Friday, December 26, 2014
Guede Hoax: Translation Of Lawyers Testimony #1 On Breakin Shows No Concrete Connection To Guede
Posted by Peter Quennell
Balcony and the French doors broken into - an easy climb for most
1. Post Overview
Guede got no breaks, ever, contrary to myriad claims.
For evidentiary reasons exclusively, Rudy Guede has never been charged with breaking and entering. The one questionable location where he was found was the nursery school in Milan.
As he apparently used a key from one of the staff, any break-in trial would have been dead on arrival.
No law required that he be detained. (He was however later charged with being in possession of stolen property, and just a few days ago his sentence was extended by 16 months.)
The previous post in this three-part series showed how similar to the BACK BALCONY route to a forced break-in of Meredith’s house was the supposed route into the Perugia lawyers’ offices.
It had nothing in common with Filomena’s window, contrary to myriad claims.
This post and the next in this series show how the evidentiary proof that it was Guede (and not someone with a grudge or a trial opponent) who broke into the Perugia lawyers’ office is ambiguous and contradictory. Some signs point away from Guede, not least that photocopies apparently made of legal documentation (the copier was on and copy paper missing) would have required the use of a car.
This post is on the testimony of the lawyer Brocchi (owner of the cellphone) and the third post is on the testimony of the lawyer Palazolli (owner of the Sony Vaio computer). Brocchi was quite talkative, despite his minor role, and so we will hold our highlights and interpretation for the next post.
The extensive translation of the difficult language here and in the post still to come was kindly provided by Miriam.
2. Lawyer Testimony In Court #1
The witness, admonished pursuant to Article 497 of the Criminal Procedure Code, reads the oath.
General Information: Paolo Brocchi born in Rome, March 2, 1968
GCM: Please proceed.
LM: Good Morning, lawyer Maori, for the defense of Sollecito.
PB: Good morning.
LM: It is an unnecessary question, but I must ask it. The first question is this: what profession do you hold?
PB: Lawyer.
LM: Where is your legal office?
PB: In via del Roscetto no.3 in Perugia.
LM: Did your office undergo a burglary in 2007, in October 2007?
PB: Yes.
LM: Can you tell us how this burglary took place, how the thieves got in, and what was taken?
PB: Certainly, the burglary was discovered by my colleague lawyer Palazzoli, the owner of the office, he told me about it on a Sunday afternoon, because the theft took place….. It was done between the night of 13th and 14th of October 2007, a night between Saturday and Sunday. The burglary was discovered by my colleague, the lawyer Palazzoli, on Sunday afternoon, because he entered the office to look for a professional file, and upon entering he discovered the burglary. The person or persons that entered inside the office, from what we were able to reconstruct together with members of the Squadra Mobile that intervened for us at the office, they entered through a window situated in the secretary’s office that was subjected to broken glass, the glass of this window was broken with the aid of a piece of porphyry, a big rock that we found there at the spot. The window was broken, then these persons or person turned the handle. The glass clearly was spread everywhere, because it was a rather thick glass. After which, on top of these pieces of glass we found our clothes. For the most part the glass was scattered on the floor and on top of the glass were our jackets, mine and my colleague’s Palazzoli, that had been hanging on the clothes hanger in the corridor right in front of the window.
LM: Excuse me if I interrupt you, to reconstruct the dynamics of the event exactly . It would seem that the 13th of October was a Saturday.
PB: From what I remember, yes.
LM: Your colleague had remained in the office until….........
PB: No, I stayed in the office. Saturday I remained in the office because I had a client on Saturday afternoon, that was something anomalous, but it was for an urgent discussion. I called for a meeting that Saturday morning, then he arrived in the afternoon, and I left the office at 8.30 pm that Saturday.
LM: 8.30 pm that Saturday and after, the following Sunday, the evening…...
