Friday, March 13, 2009

Trial: More Breaking News From Today’s Trial Session On Sollecito’s Questioning

Posted by Peter Quennell

Sollecito’s Questioning At Questura 5-6 November 2007

Quote from an Associated Press report from the trial:

A police officer has testified that an Italian suspect was carrying a knife when he was taken to a police station in the hours that followed the stabbing death of a British student in Italy.

Rome police investigator Daniele Moscatelli told a court in Perugia on Friday that defendant Raffaele Sollecito looked “confused and nervous” during the questioning and that he was carrying a “long” knife in his pocket. The knife is not believed to be the murder weapon.

Another police officer testified that American co-defendant Amanda Knox nervously walked up and down at the station and was hitting her head with her hands.

There is a full translation of Moscatelli’s testimony by main poster Catnip at bottom.

New Scenario Suggested By Eavesdropped Accused

Italian media are reporting that a police-station staff member has testified that, during a bugged conversation between Raffaele and Amanda on November 4 2007, Knox made reference to another person, “perhaps to a black man.”

The witness said that led the police to develop a hypotheses that there could have been someone else in the Via della Pergola house at the time.

Sollecito Claims He Was Sent Home Shoeless

Italian media are reporting that Sollecito rose in court to explain his apparent confusion at the police station. He said “I was unable to contact them (my father’s lawyer”) and so there were long pauses while he waited.

Also [updated from another report] Sollecito explained why he was not wearing any shoes [this seems new public information] after his interrogation. He said they were removed for testing and he had no shoes on “until I went back to my own house.” He said. “I walked back barefoot in the street and ... nobody gave me a pair of shoes. “

Inspection of Knox’s Outgoing Letters

Italian media are also reporting that a translator has testified that hundreds of letters, more than 600, written and received by Amanda Knox in jail from day of her arrest until last spring, have been translated as part of the investigation. Letters were sent and received by the student from Seattle and from friends and relatives. To perform the long task of translating, Aida Colantoni, an interpreter of the Ministry of the Interior, was employed by the police in Perugia.

Italian media are also reporting that the interpreter, Aida Colantoni, testified that there appeared to be nothing incriminating in the 600 letters, and that Knox would in any case have suspected all prison mail is checked out.

The interpreter said the translation would be useful to provide the prosecutors with a profile of Knox during the interrogation and inspection. Knox had been described by agents as always cold or unusual because she did not seem sorry or upset at the death of Meredith, but the interpreter found her a seemingly different person.

Translation of Daniele Moscatelli’s testimony

This was kindly provided by Catnip.

Transcript of testimony given in the hearing of 13 March 2009, pp 46-67

Depositions of the witness Daniele Moscatelli

The witness, admonished pursuant to Article 497 of the Criminal Procedure Code, reads the oath.

Particulars: Deputy-Superintendent of the State Police Daniele Moscatelli, born in Rome on 15 May 1972 and currently in service at the Central Operations Service of the State Police.

President: Mr Prosecutor.

Public Prosecutor, Dr Mignini

QUESTION: You have carried out investigations on the death of Meredith Kercher?
ANSWER: Yes.

Q: Do you remember when you had arrived in Perugia and what activity you’d carried out?
A: 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 Public 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.

Q: You’d entered into the apartment at Via della Pergola?
A: No, absolutely not, I immediately was asked”¦ then other colleagues from Rome also arrived and were assigned to this type of activity.

Q: Then?
A: I personally was asked to go the Marches, to Port Saint George, if I’m not mistaken, to verify the depositions, the testimonies given by the neighbours who were below the apartment where the murder had occurred, on the 3rd.

Q: 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 [48] we heard Mr Sollecito’s SI.*

Q: Can you say”¦ at what time you had heard him?
A: 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.

Q: At what time had you completed the statement?
A: The statement, at 3:30-3:40.

Q: Sollecito had asked you to have a lawyer available, to interrupt the statement?
A: Absolutely not.

Q: So you had closed the statement normally, without any worry, and he had not asked anything about all of this?
A: No, everything that he was asking for, water and things, was placed at his complete ease, he had everything at his disposal.

Q: Do you remember how he was behaving?
A: His behaviour 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 behaviour.

Q: Once the statement concluded on the basis of his declarations, what did you do?
A: 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 [49] made aware of Mr Sollecito’s arrest and I seized a pair of shoes and a knife he had with him.

Q: What knife?
A: A knife”¦

Q: A flick-knife?
A: 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.

Q: He was carrying it?
A: 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.

Q: Did you ask him for what reason he was carrying it?
A: He was saying that he was a lover of weapons, of knives.

Q: Then what did you do? What do you remember? Did you see Amanda that morning?
A: 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.

Q: Do you remember how she was behaving?
A: 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 behaviour with respect to who knows what.

Q: I have no further questions.

President: The Civil Parties have no questions; the defence?

Defence ““ Advocate Maori

Q: Advocate Maori, Sollecito Defence. You, Superintendent, said earlier, in response to the Public Prosecutor, that [50] you had effected the seizure of the knife and the shoes.
A: Yes.

