![](https://truejustice.org/ee/images/website/tjmkfrontpage.jpg)
Breaking news: In its August 9th report the Florence Court again explains why Knox is guilty of unprovoked calunnia against Patrick - and left him in prison for several weeks. Very hard line, hits back against the Supreme Court's overruling of Florence in 2015. We hope to have it up in English by month's end. So Knox's deeply dishonest smear of the investigators in court in June had zero effect.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Trial: Proceedings Resume, The Agenda For Friday And Saturday Is 11 Witnesses
Posted by Peter Quennell
Eleven witnesses are scheduled - and they are probably about to provide some really dramatic testimony.
On Friday, the police experts who analysed the locations and activities of the phones relevant to the case will take the stand. The phones in question include Meredith’s two mobile phones (one of which was in Filomena’s name) which may have been removed from the house to prevent Meredith from calling for help as she lay dying.
They were both tossed into a garden very close to Sollecito’s and Guede’s places. The finding and reporting of one of the phones resulted in the Communication Police visiting Meredith’s house, where they have testified they found Knox and Sollecito outside apparently quite startled, with a mop and a bucket and the washing machine still running just inside.
One issue is whether anyone tried to use one of Meredith’s phones to communicate deliberately with Meredith’s password-protected bank account in the UK. Her rent money of course disappeared at the time of the murder, and Guede, Sollecito and Knox may all have been low on funds.
There should be confirmation that Sollecito’s father called Sollecito on his apartment’s land-line very late on the evening of the crime. His call went unresponded-to, perhaps because nobody was home at the time.
And there should be confirmation that Sollecito’s and Knox’s mobiles were turned off more or less simultaneously at Sollecito’s house less than an hour before the crime against Meredith took place, and that at least one of them was switched back on before daybreak the next morning, at a time when Knox and Sollecito have both claimed to have been asleep.
On Saturday, the manager of the Conad supermarket in lower Via Garibaldi (in Sollecito’s street, and about 200 meters from Meredith’s house) will give testimony on whether Knox was seen in the supermarket early on the morning after the crime, and whether any bleach was sold. His previous statement included this:
I saw Amanda, on the morning they found the body of Meredith, doing some shopping at around 7.45am,” the witness, whose name has not yet been released, claimed.
“She was in the part of the shop where they keep detergents, but I couldn’t say for sure if she bought anything,” the man was quoted as saying by the Giornale dell’Umbria newspaper.
“I thought it was very strange for a student to be out so early in the morning. That morning was virtually a holiday, there were no lectures, if there had been I could understand her being up so early.”
Also on Saturday, the boyfriend of Alessandra Formica who apparently saw a black man similar to Guede running up the stairs near the house will testify. He and his girlfriend are often referred to as the diners, and they were returning to their parked car at the time. This could be vital to a firm timeline.
And also on Saturday the man sitting on a bench in the Piazza Grimana, from which the gate of Meredith’s house can easily be seen, is expected to testify that Knox and Sollecito came and sat nearby, late in the evening, and seemed to be keeping an anxious eye on that gate.
The timing of that action appears to be just minutes after a neighbor whose apartment looks onto the house heard a terrible scream and then footsteps running from the house in several directions.
Knox’s stepfather Chris Mellas is expected to again be present. He doesn’t speak Italian. Nevertheless, his spin on the above is awaited with great interest.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
What Are The Judges And Jury Now Thinking? The Current Position Of AK And RS
Posted by Brian S
When nothing else works, the mantra again becomes “I simply don’t remember”.
Attempts have been made at various alibis, but as each of them fall flat or collide, the fall-back position becomes one of blackouts on the night.
I view this with complete disbelief.
Although I was only a teenager at the time, I can remember exactly where I was and who I was with when somebody came into the room and said JFK had been shot.
I can remember where I was and who I was with when I watched on TV as a man first walked on the moon.
I can remember the business phone conversations I had on the afternoon (UK time) the World Trade Centre came down.
Because I can remember those “surreal” conversations, I can recall all the details of a work project in which I was involved in the days immediately preceding and following. I can even remember the pub lunch I had on the Sunday before, and the content of the casual conversations I had with colleagues after we finished the weekend portion of that same project. That was nearly eight years ago.
I can remember all of the details of some of the more traumatic or major events which have occurred in my own life.
I just can’t believe that RS and Ak can’t remember what they did the night Meredith was killed - even if they really are innocent, and didn’t find out about the murder until the next day.
Traumatic and other major events “fix the memory” pretty well forever. I can still remember much of my first day at school.
If AK and RS were “so far out of it” they can’t remember what they did on November 1st, then they can no more remember they didn’t kill Meredith than they can remember that they did.
Many people, even those innocent, may be tempted to “create a simple alibi” when first interviewed by the police. Especially if they have to admit to something like “we spent the night at home smoking cannabis” or they spent the night with the partner of their best friend.
And then in face of any contrary, damning facts, they usually suddenly grow a brain.
Let’s walk through what happened inb this case.
At their very first questioning, on the day after the murder, RS and AK said they wandered around town and then went to a party.
Within 3 days the police knew this wasn’t true, because of a trace on Raffaele’s phone movements. And so on November 5th, they called him back in to explain the anomaly.
They didn’t request Amanda’s attendance as well but she went along with Raffaele anyway.
