there definitely until eight in the morning because I had expected, I had waited for my colleague to change shifts, I had absented myself though a couple of times after the typing up of the spontaneous declarations statement because I had gone to the ground floor to get a coffee and then to the bar, when it had opened, it would have been around half past seven.

GM:  And then around eight…

AD:  I had left, yes.

GM:  You were finished for the day?

AD:  Yes.

GM:  And Colantone took over?

AD:  Yes, precisely my colleague Colantone.

GM:  You then have said you undertook other activities, translations?

AD:  Exactly. I had looked after especially the correspondence let’s say, all that… the correspondence coming from the prison, I and my other colleague had curated this aspect, and also transcribing some prison recordings as well.

GM:  In the course of your activity, corresponding to your responsibility, had you both come across, had you collated elements about which you had immediately informed the Flying Squad and had there then been investigations carried out, were there investigative developments based on what you both had come across?

AD:  I have to say that this correspondence had been substantial, there had been a great quantity of material which we weekly divided up between ourselves, to read and then to refer to the Police in writing. Let’s say broad brush things important for investigative purposes I believe had not surfaced except for character aspects, behavioral ones of this girl.

CDV:  Again! This is not a fact, this is an opinion.

AD:  Very well, but I’m only saying what…

CDV:  On what basis then are you providing your opinion on her personality?

GM:  That on which she referred to the Flying Squad.

AD:  Yes.

GM:  You have referred on the basis of your activity as interpreter you both decided to refer certain aspects?

AD:  Certain aspects.

GM:  On which then investigations were based or not?

AD:  I don’t think so, regarding the letters I don’t think so, it doesn’t seem so to me anyway.

GM:  On the intercept activity?

AD:  On the intercept activity, I transcribed, if I’m not mistaken, six prison recordings and I limited myself to transcribing the contents of the recordings and then I consigned the whole lot to the Flying Squad.

GM:  On what you know based on these recordings were investigations then carried out? Did these intercepts produce any investigative results?

AD:  Presumably yes, sir, but I don’t know, frankly it’s not my area, I’m not able to say.

GM:  On the evening of the 2nd, were you present at the Station?

AD:  The evening of the 2nd, no.

GM:  So when did you arrive?

AD:  I arrived on the 3rd in the morning, I started work on the 3rd in the morning.

GM:  And on the 3rd you took part in the interview, you heard Amanda another time?

AD:  No, the night of the fifth was the first time, I had not met her before.

GM:  I have no other questions.

GCM:  Please proceed, Civil Parties

Lumumba Civil Lawyer Pacelli

CP:  In completing and consolidating in cross-examination the questions by the Public Prosecutor, I refer to the morning of the 6th of November, to the time when Miss Knox had made her summary information. In that circumstance, Miss Knox was struck on the head with punches and slaps?

AD:  Absolutely not.

CP:  In particular, was she struck on the head by a police woman?

AD:  Absolutely not!

CP:  Miss Knox was however threatened?

AD:  No, I can exclude that categorically!

CP:  With thirty years of prison…

AD:  No, no, absolutely.

CP:  Was she however sworn at, in the sense that she was told she was a liar?

AD:  I was in the room the whole night and I saw nothing of all this.

CP:  So the statements that had been made had been made spontaneously, voluntarily?

AD:  Yes.

CDV:  This…

GCM:  Pardon, but let’s ask questions… if you please.

CP:  You were also present then during the summary information made at 5:45?

AD:  Yes.

CP:  And were they done in the same way and methods as those of 1:45?

AD:  I would say yes. Absolutely yes.

CP:  To remove any shadow of doubt from this whole matter, as far as the summary information provided at 5:45 Miss Knox was struck on the head with punches and slaps?

AD:  No.

CP:  In particular, was she struck on the head by a police-woman?
AD:  No.

INT:  She has already said that.

CP:  No, I had referred to the one at 1:45…

GCM:  Yes, but pardon me, Counsel, she has already replied.

CDV:  The preceding question was more general, it was referring to the whole night, therefore it is implicit that even the 1:45 statement, the question is…

CP:  No, my questions are pertinent, Mr President, for a very simple reason that I will explain to my friend Dalla Vedova.

GCM:  Pardon me, no.

CP:  Everybody’s explaining, Mr President! If it is permitted this once I would like to say…

GCM:  Counsel, let us ask questions.

CP:  Miss Amanda says: “I was struck on the head” and in the spontaneous declarations she made before Judge Micheli she expressly says, and it was the basis of an incredible media fact, she had expressly said “I was hit on the head by a police woman”. Therefore there are two summary informations…

CDV:  What is the question?

CP:  The question is: at 5:45 when the summary information was being given in particular, had she been hit on the head by a police woman, our Miss Knox?

CDV:  I don’t object to this question because it has already been asked before in general for the whole night, therefore I consider it to have already been answered.

CP:  I asked it earlier about the summary information statement at 1:45, now I’m referring to the one at 5:45.

GCM:  Pardon me, Counsel, but I remember you having foreshadowed this referring to the succeeding statement with the other question, “and also in the other interview there was conduct…”

CP:  It was ad abbundianzam for later clarity.

GCM:  Pardon all, but the exigency is that repeated questions be avoided.

CP:  It is not a repetition, they are two summary informations.
GCM:  Let us avoid a surplus of words though.

CP:  In sum, in the summary informations of 1:45 and 5:45 anybody punch Amanda in the head?

AD:  No.

CDV:  But this is another repetition! He’s insisting on the same question already asked and which has already been responded to, we are not opposed!

CP:  If it please the court, Mr President, I have no further questions.

GCN:  Please proceed, the defense.

Defence Counsel Ghirga

LG:  The night of the 6th, why did the summary information formally commence at 1:45, this interview, let’s call it this, on what floor of the Station did it unfold?

AD:  On the third floor, in the offices of the Flying Squad.

LG:  Contemporaneously also under way was the interview, quote-unquote, of Sollecito?

AD:  This I didn’t know.

LG:  No I have asked you whether, minutes earlier, minutes later, for the one we have the opening and closing timestamps, for the other only the opening, contemporaneously, a little before, I don’t know, on the same floor of the Station there was Sollecito’s interview unfolding.

AD:  Yes, I’m up to speed with this.

LG:  Do you remember if anyone originating from the room where Sollecito’s interview was in progress came into your room, where Amanda’s interview was in progress, and said, saying that Sollecito in some way, quote-unquote, had dropped Amanda’s alibi or some wording of the sort?

AD:  Let’s say that I saw it, I remember that Inspector Ficcara left…

LG:  No I’m asking if anyone…

AD:  If anyone had come in then, no, no.

GCM:  So you remember Inspector Ficcara had left…

AD:  I remember Inspector Ficcara had left.

GCM:  But no-one who came in nor in particular coming in said this?

AD:  Absolutely not.

LG:  After this someone come in, someone went out…

GCM:  No, someone left she remembers.

MC:  No, no-one came in and likely someone exited.

GCM:  We’re at the witness answers!

LG:  But we days ago we had heard… we were here in this courtroom… I commented out loud but 15 days ago we heard that someone had come in.

GCM:  It can be treated as contestable.

LG:  Now I don’t have the transcripts of the earlier hearings because they haven’t been done, but in this light I would like to try to contest them. After somebody had exited, did the episode of the little message from Patrick occur at that moment or had it already come out earlier?

AD:  Look exactly no, not at the same time, not anyway immediately after… That is once Inspector Ficcara had re-entered, that’s what I want to say. That is this thing about the message was under way, now I don’t remember exactly if it had already been stated before or come out at another time, frankly I don’t remember this particular.

LG:  The fact is that after the message there was the change in mood, the one that you have described.

AD:  Exactly.

LG:  You know that there’s a cafeteria in the Station.

AD:  There’s a cafeteria.

LG:  It’s managed privately and for some…

AD:  I think it’s private, frankly I don’t know.

LG:  Do you know when it opens in the morning?

AD:  No, when I start work at eight the cafe is open, when it opens I don’t know.

LG:  Thank you.

Defence Counsel Dalla Vedova

CDV:  Still on the subject of the night of the 5th and 6th, you know, have said that you got there around half past midnight.

AD:  Yes, around then, more or less.

CDV:  Are you aware of when Amanda had arrived at the Station?

AD:  No, frankly no.

CDV:  So you do not know how much time that day Amanda had been interviewed?

AD:  No, I had been advised by phone, I was told to go and I went, frankly other aspects I was not aware of at that moment.

CDV:  You were always present with Amanda up until she had gone away?

AD:  Yes, I was always present. I had, I was saying before, absented myself a couple of times, but it was already morning to go and get a coffee, but I’m telling you it was almost day, it was day.

CDV:  You were translating questions that were being put by who exactly?

AD:  By Inspector Ficcara in primis and also by SCO Agent Ivano, I don’t remember his last name, who in fact was proceeding to interview her, both of them were asking questions and I was looking after the translation first from one then from the other.

CDV:  Do you remember whether any of the questions had fronted the fact that there was evidence that Amanda was in Via Della Pergola.

AD:  I don’t understand, in what sense?

CDV:  That is, do you remember whether it was put to Amanda that there was now evidence that she was at the house in Via Pergola that night, the night of the murder?

AD:  No, I don’t think that was said to her.

CDV:  Was there anyone who said the words: “you’re a liar”?

AD:  Never.

CDV:  Still on translating these questions, do you remember if one of the questions concerned the fact that Raffaele Sollecito had made declarations different from those with respect to Amanda’s?

AD:  This came to be acknowledged, they came to be said, if I’m not mistaken, although I have to repeat a great deal of time has passed by since then so the details of the questions I’m not able to refer to with the requisite precision.

CDV:  Only the main thrust.

AD:  Yes, maybe something was said to her about that.

CDV:  That…

AD:  That Raffaele was not standing by her, he was saying things differently with respect to hers.

CDV:  Do you also remember the reference to the message, SMS, on the mobile phone, exactly how it was used? The questions were about this message?

AD:  There was a really simple question, very linear, I asked the signorina if she had replied to the message and she said: “no”.

GCM:  Only the questions that were put to her.

AD:  Yes, this in relation to the message.

CDV:  How did the reference to the message come about? What was the first question? Who brought out the message?

AD:  Because she was asked how come she had not gone to work that night.

CDV:  And?

AD:  And it came out that she had received the message from her employer which in fact told her that she did not have to go to work and everything snowballed from here.

CDV:  Everything, that is there was a reply by Knox?

AD:  There was a reply.

CDV:  Do you remember the text of the reply?

AD:  The reply…

GCM:  Although on this maybe…

CDV:  I have made a translation.

AD:  The text was in Italian.

GCM:  Perhaps we should stay with the questions.

AD:  It was in Italian.

MC:  [incomprehensible, out of microphone range]

GCM:  Please, perhaps we can…

INT:  If they want to do it, let’s let them.