Q: For what reasons were the shoes seized? Was there something about these shoes were leading you back to the crime? Were they bloodstained, was there some other element?
A: 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.

Q: At what time were these shoes seized?
A: In the morning.

Q: 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?
A: Yes, of the clothing that was in the washing machine.

Q: On that occasion was a search also done or only”¦
A: 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.

Q: Can you describe the course of events, who were you with and what you did?
A: I entered into the house, I put on the gloves and the shoe-covers”¦

Q: First of all you had removed the seals?
A: I didn’t remove them personally, with me there was Deputy Commissioner Profazio and Deputy Commissioner Giobbi.

Q: So there were three of you?
A: There were four of us, if I’m not mistaken, there was also Superintendent Gentili from my office.

Q: Go on.
A: 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.

Q: You said “I went and we opened”, you mean “˜we went’?
A: I and Superintendent Gentili went into the bathroom.

Q: And these clothes, where were they put?
A: In a bag, a big bag.

Q: And this bag, where was it taken from?
A: The bag?

Q: This bag, where did it come from?
A: From the Flying Squad offices.

Q: What type of bag was it?
A: 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 recognised them as hers or as belonging to the victim or other occupants of the house.

Q: This black bag is a rubbish bag so to speak?
A: Yes, like a rubbish bag.

Q: That you had found”¦
A: No.

Q: You had gone into the murder house carrying this bag with you?
A: We’d had the bag.

Q: That you found where?
[52] A: In the Flying Squad offices.

Q: In a drawer? There was a bag ready for this type of operation or else you had found it there and had thought that”¦
A: 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.

Q: You, before that date, the 7th of November, had never entered into Via della Pergola?
A: No. no.

Q: You were present at the execution of the provisional arrest warrant naturally?
A: Yes.

Q: Was this record signed by 36 members of the Perugia Police?
A: Yes.

Q: Was everyone present?
A: Yes. How were we all present, Counsel?

Q: 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?
A: I didn’t count them, but definitely everyone was present, not that I set myself the task of counting if there were 36 people.

Q: Also because they couldn’t all fit in the room. Thank you.

Defence ““ Advocate Bongiorno

Q: Raffaele Sollecito, when was he arrested?
A: The morning of the 6th of November, at 8, I believe, the Public Prosecutor disposed the arrest and then the following noon I believe that he was notified.

Q: From the moment in which the statement was concluded to the moment in which he was arrested, were other [53] investigative activities carried out?
A: 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.

Q: While however”¦
A: Therefore physically I was not there.

Q: 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?
A: Personally no.

Q: Without the “personally”, I was saying, did it happen that anyone said something, exchanging information from one room to another?
A: 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.

Q: 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”?
A: There will also have been, but no”¦

Q: If you know, tell me yes, if not no.
President: If you recall with precision.
A: With precision, no, I don’t recall.

Defence ““ Bongiorno: Do you remember if someone said: “contradictions are starting to emerge”?
A: With respect to what, sorry?

Q: These declarations that were being made.
A: No, I don’t recall, I don’t think so.

[54] Q: Not if you recall, not”¦ what do you mean?
A: I mean that I don’t recall in that I was focussed on the activity I was carrying out at the moment.

Q: 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.
A: I don’t recall.

President: 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..”?
A: 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.

Q: But you heard them?
A: No, I didn’t hear them because in the room we were only”¦

Defence ““ Bongiorno: I haven’t understood well here then, this person comes in, says this thing and who does he say it to?
A: No, nobody came in, if anything someone went out, Counsel. Maybe Deputy Inspector Napoleoni had gone out, I don’t remember now.

Q: In the ambit of the whole statement by Sollecito, were contested questions put to Sollecito?
A: Contested in what sense?

Q: Of incongruities, of something that didn’t add up.
A: No, but it was him who was telling us”¦

Q: Were contested questions put or not?
A: No.

Q: Was it said: “Look, this isn’t so”?
[55] A: 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”.

Q: When he said something like that during the statement, you considered interrupting the statement?
A: No, no, never.

Q: There was no grounds to call a lawyer?
A: There was at that moment no ground to call a lawyer.

Q: When and of what did the details against Sollecito occur?
A: 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.

Q: 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.
A: Because evidently at that moment at the closure of the statement no elements had emerged to be able to communicate”¦

President: He has already answered this.

Defence ““ Bongiorno: OK.

Defence ““ Advocate Dalla Vedova

Q: I wanted to ask when you had arrived at Via della Pergola, had you noticed the front door of the house?
A: On the 2nd November, you mean?

Q: Yes.
A: No, I didn’t notice, we met there outside [56] 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.

Q: Afterwards you said you went to Port Saint George?
A: Yes, to Port Saint George the day after.

Q: Can you expand a bit more on this investigation?
A: That is? On the activity at Port Saint George?

Q: Yes, what investigative activity was carried out?
A: We went to verify the alibis that had been given during the witness information given by the neighbours 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.

Q: So you had verified the alibis of the boys who were living underneath?
A: Yes.