It’s at this time that most innocent people will admit that they had lied earlier, as they don’t want to dig themselves in any deeper. They make their excuses now, and admit to what they were really doing.
Raffaele did now tell the police that his earlier story “was a load of rubbish he made up because he didn’t realise the inconsistencies in what Amanda had said”.
But he now said that he was home alone, doing things on his computer from sometime around 9:00pm when “Amanda went out to meet friends at Le Chic”. And that she didn’t come back until sometime around 1:00am.
As Amanda had conveniently made herself available at the police station with Raffaele, the investigators now asked her for her version of the evening too.
Faced with the removal of Raffaele’s alibi for her, and his saying that she went out to Le Chic (plus the admittedly misunderstood text message “see you later”) she now came up with the story “Patrick killed Meredith, and I was in the kitchen, with my hands over my ears”.
Over the following days, Amanda slowly withdrew from her accusation against Patrick and, following witness evidence which proved he was at Le Chic, came up with the third story that “Raffaele may say I went out, but that’s wrong. I did spend the evening with him.”
Unfortunately for her, Raffaele continued to maintain his story that he was home alone on his computer, and that Amanda went out, right through the stages of his appeals up to the appeal made to the Supreme Court last March, where he claimed that “the evidence against Amanda is being arbitrarily used against me on the erroneous assumption that we spent the evening together”.
To this day, Raffaele has not changed this assertion, nor provided any new version for the trial.
Currently, the judges and jury will know of the claims that Amanda says she was at home all evening with Raffaele. And that Raffaele says that he was at home alone and Amanda went out at around 9:00pm.
The judges and jury will understand that their current stories are conflicting, and that one or both can’t be true.
Two prongs of Raffaele’s alibi have already failed.
1) Evidence at the pre-trial proved that the mobile-phone tower which picked up the aborted call to Meredith’s bank proved nothing about the location of Meredith’s phones at the time the call happened.
2) Evidence already presented at the trial has proven that Raffaele did not use his computer past 9:10pm on the night Meredith was killed, and that statements made by both Amanda and Raffaele that they didn’t rise until approximately 10:30am the following morning have also been demonstrated as untrue. One or both of them played music on the computer at approximately 5:30am.
The evidence produced to date hasn’t proven that AK and RS killed Meredith, but it’s proven beyond any doubt that both AK and RS have been lying, and that their stories for the time in question don’t match.
Whatever else they may say now at the trial, can the judges and jury (or we the public) actually be expected to believe it?
Who will believe Raffaele now if he changes his story, for example to say that, yes, he really was at home with Amanda, and not on his computer that evening? That he’s now changed his mind, and actually Amanda didn’t go out to meet friends at Le Chic?
Why should anyone believe a word he says? Who could believe he’s suddenly recovered his memory and not just invented another story to fit with the changed circumstances in which he finds himself?
His credibility looks to be toast.
And who will believe another word from Amanda, if the external enquiry concludes that the police really didn’t hit her, and she is faced with a second charge of slander?
Remember Mignini acted instantly to ask for that inquiry when Amanda made her accusation in court. Assuming that tapes and records of her interview exist, and he knows full well what they will reveal.
Her credibility too looks to be toast.
So. What now? More statement somersaults? More mental fog?
Enjoy the show, judges, and jury.
Why Inflammatory Attempts By Knox Etc To Dupe And Militate Well-Intentioned Feminists Must Be Denied
Posted by Miss Represented
Only one victim here
In this post, without implying that the case against Raffaele Sollecito and Rudy Guede are in any way less important to the overall outcome of the case or justice for Meredith and her family, I would like to focus on the case against Amanda Knox as I believe it is extremely important for a number of reasons, most crucially in helping us to unlock secrets about the female gender, the crimes they commit and the reasons they may have for doing do.
I recently began thinking about Amanda in more detail as well as the society that created, unleashed and ultimately unraveled her.
I would like to point out at this stage that Amanda Knox is not the first female to be accused of such a heinous and brutal act against a fellow human being (nor will she be the last) but surprisingly this is the first real international case to be so publicly (and brutally) critical of a female defendant in a way that has become normal and totally acceptable when trying male defendants for similarly violent crimes. I believe the overwhelming fascination with Amanda Knox is that she has defied a feminist stereotype about the kinds of women that commit crime and the reasons they have for doing so and by doing this, people are more willing to be critical of her.
The idea of the feminist movement was to liberate women, give them access to better jobs, better rates of pay, a platform in important social and political matters as well equal rights and privileges alongside men in society. But feminism is a bit like communism, it only works on paper and this is because there are still a great number of women who demand the perks of being treated equally without also taking equal responsibility. Amanda Knox is a case in point and it makes me furious that other women are vocally (despite all the evidence so far) defending and hence condoning her actions simply because she is female. The victim was female too. She no longer has a voice and Amanda doesn’t need two! Amanda has a voice of her own and has already used it to tell an astronomical amount of malicious lies.
While we are on the subject of malicious, aggravated and astonishing lies, what was the tactless, omnipresent voice of the FOA saying last week? Apparently: ‘All you need is love.’ How charming, I’m sure the family of the young woman Amanda Knox is on trial for killing will bear that in mind *sighs*
The problem with feminism, coupled with the new and equally unworkable socialist idea that anyone can do anything they want, whenever they want and without thinking about the consequences, is that is has falsely encouraged young people (particularly women like Amanda) in the notion that they are invincible and that no matter what happens somebody will always be there to pick up the pieces and clean up the mess (even murder). Young women like Amanda are born underneath an idealistic umbrella and brought up safe in the knowledge that they can be anything they want to be or have anything they want to have just by demanding it (go look at Cosmopolitan and Teen Vogue if you don’t believe me).