MC:  On the accord of the parties there is no limitation.

GCM:  Please continue.

AD:  The text of the reply was in Italian.

CDV:  How come in Italian, Amanda is American?

AD:  This I’m not able to say, ask her… I don’t know. The text, the reply by Ms Knox was in Italian.

CDV:  She had the capacity to speak and write in Italian in your opinion that night of the 5th and 6th?

AD:  Look…

GCM:  Was Amanda saying the occasional word in Italian?

AD:  Yes, yes, she was comprehending sufficiently what was being asked.

GCM:  So she was also speaking a little bit of Italian?

AD:  Yes, yes.

CDV:  Returning to the examination, the duration, these questions lasted until 1:45, then they were recommenced and then they were interrupted at 5:45 with the typing of the statements?

AD:  No, no. Let’s say there was an interruption in the sense that there was… I now frankly don’t remember the timing, but it seems to me that statement was done with quickly, all up, then there was a brief pause because we were also trying to comfort the girl, she had had this emotional shock so I had tried to help her, also, after which there was the interview with Dr Mignini.

CDV:  Do you remember more or less at what time this emotional shock had arrived?

AD:  That I actually don’t remember.
CDV:  But before the redaction of the 1:45 statement or after?

AD:  No, this emotional shock occurred at the moment in which the message was referred to.

CDV:  And therefore the message from Lumumba, therefore coinciding with the accusation against Lumumba. Can you remember at what time?

AD:  I don’t remember this, sorry, but the exact time this happened I don’t know, I had arrived at that hour and frankly after that never looked at the clock.

CDV:  But the 1:45 statement was typed before or after this emotional shock?

AD:  It was typed at the moment in which the girl had had this… they were trying at that moment to understand how she had spent the evening. So they were trying to understand what she had done from a particular time up until the following morning and in the course of that series of questions the particular about the message came out and at that point the statement was typed up, which came to be closed off, after which everything else.

CDV:  But why did the message have such a reaction…

GCM:  Pardon Counsel, but we cannot…

AD:  I’ll tell you straight away.

CDV:  No. no. wait I haven’t finished the question. I wanted to understand this emotional shock was caused by the message, by the reading of the message or by the fact that it was displayed or was there some other element of fact relative to the analysis?

AD:  I can tell you straight away because I remember it distinctly, she said she hadn’t replied to the message. Once though the message was shown to her obviously that was a plain lie!

CDV:  Do you remember who found the message on the phone?

GCM:  Pardon me Counsel, who found it at that moment?

CDV:  Yes, who realized that there was a message in the phone.

AD:  I think Inspector Ficcara… that is there was this phone on the table that was being checked, I now…

CDV:  But was it Amanda who provided this phone?

AD:  Yes, yes, she had handed it over, she was showing it, she had already handed it over to the officers.

CDV:  Do you remember in particular if the message had been shown by Amanda?

GCM:  Counsel you may close.

CDV:  In particular was it Amanda who emphasizes the message, who showed the message?

AD:  No, no, she had said that she had not replied to that message.

CDV:  Although you have also said that she handed the over phone over.

AD:  Yes, but she had already handed it over before, the officers were already looking through it if I’m not mistaken, from before.

GCM:  Pardon me, Doctor, perhaps Counsel is asking if you can pinpoint this moment and whether Amanda had the phone or whether she had placed it at the disposition of those who were examining her, questioning her. Amanda Knox brought up the message on the phone or else it was someone else who…

AD:  No, it was someone else.

GCM:  Some person had found it?

AD:  It was someone else.

GCM:  Not Amanda Knox who showed everybody?

AD:  Not her personally.

CDV:  So the message was noticed by a functionary who was in the room?

AD:  Yes.

CDV:  Do you remember who? In the end there weren’t many of you.

AD:  I think Inspector Ficcara, although I’m not certain.

CDV:  You have said that this message had caused an emotional shock, there must have been a specific moment when this happened?

AD:  Very specific, yes, that’s true.

CDV:  But you don’t remember how they found this message?

AD:  Now someone, I think Inspector Ficcara or Assistant Zugarini, I don’t remember now, had picked up this phone and this message was read, it was retrieved, maybe she hadn’t deleted it. Frankly, Counsel, I don’t know the detail.

CDV:  Madam, you were the victim of an accident where you had a fracture of the legs?

AD:  Yes, that’s true.

CDV:  You recounted this episode to Knox that night?

AD:  Yes.

CDV:  Why?

AD:  Because I had seen that the girl… I want to point out one thing first, generally when I find myself in these interview situations, the first thing I look to do is immediately try to cultivate a rapport, to enter into contact with the person with whom… above all treating young girls, I am a mother of two girls more or less the same age as Miss Knox and I was well aware that she could have needed assistance.

CDV:  Do you remember also having mentioned to Knox that in this personal experience of yours you had suffered a trauma by which you were unable to remember the episode of how your leg fracture happened?

AD:  Yes, it’s true, I told her about it.

FM:  President, if it please the court, the Knox defence is in cross-examination, therefore the purpose should also be limited…

CDV:  We are also evaluating the activity of the witness.

FM:  But we’re in cross-examination with these questions…

GCM:  Counsel, although it’s indicated at point 60 relative to the evening/night, so we can reintroduce…

FM:  It was not subjected to examination-in-chief.

GCM:  Please continue.

CDV:  You then have recounted that a rapport of humane assistance was created even for a difficult moment which you have recounted.

AD:  Yes.

CDV:  And you recounted this personal experience where you, by virtue of this accident, have had a memory hole.
AD:  Yes.

CDV:  So you have presented a proposition to Amanda where she also, who was in such a difficult situation at that moment could have had a memory hole in relation to all the questions that were being put?

AD:  No, I didn’t say this.

FM:  Mr President, there is opposition to this mode…

GB:  [incomprehensible, out of microphone range]

FM:  No, I oppose when I need to, first of all, then the President decides. At any rate since it is in cross-examination I formally object to this form of examination.

GCM:  It’s true that it is in cross-examination, but the borderline is a little blurred by the indications that in the witness list the Prosecutor’s Office had formulated and here we’re speaking of “relating to the evening/night between 5 November and 6 November”. So we will be able to enter into this again later.

CDV:  This is an ascertainment of a fact on the evening of 5/6, it’s a fact, so I am trying to understand.

GCM:  We can proceed.

CDV:  So you put to Amanda the possibility that in life during moments of stress one can have a memory hole?

AD:  No, I did not say it in that way, Counsel. I repeat, as my principal duty, I do it habitually, to try to assist the best way possible any person who finds themselves in conditions of that sort, I often utilise even details of my personal life. I had also told her I have two daughters, that I had been thrown out of bed, jokingly, that night to come to the Station, that I had left them sleeping, that we had even, perhaps Miss Knox doesn’t remember, we had even swapped a couple of words in German because she had told me that she had been to Berlin. So in the context of all of this I had also spoken of having had this experience because I do it habitually exactly because I was aware that it was however a situation that required a modicum of solidarity.

CDV:  However your experience was based on the fact that you had, in a difficult moment, had a memory hole?

GCM:  Of this kind.

FM:  (incomprehensible, outside microphone range )

GCM:  We won’t translate, we will bypass translating the responses, we are at the witness responses!

CDV:  But she said them before.

LG:  If she said them then they’re recorded.

GCM:  The response has been recorded.

CDV:  But it’s impossible to carry out an examination like this, if I have to be continuously interrupted! I am asking perfectly legitimate questions on a fact that has occurred…

GCM:  It’s important that you try to avoid returning to the same questions, this maybe can be avoided taking into account the responses that arise.

CDV:  As a result of these stories of yours, had you noticed that Knox had some difficulties in remembering even her night with Sollecito?

AD:  Yes, I noticed that. I told her her account was an extremely vague one, uncertain, fragmentary, she wasn’t able to remember, to give any precise answers.

CDV:  When she was doing this was she crying?

AD:  No, at that moment no.

CDV:  But you said at a certain point she was crying, only when she had had the emotional shock…

AD:  Yes, yes.

CDV:  You don’t remember the exact time this emotional shock happened? Pardon me for insisting but I think it’s important.

AD:  But if I keep on saying I don’t remember, I can’t…

CDV:  I understand. On the question from Counsel, you at one point referred to someone having asked her if she had wanted…

AD:  Yes.

CDV:  How come this had not been put into the statements, the two declarations?

AD:  I can’t really say, Counsel, it wasn’t me who typed up the statement.

CDV:  Do you remember who made this reception, this offer, who had said to Amanda: “if you want you can have a lawyer”?
AD:  Inspector Ficcara.

CDV:  Do you remember if it was before 1:45?

AD:  Counsel, again, I don’t remember the time.

CDV:  But was it in the morning when it was already daylight?

AD:  No, no, I didn’t look out the window, I was concentrating on other things, I don’t remember if it was light outside.

CDV:  You don’t remember if someone had said to her: “at this time a lawyer is worse for you, having a lawyer is worse for you”?

AD:  I don’t understand.

CDV:  That someone had said to her: “at this time a lawyer is worse for you, having a lawyer is worse for you”?

AD:  To Miss Knox?

CDV:  Yes.

AD:  Absolutely no.

CDV:  Do you also remember in the report that Raffaele in fact had made differing declarations that someone had said: “if you don’t tell me what you know they’ll put you in prison for thirty years”?

AD:  No, I repeat that these things were not said!

CDV:  Have you ever translated any words of this sort into English?

AD:  No, I deny that.

CDV:  On the correspondence can you be more precise? How many were these letters that you translated?

AD:  Around about it would have been 600 letters incoming and outgoing.

CDV:  In what time period did you have this task, from when to when?

AD:  The whole period following the arrest of Miss Knox, I exactly now when this period started specifically I’m not able to say, but I imagine that already in the month of November it had started.
CDV:  Up to?

AD:  Up to the closure of the investigations.

CDV:  So in May/June 2008?

AD:  Yes, around about.

CDV:  You also worked on the intercepted conversations?

AD:  Some yes.

CDV:  Can you recount how they came about exactly?

AD:  Either I or my colleague, this aspect of the investigative activity was looked after specially by my colleague Colantone, I helped her sometimes when she wasn’t able to go to prison. So one of us with officers from the Flying Squad went to prison, we were put in a tiny room adjacent the place, in the other room where the conversation would take place between Miss Knox and her parents or whoever was going to visit her and we would listen on headphones to the entirety, the straight conversation and then we would immediately refer it on if there were particular things that jumped out. Obviously on a second run we would proceed with a re-hearing of the recording which we were also watching on video and with the transcription of the contents.

CDV:  In relation to your affirmation that you were pointing out what jumped out at you, in what way and by what criteria? What were the themes that according to you could have been of interest to the investigation? Had you received instructions or was it at your discretion?