Q: By means of investigative activity always to do with witnesses?
A: Always with witnesses, statements of SI.

Q: Checks of phone logs?
A: No, I personally had not carried out activity on logs.

Q: Do you know if activity of this sort had been carried out in regard to the boys?
A: 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.

Q: Who was it who was coordinating the investigations at that moment?
A: The investigations were being coordinated by the officers, by Deputy Commissioner Adjunct Profazio, by Deputy Commissioner [57] Giobbi and by Deputy Commissioner Adjunct Chiacchiera, the officers logically with the Public Prosecutor.

Q: Are you aware whether examinations of the phone logs of the boys from the floor below had been carried out?
A: Counsel, you’re asking me the same question.

Q: No, the question is whether you are aware if they had been carried out.
A: No, I am not aware.

President: You have already responded, you did not carry them out.
A: No I didn’t carry them out.
President: Though Counsel was asking if to your knowledge”¦

Defence ““ Dalla Vedova: I had asked if anyone else had done them.
A: I am not aware of that, I limited myself only to the tasks that were given to me.

Q: Obviously the investigation at Port Saint George, what had you confirmed regarding the alibis of these boys?
A: That the boys were present during the night, between the 1st and the 2nd, at Port Saint George.

Q: Can you be more precise? What had been the element that had guaranteed this presence to you?
A: Witness information and investigative activity.

President: Witness information is one thing, investigative activity is the same thing or something else?
A: 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”¦

Q: So this investigation?
A: Yes, the investigative activity I had led to [58] this logically, to this type of activity.

Defence ““ Dalla Vedova: For this activity, you made a statement, it’s in the papers?
A: There are the SI statements.

Public Prosecutor ““ Dr Mignini: The statements of the boys’ declarations, how come they’re not there?
President: No, sorry, Counsel was asking about the SIs of the people who would have confirmed”¦

Public Prosecutor ““ Dr Comodi: These are also in the papers.

Defence ““ Dalla Vedova: I take notice that the Public 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 of the 6th the examination of Sollecito had by then been interrupted and you carried out other investigative activity.

A: No, I did not interrupt the Sollecito activity, once the statement was closed I was then sent off, at the disposition of my superiors.

Q: I was interested in the activity immediately afterwards, what did you do as investigative activity?
A: I am telling you, Counsel.

Q: I ask you to answer.
A: Yes, we had gone in search of the other personage who had emerged from the declarations.

Q: The other personage is Patrick Lumumba?
A: Yes.

Q: Exactly what activity had you performed?
A: We looked for him with colleagues from Perugia, [59] we gave support to our colleagues from Perugia.

Q: And you found him?
A: Yes, we found him.

Q: Around what time?
A: I don’t remember exactly, but there had passed”¦

President: How much time later? How long did it take you?
A: A bit of time had passed, definitely two hours, a good two and a half hours.

Defence ““ Dalla Vedova: So from half past three, about two and a half hours later you had found Patrick Lumumba?
A: At home.

Defence ““ 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!

President: Excuse me”¦

Defence ““ Dalla Vedova: I had not noticed and I find it very grave!

President: We must however grasp the opportunity to invite, truly I was looking at the witness”¦

Defence ““ Bongiorno: Also because I ask them then if there is the possibility they will be reheard?

President: All the parties, all the individuals”¦ let’s give a general indication that can always be”¦

Defence ““ Dalla Vedova: Maybe, Mr President, for practical [60] purposes, if we could move the stand and the seat on the other side so the witness “¦

President: 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.

A: Mr President, I only respectfully look at you.
President: In fact, I am continually looking at the witness, although if the parties have noticed something that might have escaped the one now speaking.

Defence ““ Dalla Vedova: We can change the position of the witness.
President: 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”¦

Defence ““ Bongiorno: I wasn’t meaning the Public Prosecutor.

President: No, but everyone is the same.

Civil party ““ Advocate Pacelli: Then let Counsellor Bongiorno tell who it is.

Public Prosecutor ““ Dr Comodi: (incomprehensible ““ overlap of voices)

Defence ““ Dalla Vedova: Seeing that Napoleoni has been named, it seems to me very possible that [61] it’s a visual intersection.

President: 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.

Defence ““ 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.
A: Yes.

Q: Exactly where did you find him?
A: Inside his house.

Q: What was he doing?
A: I believe he was sleeping because he was wearing”¦

Q: Pyjamas?
A: No, I don’t remember if he was in pyjamas or not, however he was definitely in clothes that were not for early evening.

Q: Who else was there in the house with him that morning?
A: There was the wife and the little girl [sic].

Q: You had carried out investigative examinations on Patrick Lumumba before turning up at his house, on his phone or other types of examination?
A: Personally no.

Q: Do you know if anyone else had done this type of examination?
President: Counsel is asking, other examinations, then if you know whether they were carried out…
A: I believe that someone had done them.

President: What type of other examinations had been done?
A: I believe examinations on the phone number or something [62] 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.