Sexual liberation is another contentious issue (Amanda again is a case in point), nobody is saying you can’t be sexually liberated , it’s just that some people don’t want to have a pink rampant rabbit vibrator practically shoved in their face in order to let everyone know how absolutely wonderful is it to be able to have random sex on a train with whoever they like and all in the name of being sexually liberated. So childish and unnecessary.
Feminism has formed the dangerous and uncontrollable principle that all women are equal because they say they are and anyone that disagrees is anti-women, even if you point out how they refuse to accept responsibility for bad things they have done. You cannot condone behaviour for women that would simply be unacceptable for men. I condone equality amongst both sexes but wish more women would take responsibility too! That’s feminism.
Kids are brought up to believe they can do anything they like, why then are we surprised when someone gets hurt or killed?
Kids like Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy were brought up around these ideas, believing that other people exist to parasite off and to clean up their mess when they go out into the world and leave in their wake absolute havoc, mayhem and destruction.
I’ve noticed that most feminists who are reading or writing about this case are squealing about the ‘total injustice being done to Amanda-wa-wa-wa!’ by the horrible, horrible, nasty Italian men, seemingly forgetting that it would be these same men that would be in charge of ensuring justice was served had it been Amanda Knox who’d been brutally killed that night.
So to the people that have been using gender as an excuse for why Amanda should be given a slap on the wrist and promptly flown back to Seattle on a private jet with a hand-written note of apology from prosecutor Mignini, I’d like to say this: the victim is still a victim and the perpetrator is still a perpetrator, regardless of who the victim happens to be and regardless of the gender of said perpetrator. This is called justice you can find it in the dictionary. Under ‘J’ you can also find the word gender under ‘G’, I hope you’ve noticed they are separate words, start with separate letters and are should be completely and utterly unrelated.
Luckily, it seems the idea of ‘selective justice’ (i.e. one rule for me and another for my male friend here) is not very popular in Italy, where Amanda is currently being held equally responsible to her male counterparts for murder and sexual violence. As we all knew it would, the truth is gradually coming out, ugly as it is, and remember it’s only just begun. The case is unique and important, not because of what she did, but because of the equal way she is being prosecuted.
I urge you all to put aside your preconceptions and look at the evidence closely, justice for Meredith depends on it.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Sollecito Not To Be Trumped By Knox Antics In The Female Wing Of Capanne
Posted by Peter Quennell
[above: Sollecito in court last saturday]
Raffaele Sollecito is the low-profile guy in the UK and US media.
But not in Italy. Apparently he works daily to build a sympathetic readership via the media of Puglia, the southern province where he hails from.
This report is typical. It has him missing his pork hamburgers (“un panino alla piastra con porchetta”) and generally lamenting his lot in life.
He yet again claims to be stunned to be where he is, and hopes to be reunited soon with his his urologist father and his sister, a lieutenant in the police.
He misses his discotech, his music, and his kick-boxing. He is upset that his mother’s death is widely labeled a siuicide (the full story on her death has never come out).
He has his hair cut by a fellow prisoner who is not a professional barber and who had to be psychologically tested before handling the shears and the scalpel.
There’s not ever very much about Perugia. There’s been no mention lately of Amanda Knox. And no mention ever of Meredith.
To Sollecito, Meredith is apparently a non-person.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Outcome Of Back-Seat Driving: Defense Lawyers Pulling Their Hair Out? Again?
Posted by Peter Quennell
1) Stepfather Chris Mellas
Mr Mellas as reported on Saturday:
He had spoken to Ms Knox on the eve of the hearing. “I told her she’s innocent and she needs to speak up for herself.”
2) Prosecutor Giuliano Mignini
Dr Mignini as reported on Sunday.
The newspaper Corriere dell’ Umbria said that Giuliano Mignini, the prosecutor, would bring an additional charge of slander against Ms Knox, since all police officers and interpreters who have given evidence at the trial have testified under oath that she was at no stage put under pressure or physically mistreated.
3) Stepfather Chris Mellas as reported on Monday:
Ooops. Did I just cost her 6 more years? Maybe her lawyers really can advise Amanda better than an amateur who doesn’t speak the language.
I’m on the next plane outta here. Sorry, kid, and all that. Still friends, though, right?
Okay, we made that last one up. But maybe even Amanda Knox is now thinking this way?
4) Times Report - Full Quote
The [UK] Times
Richard Owen, Rome
March 15, 2009
Amanda Knox, the American student charged with the murder and sexual assault of Meredith Kercher, faces an additional charge of slander for claiming that police struck her while she was being questioned.
At the latest hearings in her trial in Perugia, Ms Knox claimed that police had put her under psychological and physical pressure to admit that she was present at the murder.
Ms Knox, who has the right to address the court at any time during her trial, was reacting to evidence from Anna Donnino, a police interpreter who claimed that Ms Knox had behaved “as if a weight had been lifted from her” when she admitted that she had been at the scene of the crime and accused Patrick Diya Lumumba, a Congolese bar owner for whom she worked part-time, of the killing. Ms Knox told police that she had covered her ears in the kitchen to block out Ms Kercher’s screams.