PB: The day after, Sunday, I was called on the telephone by lawyer Palazzoli, who told me “Look somebody came into the office, I have already called the Carabinieri”, who then because of the jurisdiction of the old town center, as we found out, alerted the Squadra Mobile of the State Police.
LM: Does your office have an alarm?
PB: The office was fitted out with an alarm, but that evening it was not activated, because, as I reconstruct the event, it had just been installed. That evening I left at 8.30 pm. I remember perfectly that I did not activate the alarm system. The strange thing that I can highlight in connection here is that I noticed the alarm system the next day, when we entered, was not damaged, the bright light was functioning even if it was dis-activated, and the person or persons that entered did not damage the alarm, they only dis-activated the telephonic combination, thus with this they manifested a minimum confidence, a certain competence in the subject matter of alarms, of electronics, because to dis-activate a telephonic combination without damaging the alarm, I would not be capable, even being the owner, thus I would not have this competence.
LM: One other thing. You spoke then about a window that “¦..
PB: Yes, apparently
LM: Was that the only break in?
BB: Yes
LM: Is it a window that gives onto the main street or onto a private court yard?
PB: No, this window gives out to a private court yard that is than protected from the public street by an exterior gate. So it is probable…. I don’t know if can be possible…. because close to that window there are other windows of other apartments, there are… there is a window that is about one meter from the balcony of my office, so everything is possible. But this person or persons if they came from the public street would have to open a gate that gives on private property and then, with the help of I don’t know which tools, climb up for three, four meters on a vertical wall to then arrive to the terrace ,where was located my office, where it is still located, first up to this window and then through this window enter inside my office, if this was the way in.
LM: However this break in took place in this window, three/four meters high.
PB: More or less
LM: Did you find a ladder close by?
PB: No
LM: Did you find other tools?
PB: No. I remember that we inspected with the Squadra Mobile crew. I should say that the property below us has a door, an armored mesh and a particularly able person could have climbed up. Could have, I don’t know, this is just an assumption.
LM: Anyhow it was not easy to climb up.
PB: Absolutely not.
LM: Before, you spoke about this rock, this porphyry..
PB: Yes
LM: Where was it found, inside or outside?
PB: Strangely, right on the little terrace, evidently the person or persons that entered with the help of this very heavy porphyry because a double glass had to be broken, it was not a thin glass, but it was that type of glass utilized mainly for thermal insulation, certainly not for security reasons, evidently it needed a heavy impact in order to somehow succeed in the intent, otherwise a small piece of rock would evidently have been sufficient.
LM: What was taken from inside the office?
PB: So, at first we noticed that the office was in a state of general disarray : all the archive was turned upside down, all the files of the offices were piled up in a heap. But from the first inventory that we did there at the moment, this was missing: a new computer belonging to the lawyer Palazzoli, a note book the brand of which I absolutely do not remember [actually a Sony], a USB flash drive used to save data, a portable Canon printer which was mine, and then a few days later, when I was contacted by a crew of the Police of Milan, agent Spesi Rita, I realized that they had also stolen a cell phone, that anyhow was not working properly, that furthermore was included in the process of investigation (SDI) of the Police Force. Therefore there was also this cell phone, that beforehad I had quit using and didn’t even remember about, that was in the drawer of my desk.
LM: Lawyer, were money and checks stolen too?
PB: No, there were none.
LM: On this I have to challenge, that you on the complaint of the burglary indicated also checks from the Banca delle Marche [were stolen].
PB: No I will explain the reasoning. Those checks at the first moment appeared to us not present. There was a block that was finished, but then after checking with the bank, those checks had been annulled, so in reality they hadn’t been stolen. The verification that we did at the bank the Monday after, highlighted that I had annulled those checks and the bank had trace of it, so nobody took anything.
LM: Another thing before speaking of the recovery of the computer, you told us of the small havoc done inside your office.
PB: Yes.
LM: You spoke of the ransacking, in addition to, as you said before, of the broken glass with your clothes on top. Was also the photo-copy machine utilized?