Q: Superintendent Moscatelli, who else was present with you in the moment in which you had turned up at Patrick Lumumba’s house?
A: 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.

Q: What happened afterwards? You took Patrick Lumumba and what happened next? From his house, where did you go?
A: To the Flying Squad offices.

Q: And you then notified his arrest?
A: No, the arrest was notified much later, there was the Public Prosecutor on site, so all the activity was then coordinated and decided by the Public Prosecutor.

Q: We are speaking of the morning of the 6th?
A: Yes, the morning of the 6th.

Q: You were present at the arrest of Amanda Knox?
A: At the arrest”¦

Q: At the notification of the arrest?
A: 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.

Q: Do you remember at what time? Vaguely, if you recall?
President: You may consult the documents, the record, seeing as you participated in it.
A: I ask if I may consult the documents.

Defence ““ Dalla Vedova: The record was at midday, it had [63] been made at midday”¦
A: Before midday.

Q: 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?
A: No, no, absolutely.

Q: What type of reaction did he have?
A: Normal.

Q: Normal for a person who has been arrested?
A: Normal for a person who has been arrested”¦ that is, normal in that he wasn’t happy.

President: He was sleeping you were saying.
A: 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.

Defence ““ 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?
A: Definitely the declarations of Ms Knox.

Q: And then?
A: That in sum, then I don’t know if there had been”¦

President: If you know, Counsel is asking, if you know whether there were also other elements.
A: 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.

[64] Defence ““ Dalla Vedova: And this element, had it been mentioned to Lumumba immediately after when you had arrested him?
A: Me, no. I had not mentioned it to him.

Q: Do you remember if someone had mentioned it to him?
A: I don’t remember, Counsel.

Q: None of your colleagues, you don’t remember anyone of the persons present?
A: I don’t know, Counsel, I as regards”¦ I no, but I repeat I can only answer for the action I effected myself.

Q: So you don’t remember if anyone put it to him?
A: No, I don’t remember because there were various people, surely there was”¦

Q: In your experience, when an arrest is made, is formal notice given to them?

Intervention: Objection, Mr President! Let him ask questions on the facts!

President: Excuse me, please”¦ Let’s allow the question to be put.

Public Prosecutor ““ Dr Comodi: Not with mistaken assumptions!

Defence ““ Dalla Vedova: No, there are no mistaken assumptions!

President: Please, Counsel.

Defence ““ 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 [65] question was precise, it seems strange to me that a person is arrested without anyone telling him the reason why.

Intervention: He answered!

Defence ““ Dalla Vedova: Seeing that I asked the witness if this information had been brought to the attention of the arrestee.

President: 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.

Defence ““ 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.
A: The answer is: I didn’t do it, someone must have done it, surely.

Defence ““ Dalla Vedova: No other questions.

President

Q: I wanted to ask you, at a certain point you in your answers had said that Raffaele Sollecito’s shoes were removed from him.
A: Yes.

Q: I ask you, the shoes he was wearing?
A: Certainly.

Q: So he remained”¦ how did he remain? Were other shoes placed at his disposal? Did he remain shoeless?
A: Immediately afterwards he was shoeless, but I believe that then shoes were given to him.

Q: Do you know that shoes were given to him at what time, for how long did he remain without?
A: If he remained without he remained without for a short while because amongst other [66] 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.

Q: Short means?
A: The time then needed to go and get a pair of shoes.

Q: You questioned Sollecito alone or was there someone else with you?
A: No, no, there were other colleagues present, my superiors and Saturday crew.

Q: It’s in the relevant record?
A: Certainly, it’s in the relevant record.

Q: OK.

Defence ““ 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?
A: No, not so, I didn’t wait for any search, I went back to seizing his shoes.

Q: 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”.
A: Yes.

Q: 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?
A: This I don’t remember.

Q: Thank you.

[67] President

Q: 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?
A: I don’t know, Mr President.

Q: Very well, you may go.

The hearing was adjourned.

*************

SIs are “˜summary informations’, part of the logistical paperwork of a criminal investigation and regulated by the criminal procedure code. My First Dictionary of Legal Matters says: “To acquire intelligence useful to the investigation, members of the investigative taskforce [the polizia giudiziaria] are able to collect summary informations from the suspect (Article 350 CPC) or from other persons (Article 351 CPC).” “” il mio Primo Dizionario delle Materie Giuridiche, (2008) [Simone, 2008], p 546. ISBN 9788824469760. The Code provides strict regulation about how, when and where such information can be used, against whom and in which venue, and for what purposes and consequences.

Trial: The Process Resumes: The Court Agenda For Friday And Saturday

Posted by Nicki

Days 8 and 9 of the trial. Only the bare bones of what will be discussed has been made public.

First, the police who first arrived at the crime scene will testify further. Then the crime scene investigators who collected all the evidence at the crime scene will testify further. And next, the interpreter called upon by the police to assist in the interrogation of Knox will be heard.

And on Saturday morning, Sollecito’s seized notebook computer will be the subject of interest, with the investigations on it carried out by the police being described. We have already heard that it seems to have been dormant, not downloading a movie, until the early hours of the morning.