AD:  No, absolutely not, I attended to what I was told to do. For things relevant to the investigations, I referred to everything that related to the case, so each time anyone spoke about the case or of facts in it obviously these passages were rendered completely, all the rest, for example, when her Dad, often, used to recount in a very humorous way his misadventures in Italy, or what he had done during the course of the day, obviously these tracts of the conversation were rendered, also for lack of time, in indirect speech and summarized, in this sense.

CDV:  So summarised by you two?

AD:  Summarised by us certainly.

CDV:  So it was not a translation of the words, but it was a summary of the context and of the argument treated?

AD:  Yes, but always in a very detailed way.

CDV:  But what were the instructions you received for evaluating the importance of these documents? Especially if you are also able to say who gave you the task and whether they had asked you: “check for this topic”, this is what I want to know.

AD:  Counsel, it was requested to underline and refer totally everything that was said during the course of the intercepts relating to the case in question. Each time Miss Knox referred to her particular case, the trial, obviously these aspects were listened to, transcribed fully and they came to be given a certain relevance, graphically. This is what was asked to be done.

CDV:  But the topics, what were they, those that you considered as important?

AD:  Those relating to the case, the procedural case, to her memories of Meredith, to what she had done previously,to everything that related to the case.

CDV:  So you found elements of this kind in the correspondence?

AD:  No, I was speaking about the intercepts.

CDV:  Yes, pardon me, this also applies to the correspondence?

AD:  Yes, also to the correspondence.

CDV:  Did you [plural] do a complete translation, sworn, word for word or did you make a digest of the correspondence?

AD:  I’m telling you Counsel there were more than 600 letters, Miss Knox above all else is an able writer, in the sense that she likes writing a lot, she even writes ten-page letters, obviously in the accounts, in the transcription of the letters we translated completely any important letters that related to the case, while the others, of minor interest, for example when she was talking about her friends, when she was talking about her family, obviously those were…

GCM:  Pardon me, about her friends with reference to which friends, those found in Italy?

AD:  No, her friends in America, everything that related to… and obviously those were reported in an abridged manner because there was not the time beyond anything else to do a full translation of all that material.

CDV:  You worked on the 17 November intercept, on the analysis of the intercept?

AD:  No, that if I’m not mistaken was transcribed by my colleague.

CDV:  Do you remember how many intercepts you worked on?

AD:  I looked after I think six intercepts, although not those from November, those that were done in March if I’m not mistaken.

CDV:  Are you aware whether following your work any further investigative activity in relation to the intercepts and to the correspondence, these 600 letters, was carried out?

AD:  We consigned all the material, then obviously this is not our area of expertise, it’s not up to us.

CDV:  So no other activity was carried out?

AD:  No, this I don’t know.

CDV:  Was there correspondence between the two accused that you analysed?

AD:  No, I didn’t translate anything in that regard.

CDV:  Between Knox and Lumumba.

AD:  Nothing.

CDV:  And Knox and Guede?

AD:  Nothing.

CDV:  And with lawyers?

AD:  No.

CDV:  Not even Americans?

AD:  No.

CDV:  With journalists?

AD:  No.

CDV:  With politicians?

AD:  No.

CDV:  So they were family and friends?

AD:  Family and friends, certainly.

GCM:  Counsel this, but politicians… it could be a politician who isn’t… it becomes a little bit difficult for the witness if for the category of person, it would have to signify that the witness knew in which category the each visitor belonged, to avoid putting herself into difficulty.

CDV:  I asked only, Mr President, because information has come out on the mass-media that was referring to presumed correspondence even with famous people, both foreign and Italian, who hold political office, in this sense I was asking she had had knowledge of them. One last question: your work, still in relation to the mass-media, have you had contacts with the mass-media?

AD:  Absolutely not.

CDV:  Thank you.

Defence Counsel Ghirga

LG:  A question about the letters, but you translated these 600 letters, Dr Colantone translated them, you translated them… translated, looked at, made a précis of because first it seemed to be an activity of the prior witness, now it seems to be by your activity. This 600-letter correspondence, it’s not a fundamental question, did you do it together, dividing the work?

AD:  There are four of us interpreters at the Station and all of us worked, we all collaborated regarding this case and generally we team-work in the sense that we distribute the work, we check on the proceedings, so all of us know everything and also regarding these letters an analogous thing was done.

LG:  If I show you Amanda’s 1:45 summary informations from the 6th, but I say to you there aren’t any questions, and I ask you: how come not one question was statemented on the part of… not even the acronym ADR [“replies as follows”], nothing?

AD:  This I don’t…

LG:  You’ve said that there were questions, you translated them, there’s not even one.

AD:  If there aren’t…

GCM:  President: Counsel is asking how come none of the questions were reported and not even the ADR?

AD:  I don’t know about this.

GM:  I oppose, with the spontaneous declarations there was the interview, with questions and contestation.

LG:  Meanwhile those from 1:45 are summary informations and I repeat not one question was statemented why? It can’t be clearer than this. Were there any questions or weren’t they statemented?

FM:  Mr President, if it please the court, I oppose because the Doctor had not typed up the statement and so…

GCM:  Though the witness must answer.

LG:  She translated everything!

FM:  But it is not her who typed up the statement, for this she cannot respond.

GCM:  Although, pardon, let the question be posed. We have heard, they are the summary informations and not the spontaneous declarations for which the questions in sum… Now about these summary informations, Defense is asking, the questions being put to the person who was being examined do not seem to have been reported, not even under the profile of ADR, this abbreviation, that you know.

AD:  Mr President, on the merely technical and formal aspect I do not know how to respond.

LG:  I was wanting to reply to the Public Prosecutor…

GCM:  No, let’s only ask questions of the witness and leave it at that!

LG:  On the spontaneous declarations I recall that they’re in the file as corpo del reato for the calunnia, and OK, these spontaneousnesses have been declared absolutely inadmissible even for clarification purposes.

GM:  Questions Mr President, I oppose!

LG:  No because someone has always called them…

GCM:  Pardon, now we are examining the witness, if there are questions to be put let’s do so otherwise let’s proceed to the next step!

LG:  But to also be clear. No further questions.

Defence Counsel Bongiorno

GB:  Still in cross-examination in the ambit of that night which has been discussed up until now. You have mentioned replying to my colleagues that you had spoken to Amanda about the fact that you have daughters, that you were woken at night etc. to create a humane rapport. I ask you the reasons why for which your role was mere interpreter, therefore to translate, it was necessary to create a humane rapport.

AD:  It was necessary Counsel, yes, because it is a thing that I do habitually and it is a fundamental thing because it also establishes a relationship of trust with the person who one has next to one. I above all am a mediator, so I am not, as you say, a simple executor and a little machine that translates words. Beside me I have a person who however finds herself in the middle of people that do not speak her language, I am her channel and I feel a duty to establish a rapport that goes a little bit beyond the exquisitely technical thing. I do it habitually with everybody, I didn’t do it only that night, I do it all the time.

GB:  I ask only what does “I’m a mediator” mean? Your role mustn’t be, at the moment when a formal statement is being done, with questions and answers, a mere translator or you… that is, define mediator better for me.

AD:  Being a mediator means that however I am able to also, by means of personal conversation. So I also make this my duty and carry them out.

GB:  So in the ambit of your role in which you were mediator you then considered it worthwhile to recount to Amanda even your personal experience relating to the leg fracture etc.

AD:  Yes.

GB:  In which moment did you consider it worthwhile to recount this part of your history, the leg fracture, the missing memories?

AD:  This in the specifics Counsel I…

GB:  At the beginning when you were trying to create a humane rapport you said: “I’m mentioning that I’m the mother of two daughters etc etc” or during the interview?

AD:  I think that it was during the interview.

GB:  In particular in which phase of the interview? Already when there had been Amanda’s shock or not?

AD:  This, Counsel, I don’t remember, exactly when I said this… when I told her about this thing about my life I don’t know.

GB:  This episode that you recounted, was only Amanda listening to this narration or everybody that was in the room?

AD:  No, no, everybody.

GB:  Was this externalization of yours statemented and therefore we will find it in the documentation or not?

AD:  No, no, no it wasn’t… I think.

GB:  You did not ask yourself the question whether in some way this species of your, personal, narration from an interpreter might taint the interview?

AD:  In what way could it have tainted it?! Honestly I did not ask myself that.

CP:  I oppose, Mr President.

GCM:  Let us present the facts only, opposition will be…

GB:  I have no further questions.

Prosecutor Comodi

MC:  When you assisted Amanda Knox as interpreter, at the end of the interviewing did you read the statement?

AD:  Yes.

MC:  Amanda in some way contested the contents of the statement?

AD:  Absolutely not. I even remember that she wants to see, to read the statement in Italian and follow word for word what had been written down and was asking me for amplifications if she didn’t understand.

MC:  Amplifications in English?

AD:  Amplifications in English definitely.

MC:  Did it appear to you that Amanda Knox had asked at the beginning that even the questions be statemented?

AD:  No, it didn’t.

MC:  Did it appear to you that she had asked the questions and answers be statemented in her mother tongue, that is English, as well as in Italian?

AD:  No it didn’t.

Judge Massei

GCM:  One circumstance if you can refer to it, if you remember, you were called because the examination of Amanda Knox, her summary informations, were already under way or because they had not yet started and so you assisted up until the start of this?

AD:  Nothing was said to me on the phone, simply get up and go. When I arrived I was made to enter into the room where Miss Knox already was.

GCM:  And who was present together with her?
AD:  Inspector Ficcara certainly, I don’t know whether at that moment there was also Assistant Zugarini, this I don’t recall well. Then certainly this SCO agent Ivano Raffo, him yes.

GCM:  So you entered and…

AD:  And they were already there.

GCM:  But Amanda Knox was already talking, they were already making her…

AD:  Yes, she was answering questions, they were talking.

GCM:  So they were speaking in Italian in that instant?

AD:  Yes, they were speaking in Italian.

GCM:  Are you able to say if when you arrived Amanda Knox’s mobile phone had already been placed at the disposition of the ones who were interviewing her, or else this was a later time period?

AD:  I think it was a later time period.

GCM:  Very well.

Defence Counsel Dalla Vedova

CDV:  You arrived at the Station at what time exactly?

AD:  I’ll tell you Counsel…

GCM:  At 00:30, she had already mentioned it.

CDV:  How can you be sure that it was 00:30?

AD:  In fact I never said I was sure.

CDV:  So how can you say it was 00:30?

AD:  I have said that I have considered that I had received the phone call around about 23:30–23:40, considering that I spent about half an hour at my house, considering that I also had to get ready I made a calculation, I left immediately and I would have arrived around about that time.

CDV:  How come you knew that it was eleven forty-five when they called you?

AD:  Because I had just… it was only a little while that I had gone to sleep and generally I go to bed more or less around eleven thirty, eleven twenty.

CDV:  But did you look at a clock?

AD:  I was not sleeping yet though, so I was in bed.

CDV:  Did you look at a clock?