PB: I am not able to say that. It was easily usable because it was not code protected, but this I am not able to…
LM: Did they turn on the heating?
PB: Yes, when we entered the heating system was on, as matter of fact there was a torrid temperature inside the office, because it remained on, I think, more than 24 hours, in a month, October, that was not particularly cold. Furthermore I noticed that this person or persons that entered inside my office even made use of drinks that were in a cabinet, leaving…. they even opened the cabinet of the first aid meticulously looking for everything that was inside, but more than anything else disinfectants and blood pressure gauge, this type of things, but they really did an accurate selection of the material present inside the first aid cabinet.
LM: Returning to the computer, the property of…..
PB: Of the lawyer Palazzoli, yes.
LM: Was it discovered at a later date?
PB: Well, we never saw it. I say, that the 27th of October 2007, around noon, it was a Saturday, I was in the office in a anomalous way because generally I had the first 3 hours at school and the last 3 hours are normally always….. making 6 hours Saturday morning. But that morning I left early and I was in the office. A telephone call came in on the land line, a call from the police station Venezia Garibaldi from the Milan Police, the agent Rita Spesi, who told me that they had found an individual, of whom I was not given general information, nor the gender, I was only told that certain goods were on this individual, that if I remember correctly they were found inside a kindergarten, a school, an institute of learning, and in this instance, among goods that were in possession of this individual or better held by this individual, this person also had this cellphone. Turning it on, my name appeared, and from here the police officer by way of a search of the SDI system of investigation, saw my complaint of theft of October 15th 2007, and so she asked me if proveably those goods were my property.
LM: Therefore the telephone and computer?
PB: Telephone without doubt, the computer was described to me, it was not mine, I manifested doubts in the sense that…... well I had never seen it, or used it, because it was my colleague’s, who had just bought it, a short time ago he had just bought it. On the computer I manifested doubts. On the telephone, on the telephone however by way of the names of the address menu, the clients and friends of mine, I was able to confirm with certainty that at least my SIM card was on that phone.
LM: It is a Sony model…..no excuse me…..
PB: No, the telephone is a Nokia.
LM: It is a Nokia, model 6310.
PB: Nokia, for sure, the model now not….....
LM: Like this one, so to….....
PB: Yes, exactly.
LM: 6310.
PB: It is the same color, if I remember correctly.
LM: However this is not yours, it is mine.
PB: No, fine.
LM: Was the name of the person that was stopped given to you by agent Rita Spessi?
PB: No, absolutely not.
LM: Did you then find out the name of this person?
PB: No, this happened on October 27th when the police officer calls me. All ends with this telephone call in which I stated I recognized at least the cell phone. On October 29th, a Monday afternoon I am in the office and on the phone with some clients. October 29th, I may be mistaken, but I believe I mentally reconstructed the facts in this way, I did not take notes, I must be honest. October 29th my attention - I was on the phone - my attention was drawn by a commotion in the lobby, the common reception area outside the office. I hear voices in the corridor, I am still on the phone, afterward I get closer to see that an assistant of the office, Dott. Luciano Morini, is speaking with someone. Before I can realize what is happening, he tells me “Look Paolo, here is a person that says that he was found with merchandise, goods, objects that were reported stolen by you and your colleague Palazzoli, but that he bought them in Milan close to the train station in central Milan”. At which I go to the corridor and I see, at the entrance of the lobby, a colored person that has a basketball in his hands and is dressed in sport clothes. These things surprised me, because we were at the end of October and it was kind of cold, it struck me quite a bit seeing this person in sport clothes, a tank top like those used by basketball players, and a basketball. I recognized the basketball because I played basketball for twenty years, so I know how to recognize one. At that point I say: “Look I don’t know who you are”, he answered: “I don’t know who you are either”, I replied: ” Look we are only interested in having our belongings returned” and that was all. At that point I went back to the office. I don’t know if the person stayed in front of the office, and anyhow I close the door and there it ended. A few weeks later, may be a month later, I’m not sure, some time later I see on the newspapers photographs of a person that was associated with the matters of this proceeding, from which I recognized the person that presented himself that afternoon on October 29th, before the matters that brought to this proceeding, at the office to say that, yes he was found at that location in Milan by the crew of the Squadra Mobile, of the police station Venezia Garibaldi, that he did not…. tell me but tell to my colleague Morini, that he did not take anything from anybody but those things he obtained by purchasing them.