Ms Donnino said that when questioned after Ms Kercher’s body was found, Ms Knox walked up and down nervously at the police station, “hitting her head with her hands”. She had denied responding to an SMS message from Mr Lumumba telling her there was no need to come to work because there were few customers, leaving her free for the evening. But she broke down when police said phone records showed that she had done so, Ms Donnino said.
“She showed extreme emotional involvement ““ she was crying and visibly shocked, saying ‘It was him, it was him. He’s bad’,” Ms Donnino added.
Ms Knox, speaking in fluent Italian, said police had called her a “stupid liar” during “hours and hours” of questioning during which she had stuck to her story that she spent the night of the murder at the flat of Raffaele Sollecito, her former boyfriend and co-accused.
She said that Ms Donnino had suggested to her “that probably I didn’t remember well because I was traumatised, so I should try to remember something else”. There had been an “aggressive insistence” on the text message she had received from Mr Lumumba, Ms Knox said. She insisted she had been slapped on the head by police, adding “I’m sorry, but it’s true”.
Ms Donnino said that Ms Knox had been “comforted” by police, given food and drink, and had at no stage been hit or threatened.
The newspaper Corriere dell’ Umbria said that Giuliano Mignini, the prosecutor, would bring an additional charge of slander against Ms Knox, since all police officers and interpreters who have given evidence at the trial have testified under oath that she was at no stage put under pressure or physically mistreated.
Ms Kercher’s semi-naked body was found under a duvet on the floor of her bedroom in November 2007, at the hillside cottage in Perugia she shared with Ms Knox and two Italian women. She had been stabbed in the throat.
The prosecution accuses Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito of murdering and sexually assaulting Ms Kercher with Rudy Guede, an Ivory Coast immigrant who was given a 30-year sentence last October for the crime under fast-track procedures. He began his appeal last week, claiming Ms Knox had killed Ms Kercher in a row over stolen cash.
The all-night interrogation in which Ms Knox accused Mr Lumumba and described blocking her ears was ruled inadmissible by Italy’s Supreme Court because no lawyer was present. However a voluntary statement written by Ms Knox in English repeating this scenario has been accepted as court evidence despite defence protests. The defence claims Ms Knox was not at the cottage during the murder but at Mr Sollecito’s flat.
Mr Lumumba, who was arrested but later released without charge, is suing Ms Knox for defamation. He is also seeking damages for wrongful imprisonment.
Aida Colontane, another police interpreter, told the court that she had noticed a red mark on Ms Knox’s neck which “leapt out” from her “extraordinary pallor”. Laura Mezzetti, one of the Italian flatmates of Ms Knox and Ms Kercher, has also testified that Ms Knox had a red mark on her neck. Curt Knox, Ms Knox’s father, has suggested the mark was a love bite.
Fabio D’Astolto, an English-speaking police officer who helped to question Ms Knox, told the court that she and Mr Sollecito had behaved strangely, kissing and cuddling and talking together in low voices. A number of other witnesses have given the same testimony.
Mr D’Astolto said he had ensured that Ms Knox understood procedures and questions at all times. Daniele Moscatelli, another police officer, said officers had confiscated a long knife from Mr Sollecito, who had explained to them that he collected knives as a hobby. Mr Sollecito appeared confused and nervous during questioning, he said.
At the last hearings two weeks ago the court was told that Ms Knox had done cartwheels and the splits while waiting to be questioned by police. However Chris Mellas, her stepfather, who is attending the trial, said that his stepdaughter was doing yoga exercises and a police officer had asked her to do gymnastics, remarking “You look rather flexible”.
Oreste Volturno, the police officer who led a search of Mr Sollecito’s flat, said he had been struck by “the powerful smell of bleach”. The prosecution says the kitchen knife found at the flat which is presumed to be the murder weapon had been scrubbed with bleach in an attempt to erase blood and DNA traces.
The court was told that police investigating Ms Knox had tapped her phone calls and intercepted her correspondence before and after her arrest, including an email to friends in Seattle in which she claimed that she had found Ms Kercher’s body. She had written and received around 600 letters over a six-month period, all of which were intercepted and then translated by a team of four police interpreters. Her conversations with prison visitors were also recorded.
Francesco Maresca, the lawyer for the Kercher family, said that the suspects’ alibi that they had spent the night of the murder at Mr Sollecito’s flat had collapsed after Marco Trotta, a police computer expert, said that tests on Mr Sollecito’s computer showed that nobody had used it on the night that Ms Kercher was stabbed to death. Mr Sollecito claims he was at his flat working on his computer at the time of the murder.
Mr Trotta said tests his team had carried out on Mr Sollecito’s computer showed “no human interaction” between 9.10pm on November 1 and 5.32am on November 2, 2007. Ms Kercher’s body was found in the late morning of November 2 but she is believed to have died between 9pm and 11pm the night before.
Mr Sollecito says that he downloaded and watched the film Amelie during the night. However, Mr Trotta said that the film had been watched at around 6.30pm. Ms Kercher returned to the cottage she shared with Ms Knox at about 9pm.