AD:  No, I didn’t look at a clock.

CDV:  And when you left the Station on the morning of the 6th?

AD:  I left at eight, I waited for my colleague Colantone to arrive.

Judge Massei

GCM:  On this… only on the questions that were put. I wanted to ask is there a time-recorder at the Station?

AD:  Yes, yes.

GCM:  But you inserted the time-recorder?

AD:  No, there’s an out-of-hours pass.

GCM:  And you inserted it?

AD:  Yes, yes.

GCM:  So then it can show at what time you arrived?

AD:  Yes.

GCM:  Very well, you may go.


5. Relevant Testimony Of Officer Edgardo Giobbi

ZiaK’s full translation of Dr Giobbi’s testimony can be found on McCall’s Wiki.

Prosecutor Dr Mignini

GM: Do you recall that night of 5 to 6 November, what the various passages/phases were, without entering into the merit of the declarations, but what were the developments, and what then led to the arrest?

EG: Above all, we began – as judiciary police – with witness summaries/recaps [NdT: “sommarie informazioni]. These summaries/recaps were carried out at the same time in two different rooms by two different teams of investigators. I and Profazio did not participate, but we remained, shall we say, like a sort of control panel in order to try and understand what the contradictions were. Because we reached [this point] also on the basis of contradictions that emerged during the course of the various witness summaries/recaps. There was this evolution. There was, shall we say, the possibility during the development of these witness recaps/summaries of asking questions to study more deeply, of putting [someone] at their ease. In short, it was a very ordinary thing, I would say, in the ordinariness of things. After which, when the declarations emerged that went against our feelings/sensations, beyond the aspect [sic: perhaps a typo,  “aspetto” instead of “aspettative” = “expectations”] of our competence, thus, that they no longer seemed to us to be witnesses, but that they had a completely other position, we – as you well know – in short, we called you and you can, and then it went as …

GM: Do you remember what the behaviour was of the two at that moment, and afterwards?

EG: During the SIT [“sommarie informazioni testimoniali” = witness summaries/recaps], I cannot say.

GM: Outside of the minutes [sic: i.e., the witness questioning/written recording], what happened in that moment in the Questura, especially [to] Amanda?

EG: Yes, shall we say, Amanda was the one that had a little bit more of a display of behaviours, I don’t even know what terms to use. I could describe them, the displays of the two behaviours were completely different: very easy: Amanda was more emotional, she had much stronger reactions. I remember clearly great wails, great cries, great emotional howls. But this [was], then, shall we say, during the phase when she was giving Lumumba’s name above all, because I associated it to the fact that she recalled in that moment the specific episode. I should say that Raffaele Sollecito was, according to me, he had an absolutely gentlemanlike behaviour. He always replied. He was put completely at ease. We, in short, however, we did things, giving him water often. However, also he, at a certain point, the answers necessarily required closer examination because even in defence of the same witness, because if we have answers that are contradictory or answers that do not match up with our investigative acquisitions.

GCM: The behaviours.

EG: The behaviours, I’ve outlined them. Mr Sollecito was, shall we say, to my mind, because I did not participate, as I said at the beginning, I was a sort of intermediary control panel, that is to say Profazio and I, who were those who were in actual fact leading the inquiries, we got the information from the operators and investigators who were physically carrying out the summaries/recaps. However, I must say that Amanda’s howls could be heard in the corridor of the Questura, even though the room was closed. Mr Sollecito did not have the same attitude, a much more gentlemanly and calm/even-tempered manner.

GM: Going back a few days, you were present in the Questura on the evening of the 2nd, from the 2nd to the 3rd?

EG: Yes.

GM: Do you recall, because then too there was a series of interrogations, do you recall what the behaviour of the two was on the evening of the 2nd November? You spoke of the evening of the 5th to the 7th [sic].

EG: I, as far as I can recall – so much time has passed – however, it seems a little bit overstepping the lines the behaviour that Mr Sollecito had, it was only on the occasion when we were hearing/questioning Amanda Knox without his presence inside the Questura. Amanda always had the attitude that I don’t know how to define, because I am not a psychologist, however it seems to me [to be] an out of place behaviour. That is to say, [it is] not a well-situated behaviour inside [i.e. in the context/framework] of the fact.

GCM: The evaluation of the behaviour, [can] you describe it? What did it consist of?

EG: The problem is finding the correct terms, according to me. On many occasions she was casual/carefree/impish/gamine, on other occasions – there you go – for example [in] an interrogation, she was desperate, but always unusual/particular/singular sensations/feelings. The thing that really struck me was certainly the episode of the move [NdT: the “voilà!!”, hip-shaking move], because in short the move, to me, it was a bit strange in that moment.

GM: The day after, in effect.

EG: Yes.


Knox Defence Counsel Ghirga

LG: So we’re at the evening of the 5th, then the night between the 5th and the 6th. To us it appears from other points of the investigation, also from the witness [evidence], that on that evening, around 21:30 only Sollecito had been called to the Questura. You, on the contrary, said that they were both made to be questioned/heard together.

EG: No, I remember having said that they were called together on purpose.

LG: You, but [sic] to us it appears from the testimony of your colleagues that only Amanda was called, and Raffaele Sollecito insisted on coming.

EG: I gave direct orders to the investigators to take them. I, look, I remember it very well, because it was the first time that we carried out a sort [sic], of doing two SIT [recaps/summaries] in a simultaneous manner, and I said go get them. I seems to me they were in a pizzeria. I can tell you mathematical certainty. I remember perfectly well having arranged a technical tactic.

LG: You took the question out of my mouth, that of hearing/questioning them together was a choice.

EG: Absolutely, yes. I believe it was the only time that they were heard/questioned concurrently.

LG: I remember that when Amanda was taken for summary/recap, [for] the first information, by other people, you were in the control room with Profazio.

EG: I, with Profazio, was in the control room the evening of the arrests.

LG: That is to say, you were not present at the moment of the SIT, of the summaries/recaps of the witnesses.

EG: But that, the evening [sic].

LG: No, here we have arrived at the 5th, in the evening, when you called them both as a result of an investigative strategy.

EG: The 5th evening.

LG: So you were not present when Amanda gave a witness summary/recap.

EG: No.

LG: However, recall that at a certain point the PM [pubblico ministero], the Public prosecutor Dr Mignini. What happened? If you [can] recall without going into the content.

EG: I recall the passage was described to the Public Prosecutor – everything that had happened that according to us we could not proceed with the SIT, because to my feeling there was a different position.

LG: Of suspects, so we understand each other.

EG: Exactly. My feeling yes. I recall that I asked Dr Mignini, in short that I said “Look, I am interrupting the questioning/written record because I am not continuing, because I must stop”.

LG: Do you recall what happened then? The PM came?

EG: Yes.

LG: And the spontaneous declarations were gathered.

EG: I… the spontaneous declarations of whom?

LG: On the part of Amanda Knox.

EG: On the part of the PG [procuratore generale = Attorney General].

LG: Certainly they were taken by the Public prosecutor the spontaneous declarations by Amanda Knox, you were not present.

EG: I was present in there, however, in short, it is a detail that I maybe learned later, I learned it later.

LG: No, I’m asking you to be precise. We are at 5:45 in the morning, the Public Prosecutor has arrived, and in the case files there is, there are some spontaneous declarations in the sense of Article 350.

EG: Yes, there are.

LG: You were present in the moment when Amanda ...

EG: I was not present in the moment when the here [present] Public Prosecutor took the summaries/recaps.

LG: You were not present.

EG: I was inside the Flying Squad [offices].

LG: No, if you were there, where ...

EG: In the room, no.

 


Chapter 9: Officer Moscatelli’s Recap/Summary Session With Sollecito 5-6 Nov

1. What Really Happened on 5-6 November

The introduction to Hoax Post #1 explains what really happened at Knox’s recap/summary session on 5-6 November 2007.

In a sentence: Knox was there unwanted and grumpy, was advised to go and sleep, refused, agreed to build a list of possible perps (she listed seven, including Rudy Guede), spontaneously broke into a wailing conniption over a message she sent to Patrick, was semi-calmed-down and repeatedly provided with refreshments, and insisted on writing three statements without a lawyer, all of which said she went out on the night of the attack, all framing Patrick, one even pointing at Sollecito.

Posts #1 to #8 included all the testimony from three police staff (Ficcara, Zugarini, Donnino) who sat with Knox, and then some of the testimony from Napoleoni (who was mainly with Sollecito) and Giobbi (an officer from Rome who was elsewhere in the questura and overheard Knox’s conniption). 

Inspector Daniele Moscatelli was also from the national police in Rome. He had previously questioned the boys who lived downstairs, and on 5-6 November he led the discussion with Sollecito, who was in a room some distance from Knox. On this night, the subject was to be some discrepancies in Sollecito’s phone records. Expectations were low, and many others were still being similarly questioned.

There was some limited interaction with Rita Ficcara’s recap/summary session with Amanda Knox, so the claims made here and their timing will become very important.

At the end of the session Sollecito’s signed statement for Inspectors Moscatelli and Napoleoni included this about Knox :

I know Amanda for two weeks. From the evening I first met her she started sleeping at my house.

The first of November I woke up about 11.00, I had breakfast with Amanda, then she went out and I went back to bed. I then met up with her at her house around 13.00-14.00. In there was Meredith who left in a hurry about 16.00 without saying where she was going.

Amanda and I went to the [town] centre about 18.00 but I don’t remember what we did. We remained in the centre till 20.30 or 21.00.

I went to my house alone at 21.00, while Amanda said that she was going to the pub Le Chic because she wanted to meet with her friends.

At this point we said goodbye. I went home, I made a joint. Had dinner, but I don’t remember what I ate. About 23.00 my father called me on my house phone line.

I recall Amanda was not back yet.

I web surfed on the computer for two more hours after my father’s phone call and I only stopped when Amanda came back in, presumably about 01.00…

In my previous statement I told a load of rubbish because Amanda had convinced me of her version of the facts and I didn’t think about the inconsistencies.

This will already be a long post, and the last for now on testimony from the police. So we’ll highlight all the devils in the details of all this police testimony in our next post. This translation is by Catnip and is also posted on the excellent wiki.


***

Prosecutor Mignini

Prosecutor Mignini:  You have carried out investigations on the death of Meredith Kercher?

Daniele Moscatelli:  Yes.

Prosecutor Mignini:  Do you remember when you had arrived in Perugia and what activity you’d carried out?

Daniele Moscatelli:  I’d arrived in Perugia on the 2nd of November, in the late afternoon, from Rome, together with Deputy Commissioner Adjunct Giobbi, Doctor Edgardo Giobbi , in the late afternoon. We arrive in Perugia and we proceed to Via della Pergola, where on the outside of the house we find already present on site the Prosecutor, the Perugia Flying Squad and the Scientific Police. I was asked, almost immediately, to the offices of the Flying Squad to carry out SIs of potential witnesses who, one by one, were asked to the offices of the Flying Squad. This had happened on the 2nd.