LM: Who is this person? Can you give us a name and surname?
PB: Doctor Luciano Morini that…....
LM: No, no, I say…....you told us of your assistant. You said that this colored person that you did not know, that you saw for the first time October 29th 2007, then at a later stage had the means to see by the newspaper who it was.
PB: Yes.
LM: Can you give us the name and surname of this person?
PB: I believe that I recognized in that person this Mr. Rudy Hermann Guede, that is not a defendant in this proceeding, but is involved in the other one…..
LM: Always in reference to October 29th , at the moment this person came to your studio, you said : “This person arrived , and spoke with my colleague Morini”.
PB: Yes.
LM: And he told you: “I do not know you”. These are the exact words that you said before?
PB: When I was on the landing, I said….....
LM: That which Guede said to you.
PB: That which I said to him, because I spoke first and said: “Look I do not know who you are”. He responds: ” I don’t know who you are either”, furthermore in a perfect Italian, with a Perugian accent, something that surprised me, because been a person”¦”¦ but everything is possible. To which I told him, “look let’s cut it short we are not interested. We are only interested in getting our goods back “, end.
LM: But naturally you knew the subject of the discussion between”¦.
PB: Because a moment before Dr. Morini related to me “look there is a person outside that says that he bought goods that you and your colleague reported stolen, he bought them in Milan”.
LM: One last thing. Concerning the computer of your colleague Pazzoli, do you remember the brand, the model?
PB: No, I’m not able to answer.
LM: Thank you.
GCM: Please proceed.
LG: Excuse me Lawyer Brocchi, I am Ghirga. Your office is on which street?
PB: Via del Roscetto, 3.
LG: First”¦. You already told us the height, can you repeat it?
PB: The office is on a raised floor, technically, it is not a first floor, is a raised ground floor, that means that from the entrance of the building you go up ten steps to enter the condominium, then on the left end side there is the entrance to the office.
LG: An what about this terrace window?
PB: It is on the other side of the building.
LG: From the outside how much can it”¦
PB: Let’s say that are a few meters, may be three, four, but I am not able “¦..because I never measured it.
LG: But you were speaking of an access from another street that intersects Via del Roscetto?
PB: Exactly there is an intersection, Via del Lupo, going downhill.
LG: Via del Lupo
PB: Via del Lupo, if I remember correctly, it goes down till you reach a dead end, it comes to a courtyard behind the building and then there is another courtyard that is private property enclosed by a gate. If these person or persons entered through here they would have had to open that gate to get inside to what I described before to get into the office.
LG: Thank you, I wanted to clarify that.
GCM: Mr. Prosecutor, please proceed.
PM: (unintelligible - no microphone) ?
PB: In effect I don’t know. Seeing as I was alerted to these happenings by agent Rita Spessi of the police station Venezia Garibaldi, sometime later, together with my colleague, we filed an application for the repossession of these goods at the central penal record office of the Procura di Milano, via Manara. After 24 hours an agent, an operator, or a clerk of the central penal record office, calls me on the telephone and tells me: “Look, Lawyer, we saw the application of release, but to us form 21, does not result in any procedure”. To which I said: “How can it be that no form 21 procedure shows up ? The agents would have done a CNR, or not? At least by the end of their duty, having found a person in possession of stolen goods should have reported”¦”, “Look , there are no results of this procedure”
PM: (unintelligible - no microphone) ?