Ms Knox’s Italian language teacher in Perugia, Antonella Negri, told the court that as a class exercise Ms Knox had written a letter to her mother, after the discovery of her flatmate’s body but before her arrest. “In it she said she worried and confused and she wanted her mother to travel to Perugia so she could distract herself and they could go shopping together,” Ms Negri told the court. She said Ms Knox had referred to the murder at the start of the class. “She leaned forward on to the desk and lay her head in her arms.”
The trial resumes next Friday, when the six jurors are expected to tour the murder scene in an inspection requested by lawyers acting for Mr Sollecito. The prosecution claims Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito broke a window at the cottage to simulate a burglary, but the defence contests this.
The court was shown grainy CCTV images said to be of Ms Kercher returning to the house shortly before her death. The images were taken by a surveillance camera at the car park above the cottage. Defence lawyers said that the footage was of such poor quality that it should not be admitted as evidence.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Trial: Prosecution Witnesses Present Many More Reports On Odd Behavior Of Knox
Posted by Peter Quennell
1) Nick Pisa reported this in Sky News:
Tests found that nobody had worked on Raffaele Sollecito’s computer over an eight-hour period spanning the night when Ms Kercher was stabbed to death in her bedroom, prosecution witness Marco Trotta told an Italian court.
Sollecito has maintained he was at his own apartment the night of the murder, working on his computer. Trotta showed the court videos and said there was “no human interaction” between 9:10 pm on November 1 and 5:32am the following day…
Ms Kercher is believed to have died between 9pm and 11pm on November 1, according to court documents.
2) Other reports from the trial state that the playing of the 90-minute movie “Amelie” from 6:37 pm was the last detectable major action. The 9:10 pm action appears to have been simply the closing of a program that was running.
3) Sollecito’s lawyer Giulia Bongiorno claimed in the trial that while “this computer may or may not be proof or evidence of an alibi” it had proved impossible for the communication police ‘to read data on four of the five machines seized [two belonging to Sollecito, one to Knox, one to Meredith and one to Guede] three of which have suffered electric shocks” and that the reconstruction of the evening’s computer actions “provided only partial and fragmentary data.”
4) The lawyer Francesco Maresca, who represents the Kercher family as a civil party, observed that for him “one of the alibis collapses” because the findings indicate that in the period of the murder there was no human interaction with the computer.
5) Nick Squires reported this in the Daily Telegraph:
The American’s former teacher told the court that four days after the murder she told her class to practise their Italian by writing a letter home.
Miss Knox penned a letter to her mother in Seattle in which she said she was “confused and worried” and that as a way of distracting herself she wanted to going shopping.
The teacher, Antonella Negri, described Miss Knox as “diligent” and “attentive”. She said that at the beginning of the lesson she had made reference to Miss Kercher’s murder. “I saw in Amanda a reaction of discomfort,” Mrs Negri told the court. “She leant forward onto the desk and lay her head in her arms.”
6) John Hooper reported this in the UK Guardian:
Earlier today, another police interpreter described noticing a red mark on Knox’s neck. Aida Colantone said Knox was in the police station at Perugia.
“Since her throat was bare ““ she had a blue tracksuit with the zip in front ““ I was struck in my mind by the extraordinary pallor of this girl from which a red mark leaped out,” she said.
7) Nick Pisa reported this in the Daily Mirror:
The pretty American - known as Foxy Knoxy - is accused with her ex-lover Raffaele Sollecito, 24, of murdering British student Meredith, 21. She could now face a second slander charge after claiming in court she had been hit by police during questioning.
8) And Richard Owen reported this in the London Times:
Chris Mellas, Ms Knox’s stepfather, told journalists at the court that the police investigation was flawed.
Mr Mellas, 35, an IT consultant, said that he had visited Ms Knox three times in prison.
“She is doing OK,” he said. “These things stress her out, and it’s hard for her to see the overall picture. I sit down and tell her that is not going so bad, that the prosecution haven’t really brought anything up in court yet.”
Asked if he shared the defence view that the police inquiry had been mishandled and evidence contaminated, he said: “I think particular portions of it have not been done appropriately, and the court is seeing that as well. We will see how it was conducted.”
He said that Ms Knox was “completely innocent”. There had “not been a day” when he “even considered” doubting her. There is no evidence against Amanda”.... He had spoken to Ms Knox on the eve of the hearing. “I told her she’s innocent and she needs to speak up for herself.”
Asked for his opinion of the Italian justice system he said: “It is different from ours, but I’m sure it will end up OK. As soon as this is done she will want to rejoin her family and friends. But do I think she will come back to Perugia? Most certainly.”
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Trial: Sky News Video Report On Friday’s Court Session
Posted by Peter Quennell
Trial: More Testimony On Knox Acting Weird After Meredith Was Murdered (2)
Posted by Peter Quennell
Testimony of Chief Inspector Oreste Volturno
This post spills over from the post immediately below.
Translation here is by Catnip. As mentioned in today’s court report, Chief Inspector Oreste Volturno took part in the search of Raffaele’s place; and investigated when and where the bleach found there was purchased.
He investigated the 20 euro withdrawal reported on Meredith’s account, and tried to track down Raffaele’s school and police records. He also participated in the seizure of material from the Telenorba TV station after their broadcast had gone to air.
Transcript of testimony given in the hearing of 13 March 2009, pp 177-211
Depositions of the witness Oreste Volturno
The witness, admonished pursuant to Article 497 of the Criminal Procedure Code, reads the oath.