Prosecutor Mignini:  You’d entered into the apartment at Via della Pergola?

Daniele Moscatelli:  No, absolutely not, I immediately was asked… then other colleagues from Rome also arrived and were assigned to this type of activity.

Prosecutor Mignini:  Then?

Daniele Moscatelli:  I personally was asked to go to the Marches, to Port Saint George, if I’m not mistaken, to verify the depositions, the testimonies given by the neighbors who were below the apartment where the murder had occurred, on the 3rd.

Prosecutor Mignini:  The following day you carried out normal office activity, witness statements and so on, up until the 5th, specifically the evening of the 5th, when we heard Mr Sollecito’s SI.

Prosecutor Mignini:  Can you say… at what time you had heard him?

Daniele Moscatelli:  The evening around half past ten, ten forty in the evening, 22:30-22:40, also because I remember I was called on the phone, I don’t remember by whom, and he said that he was having dinner because he was given the time to dine and then to come into the Perugia Flying Squad’s offices.

Prosecutor Mignini:  At what time had you completed the statement?

Daniele Moscatelli:  The statement, at 3:30-3:40 am.

Prosecutor Mignini:  Sollecito had asked you to have a lawyer available, to interrupt the statement?

Daniele Moscatelli:  Absolutely not.

Prosecutor Mignini:  So you had closed the statement normally, without any worry, and he had not asked anything about all of this?

Daniele Moscatelli:  No, everything that he was asking for, water and things, was placed at his complete ease, he had everything at his disposal.

Prosecutor Mignini:  Do you remember how he was behaving?

Daniele Moscatelli:  His behavior was basically confused also because… the statement lasted a while also because of this reason, I repeat, he was placed at complete ease thus with very long pauses, in a manner very, as was relating us, in a very calm manner. In effect he had a basically nervous behavior.

Prosecutor Mignini:  Once the statement concluded on the basis of his declarations, what did you do?

Daniele Moscatelli:  Look, personally finishing with the statement I was asked by my superiors, I was asked along together with the Perugia Flying Squad to look for Mr Lumumba inasmuch the position of Mr Lumumba had emerged from the declarations of Miss Knox. So then when I re-entered the office it was morning, I was made aware of Mr Sollecito’s arrest and I seized a pair of shoes and a knife he had with him.

Prosecutor Mignini:  What knife?

Daniele Moscatelli:  A knife…

Prosecutor Mignini:  A flick-knife?

Daniele Moscatelli:  I don’t remember if it was a flick-knife, however it was a long enough knife, I don’t remember now the technical particulars of the knife.

Prosecutor Mignini:  He was carrying it?

Daniele Moscatelli:  Yes, yes, he was carrying it. He had it in his pocket and in the light of exactly because of this behaviour that he was displaying, even after the interview, I remember that Deputy Inspector Monica Napoleoni had asked him if he were armed or suchlike and he hands us this knife.

Prosecutor Mignini:  Did you ask him for what reason he was carrying it?

Daniele Moscatelli:  He was saying that he was a lover of weapons, of knives.

Prosecutor Mignini:  Then what did you do? What do you remember? Did you see Amanda that morning?

Daniele Moscatelli:  I saw her after because I personally busied myself with activity concerning Sollecito, I saw her in the morning when she was already in a state of arrest.

Prosecutor Mignini:  Do you remember how she was behaving?

Daniele Moscatelli:  She was very confused, very exhausted I believe, but she was worn-out above all about the fact of her declarations, although she didn’t have a relevant behavior with respect to who knows what.

Prosecutor Mignini:  I have no further questions.

Judge Massei:  The Civil Parties have no questions; the defense.

Defense Counsel Maori

RS Counsel Maori:  Advocate Maori, Sollecito Defense. You, Superintendent, said earlier, in response to the Prosecutor, that you had effected the seizure of the knife and the shoes.

Daniele Moscatelli:  Yes.

RS Counsel Maori:  For what reasons were the shoes seized? Was there something about these shoes that were leading you back to the crime? Were they bloodstained, was there some other element?

Daniele Moscatelli:  They were absolutely not bloodstained, although the shoes were seized in that they were seen, in a position that Sollecito assumed, seated with his legs crossed, in a quite natural position, and concentric circles were noticed on the soles of his shoes which, at the investigative level, could have led somewhere. In the evidence the Scientific Police had recovered a print with these concentric circles, so they were seized for this reason.

RS Counsel Maori:  At what time were these shoes seized?

Daniele Moscatelli:  In the morning.

RS Counsel Maori:  Superintendent, you on the 7th November participated in the seizure of Meredith’s computer and of the clothing that was found in the washing machine?

Daniele Moscatelli:  Yes, of the clothing that was in the washing machine.

RS Counsel Maori:  On that occasion was a search also done or only…

Daniele Moscatelli:  No, no, I on instruction went to the bathroom, the first bathroom on the right of the house, always wearing gloves and shoe-covers, I went there and took the clothing indicated by Ms Filomena Romanelli, inside the washing machine and I brought them to the office.

RS Counsel Maori:  Can you describe the course of events, who were you with and what you did?

Daniele Moscatelli:  I entered into the house, I put on the gloves and the shoe-covers…

RS Counsel Maori:  First of all you had removed the seals?

Daniele Moscatelli:  I didn’t remove them personally, with me there was Deputy Commissioner Profazio and Deputy Commissioner Giobbi.

RS Counsel Maori:  So there were three of you?

Daniele Moscatelli:  There were four of us, if I’m not mistaken, there was also Superintendent Gentili from my office.

RS Counsel Maori:  Go on.

Daniele Moscatelli:  We entered, I went to the first bathroom on the right with gloves and shoe-covers on, we opened the washing machine, I picked up the clothing with my gloves, put them inside a bag and we took them to the Flying Squad offices.

RS Counsel Maori:  You said “I went and we opened”, you mean ‘we went’?

Daniele Moscatelli:  I and Superintendent Gentili went into the bathroom.

RS Counsel Maori:  And these clothes, where were they put?

Daniele Moscatelli:  In a bag, a big bag.

RS Counsel Maori:  And this bag, where was it taken from?

Daniele Moscatelli:  The bag?

RS Counsel Maori:  This bag, where did it come from?

Daniele Moscatelli:  From the Flying Squad offices.

RS Counsel Maori:  What type of bag was it?

Daniele Moscatelli:  A black bag, so that then the clothing amongst other things had been centrifuged and washed, so we put all precautions in place. Then I remember that in the Flying Squad offices they were subdivided according to whether Miss Romanelli recognized them as hers or as belonging to the victim or other occupants of the house.

RS Counsel Maori:  This black bag is a rubbish bag so to speak?

Daniele Moscatelli:  Yes, like a rubbish bag.

RS Counsel Maori:  That you had found…

Daniele Moscatelli:  No.

RS Counsel Maori:  You had gone into the murder house carrying this bag with you?

Daniele Moscatelli:  We’d had the bag.

RS Counsel Maori:  That you found where?

Daniele Moscatelli:  In the Flying Squad offices.

RS Counsel Maori:  In a drawer? There was a bag ready for this type of operation or else you had found it there and had thought that…

Daniele Moscatelli:  No, we didn’t find it there, it was a bag that had never been used, like everything else that was supplied, and where the clothing centrifuged and washed in the washing machine was put.

RS Counsel Maori:  You, before that date, the 7th of November, had never entered into Via della Pergola?

Daniele Moscatelli:  No, no.

RS Counsel Maori:  You were present at the execution of the provisional arrest warrant naturally?

Daniele Moscatelli:  Yes.

RS Counsel Maori:  Was this record signed by 36 members of the Perugia Police?

Daniele Moscatelli:  Yes.

RS Counsel Maori:  Was everyone present?

Daniele Moscatelli:  Yes. How were we all present, Counsel?

RS Counsel Maori:  Everyone belonging to the Perugia Police, from the Deputy Commissioner right down to the Assistant, so there were 36 people who signed the detention record, were they all present?

Daniele Moscatelli:  I didn’t count them, but definitely everyone was present, not that I set myself the task of counting if there were 36 people.

RS Counsel Maori:  Also because they couldn’t all fit in the room. Thank you.

Defense Counsel Bongiorno

RS Counsel Bongiorno:  Raffaele Sollecito, when was he arrested?

Daniele Moscatelli:  The morning of the 6th of November, at 8 am, I believe, the Public Prosecutor disposed the arrest and then the following noon I believe that he was notified.

RS Counsel Bongiorno:  From the moment in which the statement was concluded to the moment in which he was arrested, were other investigative activities carried out?

Daniele Moscatelli:  Counsel, as regards myself I have already explained to the Court, I, once the statement was concluded, was asked to look for the other suspect.

RS Counsel Bongiorno:  While however…

Daniele Moscatelli:  Therefore physically I was not there.

RS Counsel Bongiorno:  Then I will ask you questions about when you were present. When you were present, did it happen that amongst you police officers you were exchanging information about what was happening in the room in which Knox was being heard and about what was happening in the room in which Sollecito was being heard?

Daniele Moscatelli:  Personally no.

RS Counsel Bongiorno:  Without the “personally”, I was saying, did it happen that anyone said something, exchanging information from one room to another?

Daniele Moscatelli:  Well, maybe when Miss Knox made her final declarations I don’t remember if someone came out of the room, for this I’m saying personally because I’m speaking for myself.

RS Counsel Bongiorno:  No, in fact I am asking if these two records were made in such a way that people were shut in in two rooms or whether there was an exchange of information amongst you, someone was saying: “it’s going like this with Sollecito, is it going like that with Knox”?

Daniele Moscatelli:  There will also have been, but no…

RS Counsel Bongiorno:  If you know, tell me yes, if not no.

Judge Massei:  If you recall with precision.

Daniele Moscatelli:  With precision, no, I don’t recall.

RS Counsel Bongiorno:  Do you remember if someone said: “contradictions are starting to emerge”?

Daniele Moscatelli:  With respect to what, sorry?

RS Counsel Bongiorno:  These declarations that were being made.

Daniele Moscatelli:  No, I don’t recall, I don’t think so.

RS Counsel Bongiorno:  Not if you recall, not… what do you mean?

Daniele Moscatelli:  I mean that I don’t recall in that I was focused on the activity I was carrying out at the moment.

RS Counsel Bongiorno:  The activity that you were carrying out was taking the Sollecito SI, it wasn’t extraneous to the activity if someone was saying: “there’s a contrast with what’s happening in the other room”, that’s why I’m asking you it.

Daniele Moscatelli:  I don’t recall.

Judge Massei:  You don’t recall if during this activity that you were carrying out with regard to Raffaele Sollecito someone came and said, “but they’re..”?