PB: Form 21, subject known, in the sense that in the Procura della Repubblica there are various forms, 21, 45, 44, relative documents, etc.
PM: (unintelligible - no microphone) ?
PB: No, I looked for it as a form 21, but even then they”¦..I even asked: “Be patient, I will look for it on the other forms”, to which he said: “We cannot find it”. Given that some time had passed this caused me some surprise. That’s it.
PM: But they notified you (unintelligible - no microphone) ?
PB: No, never.
PM: So then this procedure in any case is not a charge (inaudible - outside the microphone)?
PB: This I don’t know. I only say that the application of release, I filed it, and that the central penal record office of the Procura called telling me that they could not find the application filed by me and my colleague as the offended parties and no other relative documents regarding this procedure.
PM: When did this happen?
PB: 2008, last year in the spring, months and months after”¦..
PM: Did you by any chance verify if there was (unintelligible audible-outside the microphone)?
PB: No, no.
PM: (unintelligible - no microphone) ?
LM: I oppose this question by the Public Prosecutor because I would like to make it known to the court that we know that there is a penal proceeding, the Public Prosecutor D’Amico in Milan even has it. We asked for the acquisition, and we have right here”¦”¦
GCM: Excuse me lawyer, what is the motive for your opposition?
LM: Because the Public Prosecutor is asking if there is a penal proceeding, when in reality”¦”¦
GMC: Excuse me Lawyer, but the Public prosecutor is asking questions to the witness on what he knows. That if evidences comes out from other sources, they will be acquired. The objection is rejected. Please Public Prosecutor.
PM: (unintelligible - no microphone) ?
PB: Yes, it is a palace of the 15 century
PM: Do you know, by chance, which was the path (unintelligible ““ no microphone)?
PB: I can presume it, having found the glasses in the inside, that”¦.
Note: in this moment the PM microphone is turned on
PM: Therefore before I could not be heard.
GCM: The answers have been”¦
PM: The answers were”¦
GCM: Yes.
PM: I understand.
GCM: The other questions”¦ excuse me, the Public Prosecutor was asking if something to you results”¦
PM: If there is a proceeding, and you say there is not one.
PB: No, I don’t say there isn’t one, It does not result from me because the the central penal record office of the Procura di Milan, calling me on the telephone, referred to me the day after, that up to that date there was no registration. Now, everything is possible, that they it registered it later, I don’t know.
PM: You did not have any news, in any case”¦
PB: Never, never.
PM: Did you receive an extension of the investigation?
PB: Never, never.
PM: Let’s go back to the position of this”¦ then this office is on the ground floor”¦
PB: Raised ground floor.
PM: “¦ raised ground floor. From what point do you arrive?
PB: On via della Roscetto there are 2 windows on the raised ground floor, on the street front, that are the rooms of my colleague Palazzoli and mine. Then there are”¦
PM: What is the distance from the ground?
PB: From via della Roscetto it is minimum 3 meters, yes 3 meters, because I am tall”¦ well it’s 2 or 3 meters. Then going down via del Lupo, there is a slope, until this public courtyard, because via del Lupo is a dead end. Thereafter, from this side the height increases, let’s say, it increases slightly after this small slope, therefore the ground goes up and there is an internal court yard that is accessible from the public courtyard through an iron gate. Going through this gate you arrive at this private courtyard, than there is an armored door with a mesh, so that one with the mesh is on the ground floor, looking up you see this balcony, this little terrace that is outside is my office, that is situated “¦.. more than three meters, between three and four meters from ground level.
PM: So, this door with the mesh is a door and not a window.
PB: No, it is a door
PM: Therefore all the way to the ground.
PB: Yes
PM: How high is it?
PB: More than two meters for sure.
PM: So after this door, there is another meter to arrive”¦ or a meter and a half, two meters?
PB: I presume at least another meter.
PM: Another meter to arrive to the balcony.
PB: At least.
PM: Where was the porphyry rock found?