Did Sollecito start his new day by googling “bleach” and “blood” as has been conjectured? Perhaps we are about to find out. 

On the details of what to expect, the prosecutors are playing their cards typically close to their chests.  Contrary to the myths apparently first propagated in Seattle, Prosecutor Mignini is not renowned among journalists for leaking his case in advance.

In fact, he is rather famous among journalists for being a hard interview to nail down. So it’s still a wait and see mode for trial watchers in in Italy, the UK, the US, and 100-plus other countries that are fascinated by the trial. 

Our usual highlighting of developments will follow.

Tuesday, March 10, 2009

Guede’s Grounds For Appeal Sound None Too Convincing

Posted by Peter Quennell

Click above for La Nazione’s report in Italian. Nick Pisa of the Daily Mail filed a good report in English. Excerpts:

Today Guede’s lawyers Valter Biscotti and Nicodemo Gentile launched their appeal and filed a 50-page request at the court in Perugia where a decision will be made on a hearing within 45 days.

Mr Biscotti said: ‘This crime was motivated by a row over money between Meredith and Amanda Knox - and she was killed by the accused (Knox) as a result of this row.

‘There is no proof at all to say it was motivated by sex and nothing to suggest our client was involved.

‘Rudy has always admitted being at the scene but he had nothing to do with any sexual assault and murder - this crime was motivated by a row over cash and nothing else.’

Mr Biscotti added that after having read trial judge Paolo Micheli’s 106-page ‘reasons for sentencing’ he felt that had ‘good grounds for an appeal’ as no firm link of a sex attack by his client was proved.

At his fast track trial the court heard DNA from Guede was found at the scene on a bloodied pillow and on Meredith’s body.  His lawyers claim this was because the pair were ‘petting’ after having made an appointment to meet up the night she was murdered.

Guede told the court that he had ‘eaten a dodgy kebab’ and was in the bathroom listening to his iPod when Meredith was killed. He said he emerged to find her dying in a pool of blood.

Guede told the court he struggled with a man who resembled Sollecito and that he thought a woman who looked like Knox was at the door of the house waiting.

Mr Biscotti added: ‘My client tried to help poor Meredith and put towels around her wound but then ran away. The only thing he is guilty of is not staying to help and he will have to live with that for the rest of his life.’

According to a prosecution reconstruction, Guede and Sollecito held Meredith down, while Knox stabbed her in the throat. They deny the claim and stress the DNA evidence against them is contaminated and flawed.Ivory Coast drifter Rudy Guede, 21, was jailed for the murder and sexual assault of Meredith, also 21, six months ago after opting for a fast track trial.

The student was found semi-naked with her throat cut. Prosecutors and police say she was murdered after refusing to take part in a drug-fuelled sex game.

In lodging the appeal against his conviction and sentence (mandatory in Italy) his lawyers have offered no new exculpatory evidence.

Just claims that the other two did it, that an argument over Meredith’s stolen money was the motive, and that he was in the bathroom at the time.

Guede’s DNA was of course found right there at the scene of the crime, in Meredith’s room, and on Meredith’s body.

Considered in the context of the awesome detail of Judge Micheli’s report the grounds for his appeal sound almost laughable.

This is all being taken by some of the court analysts that Guede has nothing to bargain with that the prosecutors don’t already know.

And that they have great confidence in the strength of their case against Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox.

Enjoy your 30 years in the slammer, Rudy Guede. You might even have saved Meredith’s life by calling for some help.

And you didn’t. It appears, in fact, that you chose not to.

Friday, March 06, 2009

Patrick Lumumba Seeks Damages For His Time In The Big House

Posted by Peter Quennell

Click above for the story.

Knox is being tried on a charge of calunnia for her false implication of Patrick (see an explanation of calunnia at bottom). Patrick was of course the owner of the Le Chic bar, now closed because of the heap of trouble that his former waitress Amanda Knox dropped on his head.

He was held in Capanne Prison for about two weeks as a suspect, after she alleged (voluntarily, in writing) that she had seen him in the house on the night of the crime. And heard Meredith’s screams as he committed the murder.

Might he perhaps not have been so ticked if she had recanted the accusation any time in the next two weeks? Maybe. Maybe not. But Knox might easily have done. Nobody was pressuring her to do otherwise.

This seems an open-and-shut case. The evidence is all there. So Knox lives and learns. We hope.

Explanation of calunnia

The charge of calunnia (art. 368) has been commonly translated as “slander” in the English/US media. This translation is incorrect, however, as calunnia is a crime with no direct equivalent in the respective legal systems.

The equivalent of “criminal slander” is diffamazione, which is an attack on someone”Ÿs reputation. Calunnia is the crime of making false criminal accusations against someone whom the accuser knows to be innocent, or to simulate/fabricate false evidence, independently of the credibility/admissibility of the accusation or evidence.

The charges of calunnia and diffamazione are subject to very different jurisprudence. Diffamazione is public and explicit, and is a more minor offence, usually resulting in a fine and only prosecuted if the victim files a complaint, while calunnia can be secret or known only to the authorities. It may consist only of the simulation of clues, and is automatically prosecuted by the judiciary.