Daniele Moscatelli:  I remember towards the end, when there were the declarations of Ms Knox, someone came but didn’t tell me this thing because I continued to take the Sollecito SI.

Judge Massei:  But you heard them?

Daniele Moscatelli:  No, I didn’t hear them because in the room we were only…

RS Counsel Bongiorno:  I haven’t understood well here then, this person comes in, says this thing and who does he say it to?

Daniele Moscatelli:  No, nobody came in, if anything someone went out, Counsel. Maybe Deputy Inspector Napoleoni had gone out, I don’t remember now.

RS Counsel Bongiorno:  In the ambit of the whole statement by Sollecito, were contested questions put to Sollecito?

Daniele Moscatelli:  Contested in what sense?

RS Counsel Bongiorno:  Of incongruities, of something that didn’t add up.

Daniele Moscatelli:  No, but it was him who was telling us…

RS Counsel Bongiorno:  Were contested questions put or not?

Daniele Moscatelli:  No.

RS Counsel Bongiorno:  Was it said: “Look, this isn’t so”?

Daniele Moscatelli:  No, “Look, this isn’t so” was never said, absolutely. It was him who was saying to us: “No, I made a mistake, I said this, I said it another way”.

RS Counsel Bongiorno:  When he said something like that during the statement, you considered interrupting the statement?

Daniele Moscatelli:  No, no, never.

RS Counsel Bongiorno:  There was no grounds to call a lawyer?

Daniele Moscatelli:  There was at that moment no ground to call a lawyer.

RS Counsel Bongiorno:  When and of what did the details against Sollecito occur?

Daniele Moscatelli:  The details against Sollecito had been produced by the totality of the investigative activity, it’s not that they emerged only from the SI statement, it’s true that the SI statement was opened and closed according to procedure.

RS Counsel Bongiorno:  No, in fact that it was opened and closed normally is patently clear. I was asking you because in the course of the statement you were not interrupted, seeing that you then made the arrest.

Daniele Moscatelli:  Because evidently at that moment at the closure of the statement no elements had emerged to be able to communicate…

Judge Massei:  He has already answered this.

RS Counsel Bongiorno:  OK.

Defense Counsel Dalla Vedova

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  I wanted to ask when you had arrived at Via della Pergola, had you noticed the front door of the house?

Daniele Moscatelli:  On the 2nd November, you mean?

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  Yes.

Daniele Moscatelli:  No, I didn’t notice, we met there outside with the Public Prosecutor and with officers and colleagues from the Flying Squad, there was a brief meeting, I then was asked straight afterwards to the Flying Squad office, I didn’t remain there onsite and I didn’t notice it.

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  Afterwards you said you went to Port Saint George?

Daniele Moscatelli:  Yes, to Port Saint George the day after.

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  Can you expand a bit more on this investigation?

Daniele Moscatelli:  That is? On the activity at Port Saint George?

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  Yes, what investigative activity was carried out?

Daniele Moscatelli:  We went to verify the alibis that had been given during the witness information given by the neighbors of the house below who were saying that they were present that evening, the night of the homicide, in Port Saint George, and these alibis were checked against other witnesses.

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  So you had verified the alibis of the boys who were living underneath?

Daniele Moscatelli:  Yes.

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  By means of investigative activity always to do with witnesses?

Daniele Moscatelli:  Always with witnesses, statements of SI.

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  Checks of phone logs?

Daniele Moscatelli:  No, I personally had not carried out activity on logs.

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  Do you know if activity of this sort had been carried out in regard to the boys?

Daniele Moscatelli:  Everyone there had their different tasks, I was doing mine considering that there were two officers, among which one from the Central Operations Service, one from the Flying Squad, other colleagues.

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  Who was it who was coordinating the investigations at that moment?

Daniele Moscatelli:  The investigations were being coordinated by the officers, by Deputy Commissioner Adjunct Profazio, by Deputy Commissioner Giobbi and by Deputy Commissioner Adjunct Chiacchiera, the officers logically with the Prosecutor.

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  Are you aware whether examinations of the phone logs of the boys from the floor below had been carried out?

Daniele Moscatelli:  Counsel, you’re asking me the same question.

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  No, the question is whether you are aware if they had been carried out.

Daniele Moscatelli:  No, I am not aware.

Judge Massei:  You have already responded, you did not carry them out.

Daniele Moscatelli:  No I didn’t carry them out.

Judge Massei:  Though Counsel was asking if to your knowledge…

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  I had asked if anyone else had done them.

Daniele Moscatelli:  I am not aware of that, I limited myself only to the tasks that were given to me.

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  Obviously the investigation at Port Saint George, what had you confirmed regarding the alibis of these boys?

Daniele Moscatelli:  That the boys were present during the night, between the 1st and the 2nd, at Port Saint George.

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  Can you be more precise? What had been the element that had guaranteed this presence to you?

Daniele Moscatelli:  Witness information and investigative activity.

Judge Massei:  Witness information is one thing, investigative activity is the same thing or something else?

Daniele Moscatelli:  No, witness information in the sense that there were, once persons totally extraneous to the matter had been heard, they confirmed the presence of the boys at Port…

Judge Massei:  So this investigation?

Daniele Moscatelli:  Yes, the investigative activity I had led to this logically, to this type of activity.

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  For this activity, you made a statement, it’s in the papers?

Daniele Moscatelli:  There are the SI statements.

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  Because they are not in the papers, therefore I was asking ...

Prosecutor Mignini:  The statements of the boys’ declarations, how come they’re not there?

Judge Massei:  No, sorry, Counsel was asking about the SIs of the people who would have confirmed…

MC:  These are also in the papers.

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  I take notice that the Prosecutor says that they are in the papers. I wanted to ask instead a clarification on the evening of the 5th, you have said that at around 3:30 am of the 6th the examination of Sollecito had by then been interrupted and you carried out other investigative activity.

Daniele Moscatelli:  No, I did not interrupt the Sollecito activity, once the statement was closed I was then sent off, at the disposition of my superiors.

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  I was interested in the activity immediately afterwards, what did you do as investigative activity?

Daniele Moscatelli:  I am telling you, Counsel.

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  I ask you to answer.

Daniele Moscatelli:  Yes, we had gone in search of the other personage who had emerged from the declarations.

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  The other personage is Patrick Lumumba?

Daniele Moscatelli:  Yes.

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  Exactly what activity had you performed?

Daniele Moscatelli:  We looked for him with colleagues from Perugia, we gave support to our colleagues from Perugia.

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  And you found him?

Daniele Moscatelli:  Yes, we found him.

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  Around what time?

Daniele Moscatelli:  I don’t remember exactly, but there had passed…

Judge Massei:  How much time later? How long did it take you?

Daniele Moscatelli:  A bit of time had passed, definitely two hours, a good two and a half hours.

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  So from half past three, about two and a half hours later you had found Patrick Lumumba?

Daniele Moscatelli:  At home.

RS Counsel Bongiorno:  Excuse me, Mr President excuse me, I’m loathe to interrupt, but unfortunately it’s happening in court, and it’s not the first time, that prompts are coming from there in back, to the witness, honestly I don’t like this!

Judge Massei:  Excuse me…

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  I had not noticed and I find it very grave!

Judge Massei:  We must however grasp the opportunity to invite, truly I was looking at the witness…

RS Counsel Bongiorno:  Also because I ask them then if there is the possibility they will be reheard?

Judge Massei:  All the parties, all the individuals… let’s give a general indication that can always be…

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  Maybe, Mr President, for practical purposes, if we could move the stand and the seat on the other side so the witness …

Judge Massei:  Excuse me, everyone is asked to avoid any comment, either by voice or by gesture, in dealings with the witness, who must remain absolutely immunized against any input that could come from outside, it is said now but remains always valid, for the whole debate. If maybe there are these perplexities, the witness and also subsequent witnesses will be invited to look only at the Court.

Daniele Moscatelli:  Mr President, I only respectfully look at you.

Judge Massei:  In fact, I am continually looking at the witness, although if the parties have noticed something that might have escaped the one now speaking.

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  We can change the position of the witness.

Judge Massei:  Yes, we can change the position of the witness, if you turn yourself with your chair and the parties are likewise asked, independent of the positioning…

RS Counsel Bongiorno:  I wasn’t meaning the Prosecutor.

Judge Massei:  No, but everyone is the same.

CP:  Then let Counsellor Bongiorno tell who it is.

MC:  (incomprehensible – overlap of voices)

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  Seeing that Napoleoni has been named, it seems to me very possible that it’s a visual intersection.

Judge Massei:  Excuse me, let’s avoid any more and let’s stay on only what is necessary. We may proceed, look at me all the time, the parties will not care if while they speak they are not being looked at, you will continue to look towards here.

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  So Superintendent Moscatelli, I would like to return to my questions. I would like to better understand, specifically the moment after half past three, you had gone searching for Patrick Lumumba and you had found him.

Daniele Moscatelli:  Yes.

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  Exactly where did you find him?

Daniele Moscatelli:  Inside his house.

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  What was he doing?

Daniele Moscatelli:  I believe he was sleeping because he was wearing…

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  Pyjamas?

Daniele Moscatelli:  No, I don’t remember if he was in pyjamas or not, however he was definitely in clothes that were not for early evening.

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  Who else was there in the house with him that morning?

Daniele Moscatelli:  There was the wife and the little girl [sic].

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  You had carried out investigative examinations on Patrick Lumumba before turning up at his house, on his phone or other types of examination?

Daniele Moscatelli:  Personally no.

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  Do you know if anyone else had done this type of examination?

Judge Massei:  Counsel is asking, other examinations, then if you know whether they were carried out…

Daniele Moscatelli:  I believe that someone had done them.

Judge Massei:  What type of other examinations had been done?

Daniele Moscatelli:  I believe examinations on the phone number or something of the sort, although, Mr President, in an investigation as complex as this it’s very divided up, so I can answer with precision only on what I did.

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  Superintendent Moscatelli, who else was present with you in the moment in which you had turned up at Patrick Lumumba’s house?

Daniele Moscatelli:  There were present with me, I recall, my office colleagues, but there were present other colleagues from the Perugia Flying Squad, but don’t ask me their names because I don’t remember.

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  What happened afterwards? You took Patrick Lumumba and what happened next? From his house, where did you go?

Daniele Moscatelli:  To the Flying Squad offices.

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  And you then notified his arrest?

Daniele Moscatelli:  No, the arrest was notified much later, there was the Prosecutor on site, so all the activity was then coordinated and decided by the Prosecutor.

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  We are speaking of the morning of the 6th?

Daniele Moscatelli:  Yes, the morning of the 6th.

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  You were present at the arrest of Amanda Knox?

Daniele Moscatelli:  At the arrest…

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  At the notification of the arrest?

Daniele Moscatelli:  At the notification of the arrest, I had signed the arrest in a room, we were all these people, so I was present at the notification because I was there in the Flying Squad office.