Particulars: Chief Inspector Oreste Volturno, in service with the Flying Squad, Perugia Police; born at Montegabbione (TR), 12 June 1956.
President: Please.
Public Prosecutor, Dr Mignini
QUESTION: You have carried out investigations on the death of Meredith Kercher?
ANSWER: Yes.Q: Do you remember what type of investigative tasks you carried out? First list them, then describe them.
A: In practice the first investigative task that I carried out was as regards two containers of Ace bleach that had been seized at Raffaele Sollecito’s house on 16 November 2007. Immediately after the seizure I went around the shops in the environs of Raffaele Sollecito’s place of residence trying to understand from where they could have been purchased from, and for this purpose I was showing people the photograph of Raffaele Sollecito, the photograph of Amanda Knox. After a couple of days we tracked down the shop which was a Conad-Margherita shop situated right at the start of Corso Garibaldi, where both the owner and the shop assistants were to identify, from the photographs that we placed before them, [178] Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox. Raffaele Sollecito was a usual customer of this shop, while the girl had been seen two or three times in his company.Q: Together with Sollecito?
A: Yes, yes, in his company. In this shop we asked also if by chance they had noticed in the days immediately prior to the murder or straight after if they remembered whether these persons had acquired this product, although they didn’t remember. I have to preface this with the shop is subdivided into two levels, one is higher up where the entrance is and the other is lower down. The one higher up is where all the products are that people take and then go straight to the cashier, while the one below is the delicatessen, cheeses, etc etc where there were two girls working, in addition to the owner, who I think I remember was called Quintavalle. One in particular, an Ecuadorian girl, at the time I recall that it was interesting, she said to us that she had a friend who was doing the cleaning at Raffaele Sollecito’s house and she indicated the cellular device with which we then contacted her, although as for the bleach nothing came out of it, either a person or a mention of something. We were checking that”¦Q: What was this woman called?
A: (Kiriboga) “¦ the rest I don’t remember. It was actually through the mobile phone number that she furnished that led us to the person who was then doing the cleaning at that time, up until 5 November, the last day that she did the cleaning, and another Ecuadorian girl who was called Natalia. This one was interviewed on the record but she wasn’t able to tell us anything about this bleach. Then subsequent to this episode (Kiriboga) was also heard, she furnished us a version where she said actually that this bleach had been seen by her in Sollecito’s house and that in any case a container [179] had been said, had been bought by Raffaele Sollecito at her request. I asked her why she hadn’t mentioned it at the time that I asked her, the first day, in the days immediately after the search, that is between 16 and 19 November, and she said to me that the same questions had been asked at the firm of Counsellor Maori and that at the time she didn’t recall this fact, but after having been at Counsellor Maori’s she remembers having bought this bleach. However the investigations proceeded onwards because I asked the owner of the shop if by means of the product barcode it was possible to go back to the period in which it was handed over or sold or at the least ordered and which company was the supplier of this bleach. He told me that the company was a Ponte San Giovanni company I believe, the PAC, and I contacted the person responsible in the detergents department who was a Mr Cicognola, I think, who told me that being a product without an expiry he was not obliged by law to memorise it, that is computerise it, and so he was not able to uncover precisely the shop at which it had been sold, at the time. He furnished us information however, namely the boxes were of 18 containers each and had been consigned to Quintavalle’s shop which was a Conad-Margherita, the same label that was on the container seized at Sollecito’s house dated 1 October, 11 November and 5 November the last consignment. Another box of the same product had been consigned to another Conad-Margherita shop which is located about 50 metres further up from Raffaele Sollecito’s place of residence, whose owner now I don’t remember. Until 11 October the recommended PAC price for this product was 0.85 euro, while from 11 October onwards the recommended price was 1.09 because he says that before there was a more favourable market and [180] so they had a lower price, although no one was able to rule out that in any case the product being at the old price might have been among the others and then purchased for 0.85, the price that then turned out to have been applied to the container seized from Sollecito’s house. As regards this investigation about the bleach, nothing else was done.Q: You were in Sollecito’s house?
A: Yes, I had been on two occasions. The first occasion was on the 8th of November during a search when different types of apparel were seized, I seem to recall. On a second occasion on the 16 November”¦Q: Let’s go in order; the 8th, did you all have footwear and gloves?
A: Yes, yes, we always have footwear and gloves because we’ve got them in the car, they’re from the office.Q: New?
A: Yes, they’re taken from the boxes as needed from time to time.Q: So you’d entered on the 8th?
A: We had entered the first time on the 8th and I remember that numerous items of apparel were seized, underwear, jumper”¦Q: Was there a particular smell there on the 8th?
A: Yes, there was a smell of bleach permeating the inside of the apartment because it was sealed and we broke the seals because it had been sequestered prior.Q: These items of clothing, where had you put them?
A: The items of clothing were pointed out to our colleagues from the Scientific Police who were taking them and putting them into paper envelopes, one by one and then they were sealed and catalogued inside a big box.Q: So they actually also had overalls?
[181] A: Our colleagues from the Scientifica yes, we only had the footwear and gloves.Q: And then, the second time?
A: The second time was the 16th of November although I had not gone inside the apartment because the footwear had run out and I stayed outside on the landing cataloguing the items of evidence that were being handed over to me in envelopes and I was putting them into a big box.Q: You had gloves on, though?