PB: On the balcony, on the outside.
PM: You said that inside “¦ can you describe what you found? How was the”¦..
PB: The situation.
PM: So the rock was outside.
PB: The rock was outside, the glass was inside, the glass of the window in part on the corridor and they were covered with our clothes, mine and those of Lawyer Palazzoli, placed right on top of the glass.
PM: They were on top of the glass.
PB: On top of the glass, and the thing surprised us, “maybe” we said “to not make noise passing over them”, I don’t know, it is only a supposition. After which they were in the room of the photocopier other pieces of fragments of glass always coming from that window, the only one broken, they were situated on a small rug that was right in front of a workplace, a computer. Then right in front of this there were drinks, real close, open, partially consumed. Then we went into the other room, where the filing cabinet is, it was completely turned upside down. All the drawers were open, all the files were taken and the papers all mixed up on the floor, there were a mountain of paper, an entire archive practically mixed up, that many things we were never able to find, some later, some first, others later. Therefore this was the situation. Then inside my room, on my desk, there was a leather suitcase belonging to me, on top of this suitcase in a very orderly way were placed some screwdrivers, pliers, a hammer, facing the window, all perfectly aligned and facing the window. Even here all the papers in disarray. A chest of drawers was opened, inside were files, all the records of the law practice funds, all the annual quotas of the inscriptions, all things that we found eventually with a lot of effort, mixed one on top of the other. Even here was another filing cabinet of my dossiers that was opened and all the papers mixed up. Then inside of the administrative office there were, there are all the folders with the contracts of the intensity bills, with the deed to the office, all upside down. There was the placement of the [printer] that was”¦ let’s say there had been activity, because we found receipts scattered close to the machine, so there had been”¦at the least this person or persons had gone to satisfy themselves of what that instrument was. This was”¦
PM: Listen, was the cell phone given back to you?
PB: No, I asked for the release, I deposited “¦
PM: So it is in possession of the police or the procura?
PB: Office of the body of evidence, I presume.
PM: Fine. I don’t have any other questions.
GCM: Questions from the civil parties? None, President. The defense can complete it’s questioning.
LM: I would like to deposit a record that naturally is in the dossier of the Public Prosecutor and on the basis of this record then ask questions of the witness.
GCM: Maybe put this record at”¦
LM: It’s about.. this can be useful to the lawyer because the number of the penal procedure that charges Rudy Guede is indicated and a warning effected on February 1, 2008 by the Procuratore della Repubblica, the assistant D’Amico, that is carrying out the investigation with regard on Rudy Guede for the crime of theft, receiving stolen good, and for the crime of carrying an illegal weapon, law 110 of ‘75. This information was also given to the Procura della Repubblica of Peruga, to Dr Mignini, with communication via fax.
PB: When was the procedure registered? Ah excuse me,I can’t”¦
GCM: Let’s see the document. So the parties have seen this document?
LM: There is an error in the writing of Dr Mignini (“Dr Minnini”) but it can be understood that it is his fax and and it was even addressed “¦
GCM: Even the defense of Knox knows this”¦?
LG: (unintelligible no microphone) ?
GCM: The question in relation to this document?
LM: The question is this, Doctor D’ Amico makes aware that all of the confiscated material and thus the computer and the Nokia cell phone, had already on the date of February 1, 2008, prior to February 1, 2008, been passed on to the police station of Perugia.
PB: So it is in Perugia.
LM: The question is this, I would like to know, did you request in the first days of the year 2008 to the police station the return of”¦
PB: No, I did so to the Procura di Milan, believing that it was held in the body of evidence of the Procura di Milano, because those people told me they were found in Milan and that it was probable evidence of a criminal activity. Therefore, I thought to make a request of release to the Procura di Milano.
LM: Reading the letter sent by Dr D’ Amico , for the Procura di Perugia, both the computer and the cell phone are indicated. Can you recognize the computer, property of your colleague?