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  Do you remember at what time? Vaguely, if you recall?

Judge Massei:  You may consult the documents, the record, seeing as you participated in it.

Daniele Moscatelli:  I ask if I may consult the documents.

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  The record was at midday, it had been made at midday…

Daniele Moscatelli:  Before midday.

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  This is a question still in relation to Patrick Lumumba; did you give him reasons when you had planned to take him away from the house?

Daniele Moscatelli:  No, no, absolutely.

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  What type of reaction did he have?

Daniele Moscatelli:  Normal.

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  Normal for a person who has been arrested?

Daniele Moscatelli:  Normal for a person who has been arrested… that is, normal in that he wasn’t happy.

Judge Massei:  He was sleeping you were saying.

Daniele Moscatelli:  No, he opened the door and logically it could be seen that he had been sleeping, then he was told that he had to follow us to the police station, he dressed and came with us to the police station.

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  In conclusion, what was the piece of evidence that led you to Lumumba’s house and to look for Lumumba based on what you had, and if there were more than one, what were they?

Daniele Moscatelli:  Definitely the declarations of Ms Knox.

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  And then?

Daniele Moscatelli:  That in sum, then I don’t know if there had been…

Judge Massei:  If you know, Counsel is asking, if you know whether there were also other elements.

Daniele Moscatelli:  As regards myself, I attended to the instructions received and to the fact that Miss Knox had supplied elements useful to the identification of Lumumba.

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  And this element, had it been mentioned to Lumumba immediately after when you had arrested him?

Daniele Moscatelli:  Me, no. I had not mentioned it to him.

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  Do you remember if someone had mentioned it to him?

Daniele Moscatelli:  I don’t remember, Counsel.

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  None of your colleagues, you don’t remember anyone of the persons present?

Daniele Moscatelli:  I don’t know, Counsel, I as regards… I no, but I repeat I can only answer for the action I effected myself.

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  So you don’t remember if anyone put it to him?

Daniele Moscatelli:  No, I don’t remember because there were various people, surely there was…

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  In your experience, when an arrest is made, is formal notice given to them?

INT:  Objection, Mr President! Let him ask questions on the facts!

Judge Massei:  Excuse me, please… Let’s allow the question to be put.

MC:  Not with mistaken assumptions!

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  No, there are no mistaken assumptions!

Judge Massei:  Please, Counsel.

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  There’s a willingness to answer in a very vague manner so I am constrained to investigate, it’s clear that everything is in the documents, but the question was precise, it seems strange to me that a person is arrested without anyone telling him the reason why.

INT:  He answered!

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  Seeing that I asked the witness if this information had been brought to the attention of the arrestee.

Judge Massei:  Don’t speak all at the same time but let’s also avoid using opinions, “it seems strange to me”, edit out this “strange”, we’re asking questions plain and simple.

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  Well, the question was if he remembered if anyone had put the reason to him for which they had gone to arrest him.

Daniele Moscatelli:  The answer is: I didn’t do it, someone must have done it, surely.

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  No other questions.

Judge Massei

Judge Massei:  I wanted to ask you, at a certain point you in your answers had said that Raffaele Sollecito’s shoes were removed from him..

Daniele Moscatelli:  Yes.

Judge Massei:  I ask you, the shoes he was wearing?

Daniele Moscatelli:  Certainly.

Judge Massei:  So he remained… how did he remain? Were other shoes placed at his disposal? Did he remain shoeless?

Daniele Moscatelli:  Immediately afterwards he was shoeless, but I believe that then shoes were given to him.

Judge Massei:  Do you know that shoes were given to him at what time, for how long did he remain without?

Daniele Moscatelli:  If he remained without he remained without for a short while because amongst other things the seizure was done in the morning, then he was accompanied for the successive acts and so if he remained shoeless he remained shoeless for a short while.

Judge Massei:  Short means?

Daniele Moscatelli:  The time then needed to go and get a pair of shoes.

Judge Massei:  You questioned Sollecito alone or was there someone else with you?

Daniele Moscatelli:  No, no, there were other colleagues present, my superiors and Saturday crew.

Judge Massei:  It’s in the relevant record?

Daniele Moscatelli:  Certainly, it’s in the relevant record.

Judge Massei:  OK.

Defense Counsel Bongiorno

RS Counsel Bongiorno:  Superintendent, so you took your own shoes, some external shoes or in any case you had waited for a search at Sollecito’s house and then had given him his shoes taken from his house?

Daniele Moscatelli:  No, not so, I didn’t wait for any search, I went back to seizing his shoes.

RS Counsel Bongiorno:  Pardon me, I didn’t explain myself clearly. You had removed Sollecito’s shoes, so he was there without shoes, the President had asked “did you procure other shoes, did you wait, what did you do?” and you said “I believe, I don’t know how long afterwards, however we procured other shoes for him”.

Daniele Moscatelli:  Yes.

RS Counsel Bongiorno:  I ask you, these other shoes, you found them because they were in the police station, you bought them etc., or in reality he remained shoeless until the search at his house had completed?

Daniele Moscatelli:  This I don’t remember.

RS Counsel Bongiorno:  Thank you.

Judge Massei

Judge Massei:  You are aware of the seizure of the knife that was effected, that is of the two knives, in the house that Raffaele Sollecito was living in in Perugia in early November. If you know, on that occasion Raffaele Sollecito accompanied the officers who went to effect it, the officers being Dr Chiacchiera and Finzia?

Daniele Moscatelli:  I don’t know, Mr President.

Judge Massei:  Very well, you may go.

 


Chapter 10: ChallengeTo Readers: Spot The Two Landmines For Lawyers & Knox?

American supporters of Knox argue that the “interrogation” is a “she said/they said” situation. One in which it is Knox that tells the world the truth.

And that the police had closed ranks to hide a brutal hours-long session resulting in Knox framing Patrick and that the “lost” recording of the “interrogation” would prove that she is the one that is right.

There is, of course, no recording, as it was an impromptu recap/summary session, with someone who might or might not have relevant information for the police. No legal system in the world requires the taping of that.

But there is in fact hard evidence the other way, that the investigators told the world the truth. Two items. Each mentioned often and assumed as givens in Posts #2 to #9.

Even if the days of crushing testimony left undented by cross-examination which we have posted was not enough, these items prove that the first scenario here is the truth and Knox has ever since lied.

Because several defense lawyers remarked on them without debating them, in cross-examining all the investigators who had any encounter with Knox on 5-6 November, all the defense counsel unquestionably knew that the items lurked there in the evidence pile in plain sight.

It seems impossible to know about these items, and yet still believe that Knox was telling the truth.

Lawyers often encourage their clients to tell the truth and good lawyers never encourage their clients to lie. And yet here Ghirga, Dalla Vedova, Bongiorno and Maori would have known from latest early 2008 that Knox’s claims on the “interrogations” were in fact made up.

And if so, they must have asked themselves, why? Why did Knox have to lie?

In all the legitimate legal processes, meaning all those except the Hellmann appeal, the defense lawyers were seen by close observers to be dispirited and lacking the full punch that the certainty of innocence can bring.

In the years that followed since, these two items helped to changed legal mindsets, from Prosecutor Mignini, to Judge Matteini, to Judge Micheli, to Judge Massei, to even Judge Hellmann, and so on to Cassation and the Nencini appeal.

If they are landmines, in the legal process they long ago went off. 

And all along Knox should have known that the items exist, they were repeatedly talked about right in front of her in the court. But Knox makes no mention in her book, or in her appeals, or in her email to Judge Nencini, or in her appeal to the ECHR (we presume). How odd.

What were these items? Answers on Monday if nobody drops to them before. Good luck.


Chapter 11: Why Prosecution And Defenses Never Believed Knox’s Version

Recapitulating Our Purpose

In Post #10 below we hinted at two items - in fact, they are two documents - that resulted in a sharp drop in Knox’s credibility.

We said this about how Knox’s Perugia lawyers were affected.

It seems impossible to know about these items, and yet still believe that Knox was telling the truth.  Lawyers often encourage their clients to tell the truth and good lawyers never encourage their clients to lie. And yet here Ghirga, Dalla Vedova, Bongiorno and Maori would have known from latest early 2008 that Knox’s claims on the “interrogations” were in fact made up.

And if so, they must have asked themselves, why? Why did Knox have to lie?  In all the legitimate legal processes, meaning all those except the Hellmann appeal, the defense lawyers were seen by close observers to be dispirited and lacking the full punch that the certainty of innocence can bring.

Knox was lying. And they all knew. No hard proof, but it explains the timid cross-examinations. And it was the buzz around Perugia maybe put out by the Sollecito faction for which there is a sort of soft proof.

The one heavyweight among Knox’s lawyers, a prominent criminal lawyer from Rome called Dr Giancarlo Costa, who was with her at the 6-hour 17 December 2007 questioning (which we turn to next) inexplicably departed from her team early-on, leaving her with the much less experienced Ghirga and Dalla Vedova.

Sharp-eyed Andrea Vogt and Barbie Nadeau both noticed that no mention of Dr Costa was made in Knox’s book. Late in 2009 and again late in 2011 Andrea Vogt interviewed him, and he seemingly suggested that Knox might have been better served at the end of the process by a negotiated plea, in effect similar to Guede’s. (If so, he is now proved right, and the remaining Knox lawyers or her family made a very bad call.)

We said this about how all the prosecutors and all the judges were affected. 

In the years that followed since, these two items helped to changed legal mindsets, from Prosecutor Mignini, to Judge Matteini, to Judge Micheli, to Judge Massei, to even Judge Hellmann, and so on to Cassation and the Nencini appeal.


Describing The Two Incriminating Items

Now we turn to the two items, the two documents, the two elephants in the room. They are rock-solid confirmation of all the testimony by investigators in Posts #2 to #9, and in days of defense cross-examination they were not argued with. They were correctly guessed by several emailers. They are of course:

(1) Rita Ficarra’s notes of the 12:45 session

Inspector Ficarra wrote up these notes at 8:00 pm on the evening of 6 November, about six hours after Knox and Sollecito were carted off to Capanne Prison.

This was long before she knew she would be contradicted and years before she knew she would be accused of criminal actions. The notes were in evidence, and it was clear during cross-examination that the defense teams had studied them.

She recorded a description of the session in direct line with her testimony in Hoax Post #2 and Hoax Post #3 and Hoax Post #4. It anticipated perfectly the scenario that emerged from other investigators present.

(2) Knox’s hand-written list of seven names

She wrote these out along with maps and annotations. The list had very obviously been created over a prolonged period of time. This must have occupied all but the final minutes of the session, at which point she lost her cool, had her first conniption, and fingered Patrick.

Here again from Post #2 is the testimony about it by Rita Ficarra. GCM stands for Judge Massei and GM stands for Dr Mignini.