A: Yes, yes, I had gloves on.Q: Other investigative tasks?
A: One other investigative task had been carried by me personally on Ms Kercher’s credit cards, because from an account statement extract that had been faxed to us by her parents there was a 20 euro withdrawal at the IMI-San Paolo in Perugia. I contacted them, I believe around the first part of the month of December 2008, I think the 8th, the 9th or the 10th, I don’t recall now precisely, I contacted the manager of the bank, of the IMI-San Paolo in the person of Dr Farsi and I asked him if it were possible to trace back the person who had made this withdrawal or at the least verify that this withdrawal had been made. I also asked him if there were security cameras and he said to me: “Yes, there are, although the security camera only covers the bank entrance and not the ATM, but in any case the video cassettes are reset each week”, time had already passed because the account extract had been faxed to us towards the end of the month of November by the Kercher family, I did the first investigations on it on the 10th of December, or on the 8th of December, so from the 2nd of November more than a month had gone by and the recordings had already been reset multiple times. Mr Farsi examined the funds journals of all four ATMs, of the head office and the branches that there are in Perugia and responded to me by [182] letter that according to the journals there was no withdrawal of that kind neither on the 2nd of November nor in the days preceding”¦Q: Do you recognise it?
A: Yes, it’s this one.Q: I don’t know if it is in the evidence file, otherwise I ask for its production.
President: What is it?
A: It’s the reply of the San Paolo bank corporation as regards the investigations on the withdrawal of the 20 euro.Defence ““ Ghirga: What date is this letter?
Public Prosecutor ““ Dr Mignini: 4 January 2008
A: Actually he in his letter was telling me that that 20 euro withdrawal, that sum hadn’t been done neither on the 2nd of November nor in the days immediately preceding and that practically at this point the investigations were at a standstill because there being no withdrawal there was no”¦Q: I ask its production then.
Defence ““ Bongiorno: Mr President, it’s a finding on what we have done, as everyone will recall, a question the other time to a witness and the reply was given that there were no further investigative activities. Up until today, that letter was not in the file, we want to peruse it and give our opinion tomorrow maybe.
President: Certainly. We can proceed in the meantime.Public Prosecutor ““ Dr Mignini: Other investigative activities that you all had carried out and that you yourself had participated in?
A: Other investigative activities that had been carried out by me personally were activities concerning an authorization or power of attorney, a authorization of his as regards Giovinazzo, at the [183] schools attended by Sollecito.Q: What had you found out in particular? Was it an activity integral with the investigation?
A: Yes, actually from examining the class rolls, the boy’s personal file and everything what we were looking for was not found, that is, a fact that had happened at school. Amongst other things it wasn’t possible to verify it because the class rolls from 2003, which is the last year that Raffaele Sollecito attended secondary school, every five years they’re sent for pulping and so we had arrived when they had already been pulped, for this reason this investigative task was not able to be carried out.Q: What were you supposed to have been doing?
A: Whether there had been the wounding of a girl on the part of Raffaele Sollecito during the course of school lessons. I preface this with the headmaster of the middle school, at the time the headmaster of the middle school attended by Raffaele Sollecito, that he had also been interviewed for summary information [SI] by me personally, he provided a certain resistance, as if he wanted to hide something. This I believe I also had him”¦Defence ““ Bongiorno: Mr President, these are”¦
President: Maybe if you can refer to the behaviour he had displayed.
Defence ““ Bongiorno: Mr President, also as to the modality, for heaven’s sake, I don’t believe it’s a prohibition that they are referring to things heard in interview, but if they are however witnesses heard in interview, then they have to be heard or not or he gives us a summary and then we hear them or else he really avoids commenting every time.
A: Counsel, I have said in summary what I have heard and [184] in my view it was omertoso {=mafia code of silence}.Defence ““ Bongiorno: No, look that this cannot be put into the transcript!
President: Please! The parties will direct”¦
A: He was a little bit reticent.President: Let’s avoid this, “in my opinion” introduces an evaluation and therefore he cannot express it, only the behaviour that he dsiplayed, maybe if he has answered all questions or else some question he hasn’t.
A: He has answered all questions, but in a very vague manner.President: Please.
Public Prosecutor ““ Dr Mignini: What other things had you found out specifically?
A: We had found at the Carabinieri station in Giovinazzo, in Sollecito’s file, there was a precedent signalled by the Carabinieri station at Castellaneta, in Taranto province, relating to the year 2003 I believe, when he had been stopped together with another two boys because they were in the possession of the quantity of two and half grams net of narcotic substance, in the form of hashish.Q: Then other things?
A: Then there were investigative tasks carried out in relation to the death of his mother. Investigations were made at the pathologist’s, at 118 [=the medical emergency number].President: Excuse me, pertinent matters.
Public Prosecutor ““ Dr Mignini: Well, this one about the substance”¦
[185] President: Yes, the substance yes, but he was introducing other things.
Public Prosecutor ““ Dr Mignini: Other investigations that you have carried out?
A: I did phone and ambient intercepts.Q: What investigative leads emerged from the ambient and telephonic intercepts?
A: Investigative leads actually hardly any although all the activity that had been done had demonstrated that, on the part of the family, there was an intention to quicksand, to derail”¦Intervention: It’s not possible!