The crimes of calunnia and diffamazione are located in different sections of the criminal code: while diffamazione is in the chapter entitled “crimes against honour” in the section of the Code protecting personal liberties, calunnia is discussed in the chapter entitled “crimes against the administration of justice”, in a section that protects public powers.

Brief Explanation Of Difference Between “Calunna” And “Diffamazione” EDIT

Posted by Machiavelli

[image]

The crimes of calunnia and diffamazione are located in different sections of the criminal code.

Diffamazione is in the chapter entitled “crimes against honour” in the section of the Code protecting personal liberties.

Calunnia is discussed in the chapter entitled “crimes against the administration of justice”, in a section that protects public powers.

The charge of calunnia (art. 368) has been commonly translated as “slander” in the English/US media. This translation is incorrect, however, as calunnia is a crime with no direct equivalent in the respective legal systems.

Calunnia is the crime of making false criminal accusations against someone whom the accuser knows to be innocent, or to simulate/fabricate false evidence, independently of the credibility/admissibility of the accusation or evidence.

The equivalent of “criminal slander” is diffamazione, which is an attack on someone’s reputation, usually to sway a judicial process.

The charges of calunnia and diffamazione are subject to very different jurisprudence.

Diffamazione is public and explicit, and is a more minor offence, usually resulting in a fine and only prosecuted if the victim files a complaint.

Calunnia can be secret or known only to the authorities. It may consist only of the simulation of clues, and is automatically prosecuted by the judiciary.

Tuesday, March 03, 2009

Cartwheels Or No Cartwheels? You Be The Judge

Posted by Peter Quennell

[above: examples of cartwheels, not by Amanda Knox]

The ever-careful and supremely objective Steve Shay has another scoop!

This below is Mr Shay’s report to gullible Seattleites (if there are any left) in the, ah, very well-edited West Seattle Herald:

“Amanda accompanied Raffaele to the station where he was then interrogated by Monica Napoleani, the Perugia chief of homicide. Amanda was there to support him, as he had supported her before, when she was interrogated,” said Chris Mellas. Chris Mellas is the husband of Edda Mellas, Amanda’s mother. Both live in West Seattle.

“She was actually sitting alone in a separate room waiting for her boyfriend, and Napoleani said in court Friday (Feb. 27) that when she went to get some water she walked by the room where Amanda was and saw Amanda “˜doing the splits.’ She said she thought this was “˜odd behavior,’ and that Amanda should have instead appeared to be mourning the loss of Meredith.

The tabloid press further sensationalized her statement by changing “˜the splits’ to “˜cartwheels,’ and the mainstream press ran with that. “

“Amanda does yoga to calm herself down and relieve stress, and she told her father and me that’s why she was doing the splits. Also, in those four days she was in mourning over Meredith, which followed her outrage. Six hours after the discovery (of the body) she was like, “˜Let’s find the bastard who killed her.’”

Meanwhile, back here in the real world….  This was the actual report from the BBC News:

Meredith Kercher murder suspect Amanda Knox “turned cartwheels” in the police station after the killing, a police witness told a court in Perugia, Italy.

Former flying squad chief Domenico Profazio said he had to tell Ms Knox and her boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito their behaviour was “not appropriate”.

From Seattle’s own Post-Intelligencer

They were always together, Napoleoni said, and did not want to be separated. While police questioned Sollecito, Knox waited in a side room where policewoman Lorena Zugarini, also present at Knox’s questioning, said she saw Knox doing a cartwheel and the splits. Zugarini said she told Knox it was “not the right place” for such activities.

From the UK’s Sky News:

Ms Napoleone also described Knox’s unusual behaviour at the police station where she had been taken for questioning. She said: “She had complained that she was feeling tired and at that stage I told her that she could go if she wanted.” “She said she wanted to stay, Sollecito was also at the station at the time and she said she wanted to wait for him.

“A few minutes later I walked past a room at the police station where she was waiting and I saw Amanda doing the splits and a cartwheel. It was around 11am on November 5th.

From the UK’s Daily Express:

The exchange came as Inspector Ficarra, of the city’s Flying Squad, described 21-year-old Knox’s bizarre behaviour after her arrest following the killing in 2007.

“I was in the elevator and when I got to the floor where the Flying Squad department is the door opened and I saw Amanda doing floor exercises,” he said.

“She was doing the splits, cartwheels and arching herself backwards, pressing her hands on the floor. I said to her, “˜What on earth are you doing? Is this the right way to behave?’

From the UK’s Independent:

Chief Inspector Monica Napoleoni told the court where the pair are on trial for murder how, at the police station as they waited to be first questioned, Mr Sollecito and Ms Knox “appeared completely indifferent to everything, lying down, kissing, pulling faces and writing each other notes. They were talking to each in low voices the whole time ““ it was impossible that they were behaving like this when there was a dead body in their house. It seemed strange to everybody”. Ms Knox had also “turned cartwheels and done the splits,” she said.