RF: At that point I say to her: “for me it is important then that we write these [names etc down], that therefore, since you are waiting [NdT. i.e. for Raffaele], let’s go do a follow-up to the recap that you have already given me, have already submitted to me”. So I go to the office, that is to say, I go into the office room, and we begin to write.

GM: Listen: before continuing, she wrote a note?

RF: Yes.

GM: The note: you can, I believe you can consult/examine/refer to it.

GCM: Yes, certainly, it is permitted to consult/examine/refer to her records.

GM: I am referring to everything that that note reported.

RF: Yes, I’ve already said that, in effect… The note of 6 November, at 2000 hours, I made it in the evening because having then not slept for two days, I went [straight] to bed in morning when I finished. Morning and afternoon.

The first part I’ve already related and it gives me indications about these boys, about non-Italians, about a certain PJ Peter Svizzero, who had seemingly been several times in their home and who lived nearby the area of via della Pergola 7.

Patrick, of the [sic] owner of the pub, Le Chique [sic], where she herself worked, I’ve already said, she gives me the mobile-phone information.

Then she speaks of a certain Ardak, a North African citizen, and gives me the mobile-phone information.

A certain Juve, an Algerian citizen, who worked occasionally at the Le Chique [sic] pub and who apparently lived in the vicinity of the home of another of the victim’s friends.

Sofie [sic]; also for him she gives me the mobile information.

Spiros, a young lad of Greek nationality, for whom she givers me only the mobile-phone information.

Shaki [Hicham Khiri], a Moroccan citizen who works in a pizzeria, frequents the [same] pubs [as those] frequented by all the girls of the victim’s group, and [is] also friends with Sofie [sic].

She furthermore reports about a black South African boy, short, who plays basketball in the Piazza Grimana court, [and] who on one occasion had apparently visited the home of the boys who lived underneath the apartment.

So Knox eagerly devoted considerable time to recalling and explaining who Peter Svizzero, Patrick, Ardak, Juve, Spiros, Shaki and a South African [Guede, disguised] were, with maps to some of their places and phone numbers thrown in. She was talking and writing at the same time. The four investigators needed to do little more than sit watching.

Contrast The “Explanation” In Knox’s Book

In her book Knox makes no mention of any of the above.

Fom 2007 to 2013 when her book came out, Knox’s tendency was to expand upon and embellish her own explanation for her conniption and fingering of Patrick.

This was despite the fact that her two-day stint on the stand in July 2009 focussed exclusively on this was disbelieved by the Massei judges and by most Italians who watched.

It was also despite the fact that she served three years for this with her guilty verdict confirmed even by Judge Hellmann labeling her a felon for life.

It was also despite the fact that after the 2009 trial those investigators she had impugned at trial sparked new charges still to be faced in a Florence court.

It was also despite the fact that more charges for her 2013 book and her Oggi interview are expected to be added by the chief prosecutor in Bergamo.

Amazingly, she was still digging herself in deeper as late as 2014. By far her longest, most self-serving and most surreal version of the session appeared as Chapter 10 of her book.

This chapter is 20 pages long and consists of page after page after page of invented dialogue. Everybody has long known that the last few pages were Knox’s malicious invention.

That the rest of the pages are too is also dead-certain.

Neither Rita Ficarra’s notes nor Knox’s list of names with maps and notes,one of which she created and both of which were repeatedly testified to right in front of her, are even mentioned anywhere in Knox’s book.

This dishonest dialogue and mass accusation of crimes is what Knox and Linda Kulman give us instead: 

Police officer Rita Ficarra slapped her palm against the back of my head, but the shock of the blow, even more than the force, left me dazed. I hadn’t expected to be slapped. I was turning around to yell, “Stop!”—my mouth halfway open—but before I even realized what had happened, I felt another whack, this one above my ear. She was right next to me, leaning over me, her voice as hard as her hand had been. “Stop lying, stop lying,” she insisted.

Stunned, I cried out, “Why are you hitting me?”

“To get your attention,” she said.

I have no idea how many cops were stuffed into the cramped, narrow room. Sometimes there were two, sometimes eight—police coming in and going out, always closing the door behind them. They loomed over me, each yelling the same thing: “You need to remember. You’re lying. Stop lying!”

“I’m telling the truth,” I insisted. “I’m not lying.” I felt like I was suffocating. There was no way out. And still they kept yelling, insinuating.

The authorities I trusted thought I was a liar. But I wasn’t lying. I was using the little energy I still had to show them I was telling the truth. Yet I couldn’t get them to believe me.

Huh? Really? In fact only four were involved. The conversation was low-key. The list of names did emerge. Knox was never yelled at or hit, as her own lawyers publicly confirmed. And Rita Ficarra and others describe some exceptional kindnesses shown to Knox, before and after she spontaneously became disturbed, which at trial Knox confirmed.

Knox and Linda Kulman give us twenty more pages of this mass accusation of crimes, which not one witness confirmed or any court believed, more than enough to occupy the entire session, leaving no time for all the work on that list of names which was the sole point of the session and undeniably exists.


Chapter 12: Proof Released That In 5-6 Nov Session Knox Worked On Names List




1. What Really Happened on 5-6 November

The introduction to Hoax Post #1 explains what really happened at Knox’s recap/summary session on 5-6 November 2007.

In a sentence: Knox was there unwanted and grumpy, was advised by Inspector Rita Ficarra to go and sleep, refused, agreed to build a list of possible perps (she listed seven, including Rudy Guede), spontaneously broke into a wailing conniption over a message she sent to Patrick, was semi-calmed-down and repeatedly provided refreshments, and insisted on writing three statements without a lawyer all of which said she went out on the night of the attack, all framing Patrick, one even pointing at Sollecito.

2. Hard Proof Knox Worked On The List

This memo above (click on it for the full version) records the main outcome of Rita Ficarra’s 75-minute summary/recap session (defenses conceded it was not an interrogation session) with Knox, with an interpreter and two others present.

Rita Ficarra wrote the memo some hours later, on the evening of 6 November, after she had caught up on some sleep. It is based on a handwritten version Knox painstakingly evolved on a page of her notebook, which she then tore out and handed to Inspector Ficarra. That handwritten page is in evidence too.

Kristeva kindly did the translation below.  We described its extreme consequence (still constraining the Perugia defense teams today in non-support of Knox’s heated-interrogation claims) in Knox Interrogation Hoax Post #12.

The timing here is key. According to the testimony of Rita Ficarra and the interpreter Anna Donnino, the real work on the list only began around 12:30 after Anna Donnino arrived. It took all or most of the next hour.  Knox obtained all the phone numbers from her mobile phone which she handed over to the others present at several points. (Those phone numbers are long disused.)

Annotation By Rita Ficarra

On 6 November 2007, at 20.00, in the offices of the Flying Squad of the Questura of Perugia. The undersigned Officer of P.G. [Attorney General], Chief Inspector of the State Police FICARRA Rita, notes that, as part of the investigation of the murder of British citizen Meredith KERCHER,

On the night of November 5th c.a. [current year], at approximately 23.00, while in the Offices of the Questura of Perugia, along with Amanda KNOX, waiting for the same to be heard in regard to the fact for which we are proceeding,

Learned, informally. news related to some male subjects who certainly knew MEREDITH and of whom Amanda gave indications on their respective residences—drawing roads and landmarks in her notebook – as well as their mobile phone numbers.

The same [Amanda] extracted these phone numbers from her mobile phone contacts and copied them on a piece of paper torn from her notebook and handed it to the undersigned.

The subjects indicated by Amanda were described as being:

PJ – Peter, a Swiss young man of Swiss nationality who certainly frequented Meredith and who would have surely been several times to their home; this young man dwelled in Via della Pergola, precisely in front of the “Contrappunto” club and close to the stairs and parking lot; mobile phone: 3891531078;

Patrik, owner of the pub “Le chic” where [the same] Amanda works. He too certainly knew Meredith. She was not able to provide an address but indicated that she had often seen him near the “rotonda [roundabout] of Porta Pesa, next to the Laundromat. Mobile phone number: 338719523;

Ardak, North African citizen of whom she gave no other indications other than his mobile phone: 3887972380;

Yuve, Algerian citizen who occasionally worked at “Le Chic” and would have dwelled in Via del Roscetto (near the residence of Sophie) phone; 3203758112

Spyros, young man of Greek nationality of whom Amanda does not give any indications other than the mobile phone: 3293473230

Shaky, Moroccan citizen who would have been working in a “pizzeria” and who frequented the pubs and discotheques frequented by Meredith’s group of friends with whom they met at the pub or discotheque, friend of Sophie;

Lastly she informed of another South African young man, black, short, who plays basketball in the Piazza Grimana court, who would have, in one occasion, frequented the house.

On this occasion, Giacomo-Stefano, Riccardo and Marco (neighbours) were allegedly present, as well as Meredith.  She referred to the fact that Yuve probably knew him, but gave no further information, as she herself, didn’t associate with him.

Amanda, who was also present on this exact occasion, confirmed that she used hashish type drugs with her boyfriend Raffaele, despite what she had said previously.

She claimed that he had previously confessed to taking cocaine and acid in the past, but currently only used “pot”.  In addition, she hinted that Raffaele was experiencing problems with “depression-sadness”.

Furthermore, to get hold of her supply of “pot”, she claimed to have asked her flatmate Laura, who, allegedly, acted as intermediary between her and third parties.

It is noteworthy that the same afternoon, following her detention order and prior to her transfer to Capanne prison, Amanda KNOX asked for some blank paper with the intention of writing a written declaration. This she intended to deliver to the undersigned, before she was moved to prison, and requested that every policeman read it.

Hence, the undersigned received the attached manuscript written in English, by KNOX, and informed her that the manuscript, after being translated into Italian, would be forwarded to the appropriate judicial authority.

At the tail end of this meeting, after all this work had been done, Knox was gently told that in his own interview, Sollecito’s account of his movements on the night Meredith was killed now departed from her own.

A short period of extreme uncertainty followed.

Then Knox’s message in response to Patrick showed up in her outgoing texts, although she had just said there was none, and she was asked who he was. Those four others present had no prior knowledge of Patrick and no reason to attach to him any blame.

Knox’s conniption then began, in which she accused Patrick of the crime. Her accusation was repeated again and again. She then insisted on drafting her first formal written statement accusing him. It said she went out implying that she left Sollecito alone which is a claim he has now and then tried to gain from.

**********

This series: where next? Next, one post summarising the conclusions of all the courts. Then a series of posts quoting Knox and many other (Preston, Douglas, Moore, Clemente, Fischer, on and on) over five years, falsely claiming the police were brutal and none of the above was so.

False accusations of crimes are chargeable; so we look forward to seeing their responses to all of this. Knox for sure will be charged. Three years in prison - and nothing at all sunk in? The opposite of smart.


Page 1 of 1 pages
    Browsing Online
    Total now reading 114
    Peak daily visits: 21,909
    Follow Us On Twitter

    Click To Get There