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.
Posted by Peter Quennell on 03/13/09 at 04:08 PM in The officially involved, Police and CSI, Evidence & Witnesses, Other witnesses, Trials 2008 & 2009
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 Sky News Video Of Meredith’s Final Moments Outside DRAFT
Or to previous entry Trial: The Process Resumes: The Court Agenda For Friday And Saturday