From the UK’s Daily Telegraph:

Ms Napoleoni recalled thinking that Miss Knox and her boyfriend seemed “indifferent to everything” when they were called to a police station in Perugia for questioning on Nov 5, 2007. It was there that the American turned cartwheels and did the splits.

And the last word, as always, from the London Times:

Ms Napoleoni said she and other officers had seen Ms Knox “doing cartwheels and the splits” while Mr Sollecito was being questioned and she was waiting her turn. Ms Napoleoni said she found this “very strange”. She said Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito “had a bizarre attitude throughout - they were laughing, kissing and pulling faces at each other.

Pehaps Chris Mellas and Steve Shay and Ken Robinson of the West Seattle Herald should discover the tubes of the internet.

Sunday, March 01, 2009

Trial: Wrap-Up On The Testimony For This Week From Officers Who Questioned Knox

Posted by Nicki

1.Monica Napoleoni

Today’s hearing resumed with the deposition of Ms Monica Napoleoni, the head of Perugia’s homicide squad, which had been halted yesterday.

Some of her statements were extremely touching and sad. For example, she reported on the text messages that were found on Meredith’s phone from her parents who, having heard on the news broadcasts that a British student had been murdered in Perugia, wanted to make sure that their daughter was fine. [A heartfelt comment on this by reader TT on the post below this one]

Ms Napoleoni also described what she saw when she entered the murder room and leaned over Meredith’s lifeless body. She reported that Meredith body had been cut about so ferociously that it was very hard for her to even look at the wounds.

Ms Napoleoni also talked about a female shoe print that was found next to the pillow near Meredith’s body, a footprint of a size compatible with Knox’s.

During cross-examination, Sollecito’s defense showed Ms Napoleoni pictures of the cottage rooms taken while the search by the Flying Squad and Scientific Police was taking place. She pointed out that shoe covers and gloves were always being worn by everybody present.

In one instance on December18th when the bra clasp was found and sequestered “whole overalls were used by everyone, since the scientific police were at work”.

Ms Monica Napoleoni confirmed the impartial handling of Knox on the night of 5-6 November which she briefly witnessed, and also confirmed that she witnessed “Knox”˜s gymnast show” and improper behaviour of the couple during the course of investigating such a tragic event.

2. Rita Ficarra

Ms Rita Ficarra, the officer in charge of the Perugia Flying Squad, reported about the night between November 5 and 6, when the two defendants were interrogated and later arrested in the wee hours of November 6th.

Knox turned up at the police station, although she hadn’t been asked to, “because Sollecito had been requested to be interviewed and she was accompanying him” Ms Ficarra said.

She was not required to stay, and could have gone home any time.

“I encountered her in the waiting room doing splits, cartwheels and bridges. She was showing off her gymnastic capabilities”. Ms Ficarra added that she reproached Amanda, and asked her to quit her inapt behaviour, as in addition to her gymnast show, Knox kept French-kissing, stroking and hugging Sollecito.

Ms Ficarra felt that was very inappropriate behaviour to be going on in a police station while waiting to be heard concerning a gruesome murder.  “Everybody else was terrified” Ms Ficarra said “except for Amanda and Raffaele, who seemed indifferent, were smirking, and kept on French kissing.”

Ms Ficarra then described Knox’s interrogation and the false accusations against Patrick Lumumba.

Ms Ficarra testified that when Knox was asked about Mr Lumumba”˜s text message to her on the night from his bar, “she started crying and wrapping her hands around her head, she started shaking it, and then she said: it was him”¦Patrick killed her”.

At this point, Ms Ficarra said “I stopped the interrogation and informed the judicial authorities”. Ms Ficarra stressed that “Amanda was never mistreated” and that “she had a chance to rest, go the bathroom, and eat”.  She insisted on writing out and signing statements both then and after being warned of her rights. She declined to have a lawyer present. 

Ms Ficarra’s deposition continued: “After Knox was notified of her arrest ““ in English - she asked for a pen and paper, saying: I’ll give you a present”. Ms Ficarra added “Knox asked me to read what she was going to write before she was taken to jail, because she wanted me to have a clear idea about what had happened”.

Ms Ficarra maintained that “Knox was never subjected to threats or violence…. she was treated firmly, but with cordiality”.

3. Knox and Sollecito

As Andrea Vogt reported, Knox and Sollecito both made impromptu declarations during today’s trial session.

Knox made a very brief statement in Italian, claiming “They did offer me drinks and food, but they started treating me as a person only after I made those declarations”. She did not elaborate any further.

Sollecito’s declaration took more time. He claimed that during his interrogation on the evening of November 5, he asked to make a phone call to his father but was denied it. He then asked for permission to call a lawyer, but he was not allowed to do so. He did not report any mistreatment or any physical or psychological abuse from the police.

4. A comment on this.

It should be noted that when Sollecito asked for a lawyer’s assistance, he had not yet even become a suspect. His status was still that of a “person knowledgeable about the facts” who is not legally entitled to insist on a lawyer being present. 