PB: I say that the cell phone without doubt was a Nokia; the 27th of October 2007 is true because it was Saturday; the Sony Vaio I cannot be certain of the brand, because I absolutely don’t remember it, because it was not even mine, , therefore I don’t know. The attempted aggravated theft, 56, 624, 625, 648”¦
GCM: Only on the objects.
PB: Yes. No, the objects”¦ I can only say about the cell phone.
GCM: So only the cell phone.
LM: I ask for the acquisition so as to demonstrate that, indeed, there is a penal proceeding.
GCM: Agreed. Other questions?
PB: So it is pending in Milan. The strange thing that I can say to the president is this”¦ I see that it includes the form 21/2007. So I don’t understand why the Penal Central Record Office told me that it was not pending”¦
GCM: Excuse me layer, let’s go back to the testimonial questioning, therefore on the circumstantial facts.
LM: Let’s go back to the reconstruction of the entry path in your office by the thief. To the question by the Public prosecutor you explained, as you explained to me, that this window is at the height of about 3/4meters from the ground floor.
PB: From via del Lupo, yes
LM: Then you refer to a door, an iron door which is close”¦
PB: Yes, I confirm.
LM: And this iron door at what distance is from the window?
PB: It is perpendicular just under the window.
LM: So therefore there were, let’s say, coarseness on this door that could allow an eventual”¦
PB: A fit person, not I; a fit person, not someone like me, could have climbed up with the risk of plummeting to the ground, because there is clearly no protection, there is nothing but a vertical wall.
LM: I do understand. One last thing, the window from which the thieves entered as you indicated, is higher than the other windows?
PB: No, because the office is on the same level and it is exactly”¦you mean compared to the office or as per the window height?
LM: Compared to the street level and the other windows.
PB: No, at this point, when you get to little terrace you are practically at the level of the other windows.
LM: One last thing, when that man on the 29th of October that man, Rudy Guede, came to your office”¦
PB: No, not in the office, he was on”¦
LM: On the landing?
PB: Not even, he was in the entrance”¦ on the steps between the street and the entrance of the office”¦part of the lobby. He did not enter the office.
LM: His intention was to come inside the office, to come to you?
PB: I don’t know. As a matter of fact he didn’t know who I was, because, when he rang he rang on Legal Office, because evidently somebody had told him that those goods had been”¦ but I repeat, I did not speak with him, therefore no”¦ they are all things told to me by Dott. Morini, so they are not of my direct knowledge.
LM: Thank you.
GCM: When did this take place?
PB: This happened Monday afternoon around 5, late afternoon on October 29th 2007
GCM: So how many days after the theft?
PB: The theft was October 13th, this on the 29th .
GCM: If there no other question the witness is excused.
There are no other questions; the witness is dismissed.
GCM: The communication from the Procura della Repubblica, Tribunale Ordinario of Milano dated the 1st of February 2008 is acquired in order to be used. Who is next?
LM: Lawyer Palazzoli
Posted by Peter Quennell on 12/26/14 at 06:36 PM in Defendants in court, Rudy Guede, Evidence & Witnesses, Faked breakin, Other witnesses, Hoaxes against Italy, 5 No pack attack hoax, 6 No staging hoax, Hoaxes Knox & team, Hoaxes Sollecito etc, Hoaxes re Guede, 33 Sole attacker hoax, 34 Bad guy hoax, Hoaxers from 2007, Knox-Marriott PR, Raff Sollecito PR, Hoaxers from 2011, Amanda Knox #2, Raff Sollecito #2
Comments
No comments yet. Commenting is not available in this channel entry.Where next:
Click here to return to The Top Of The Front PageOr to next entry Guede Hoax: Translation Of Lawyers Testimony #2 On Breakin Shows No Concrete Connection To Guede
Or to previous entry Knox Interrogation Hoax #17: Fifth Opportunity Knox Flunked: RS Supreme Court Appeal