Not an actual suspect. Simply a person who could possibly yield useful information to the investigators. So why would someone who is being heard as a “helper” be so concerned about getting a lawyer? If he really had nothing to hide?

The next trial dates are March 13 and 14, 20 and 21, and 27 and 28.

Saturday, February 28, 2009

Trial: Video Report By Nick Pisa Of Testimony On Saturday Morning

Posted by Peter Quennell

Sky News no longer carry this video. We keep this post live because of relevant reader comments below. The video included shots of Knox apparently enjoying the attention. We have still images.

In this session, various officers started to describe what took place at the Central Police Station on 5-6 November 2007 leading to the arrest of Knox and Sollecito.

We carry translations done later of the testimony of all the officers. They hang together, and are in stark contradiction to Knox’s “memoriale” of midday 6 November.

Trial: Nick Squires Reports On The Saturday Morning Testimony

Posted by Peter Quennell

Overview

This below is part of the testimony this morning from the crime scene investigators. Click above for the full story.

We will be posting a wrap-up, if possible tonight, with a lot more detail from the Italian media.

This below is part of the testimony this morning from the crime scene investigators. Click above for the full story.

Officer Chiacchiera and Officer Napoleoni

A police officer, Marco Chiacchiera, told the court that no record was found of a telephone call that Mr Sollecito claims to have received on his apartment landline at 11pm on the night of the murder, Nov 1, 2007.

The Italian IT graduate maintains he was in his flat that night but cannot remember if Miss Knox spent part or all of the night with him.

Miss Knox, a University of Washington student from Seattle, initially told investigators she was in the house when Miss Kercher was killed and covered her ears against the victim’s screams. Later, she said she was not there and claimed her earlier remarks were made under pressure from the police.

Another police officer, Monica Napoleoni, who heads Perugia’s murder squad, recalled discovering Miss Kercher’s body, semi-naked and partially covered by a duvet, in her bedroom.

The British student’s eyes were open, she said, and her blood-soaked bra was on the ground near her feet.

Ms Napoleoni recalled thinking that Miss Knox and her boyfriend seemed “indifferent to everything” when they were called to a police station in Perugia for questioning on Nov 5, 2007. It was there that the American turned cartwheels and did the splits.

Amanda Knox’s father is reported as responding that she was a yoga enthusiast, and it was not unusual for her to break into a yoga pose in the middle of conversations.

Trial: Andrea Vogt Reports More Of The Details Introduced Friday

Posted by Peter Quennell

Introduction

Click above for the full report. From Andrea Vogt, a highly objective reporter, one of only two or three Italian-speaking American reporters actually attending the trial.

1) Knox at the police stationz: Officer Profazio and Officer Napoleoni

Giacinto Profazio, who supervised the investigation, said he had to tell the suspects at one point [at the police station] that it was inappropriate for Knox to sit on Raffaele Sollecito’s lap.

The couple was kissing, making faces and acting increasingly annoyed at investigators’ questions, said Monica Napoleoni, the head of Perugia’s homicide squad… “I took particular notice of their behavior because it seemed impossible that these two kids were there kissing when the cadaver of their friend had just been found,” Napoleoni said.

Police also emphatically defended their handling of the Meredith Kercher murder investigation, refuting allegations that Knox and Sollecito were mistreated during questioning in November 2007.

Investigators were firm, she testified during the six-week-old murder trial, but “absolutely” did not use violence—a claim Knox has made.

“She was given a drink more than once,” Napoleoni said. “She was given a hot chamomile tea; she was offered breakfast. Amanda was treated well.”...

2) And at Meredith’s house and Sollecito’s apartment: Officer Napoleoni and Officer Chiacchiera

Police and defense lawyers clashed over key forensic points, including whether or not the crime scene was contaminated, how the murder weapon was identified, luminol-enhanced footprints compatible with those of Knox and Sollecito, Knox and Kercher’s blood found in the bathroom, and most contentiously, Kercher’s bra clasp with Sollecito’s DNA on it.

Both Napoleoni and Marco Chiacchiera, the first investigating officer to arrive, said the crime scene didn’t jibe with the lone burglar theory put forth by the suspects. For example, the room had been messed up before the window had been broken, Chiacchiera said.

The 10-pound rock found inside the room would have been difficult to throw from the ground, more than 10 feet below, he said.

“The fact that this girl was semi-nude with a wound of that type, in a pool of blood in her own room with the door locked, and then with the rock and window like that—well, progressively, the analysis of all the investigative elements made us suspicious,” Chiacchiera said.

Investigators’ suspicions deepened once phone records arrived, he said, because there was a void of calls from 8:30 in the evening until the next morning on both their phones. In months prior, records showed phone activity until late in the night. In addition, Sollecito had told police his father had called him at 11 p.m., but phone records showed no such call….

Even the smallest details became points of [defense] contention, such as why investigators took into evidence the Manga comics Sollecito kept near his bed, which Chiacchiera described as “a cross between pornography and horror,” but took no notice of a nearby Harry Potter novel.