President: Excuse me, excuse me everyone. If you’re able to say the facts, the specific circumstances.
A: There are several things”¦Public Prosecutor ““ Dr Mignini: Those are facts though, it’s not an opinion, then if it’s true or not”¦
President: By what thing was this behaviour manifested that you are now summarising, but the summary constitutes an evaluation.
A: Actually they wanted to eliminate the personnel who were carrying out the investigations, whether professionally or physically.President: What emerged under that aspect?
A: Menaces, political contacts, those Honourables currently in Government, like the Honourable Nania, the Honourable Formisana, the Honourable Mastella who were going to have to intervene to find a way to put an end to this thing and this before Cassation’s decision, then evidently, after Cassation’s decision, these [186] persons detached themselves, I don’t know, however the names were”¦President: Cassation’s decision relating to the Re-examination Hearing?
A: Yes, to the Re-examination Hearing. These persons were named and they’re in the phone intercepts, with the records, the transcripts and everything.President: Please.
Public Prosecutor ““ Dr Mignini: You carried out other investigative tasks?
A: No.Q: Do you recall a dossier that was acquired, was it acquired relative to everything an investigative task that had been effected?
A: Yes, the dossier had not been acquired, it had been seized and is still under seizure.President: If you can be more precise about this thing that we know nothing about”¦ what does it concern?
A: It concerns a dossier where actually the Sollecito family, with this dossier, wanted to carry out a media attack on the investigations under way, on the Public Prosecutors who were following up on the case and everything else and it was given to the Telenorba television station and also to the Panorama newspaper, and even on this matter there are the phone intercepts that we have been talking about. Then it had been seized because a warrant writ had been made and our personnel went to the Telenorba headquarters and seized this dossier with the video-cassettes.Public Prosecutor ““ Dr Mignini: And on the occasion of the publication of the images?
A: Yes, the images had been”¦ On the occasion of the publication of the images in a transmission, which now I don’t remember the name of, which had been transmitted by [187] Telenorba.Q: Images that portrayed?
A: Portraying the body of Ms Kercher completely naked in the middle of the room and other things.Q: No other questions.
President: The Civil Parties? No other question. The defence, please.
Defence ““ Maori: Counsellor Maori, Sollecito defence. Inspector Volturno, let’s start in order: investigation that you did in relation to the infamous bleach. You made service notes?
A: Yes.Q: Can you tell us which ones they are?
A: There’s one for the 19th”¦Q: Pick it up if you have it. And one from the 28th.
A: Yes.President: You are authorised to consult your documents.
Defence ““ Maori: Let’s start from the 19th; so you make this service note where you refer to the activity that you carried out a couple of days before?
A: From the 16th to the 19th, from the day the two containers had been seized to the 19th on which I make the note.Q: Exactly. You took various people’s witness statements.
A: No, I had questioned them informally at the shop, not as for a statement.Q: Who did you question?
A: Quintavalle, (Kiriboga) because she’s his shop assistant and the other girl whose name I don’t recall now.Q: This Natalia.
[188] A: No, Natalia was not at the shop as a shop assistant, Natalia was the friend of (Kiriboga) who was doing the cleaning in Sollecito’s house, but she wasn’t working in the shop.Q: You have said earlier that you had photographs of Amanda and Raffaele.
A: Exactly.Q: And you had shown them to the persons who were to be found inside the food store?
A: Yes.Q: So therefore both the owner and the shop assistants.
A: Yes.Q: And you had asked if these persons had presented themselves or not inside the shop in the preceding days.
A: No, I had asked if they were customers of the shop, because I did that with all the shops in Corso Garibaldi, not only with Quintavalle, showing them the photos I was asking them if they were customers.Q: You though say different things in your notations, not different, in the sense that you specify that you had questioned the owner, Mr Quintavalle, and he mentioned that Sollecito was one of his usual customers and that Ms Knox had come into the shop only on a couple of occasions together with the boyfriend.
A: Yes.Q: You confirm this?
A: Certainly, it’s written in the notation.Q: Shortly we will ask for the acquisition, the production of the two notations. Therefore in these words Mr Quintavalle made it known that Sollecito and Amanda Knox “¦ so, Amanda Knox had entered into the residence always in the company of Sollecito?
A: Yes, into the shop, on those two occasions on which she had entered she had entered always in the company of Sollecito.Q: How come these were not annotated, an SI statement was not done?
[189] A: Because the notation is enough for me.Q: They’re two different things.
A: Yes, but as regards the investigative tasks I informally question them and put in annotations, that’s also investigating.Q: On that occasion, that is I’m still talking of the 19th, had (Kiriboga) been asked if she had been Sollecito’s maid?
A: No, although given that I had asked”¦ wait, I had asked the owner and both the two assistants if they had ever seen these persons in the shop and they said to me: “yes, they’re usual customers, only that he comes more often and she’s come on a couple of occasions”. Then I asked if they had bought bleach in the days prior to the murder and nobody said to me: “no, I can’t say” and (Kiriboga) said to me: “I’m less able to say than Quintavalle because I’m located in the small goods section which is downstairs, while the bleach is on the side of the shop above under Mr Quintavalle’s supervision”.Q: But you hadn’t asked (Kiriboga) whether she had been Sollecito’s maid?
A: No, I hadn’t asked if she had been a maid.Q: You then had spoken of the fact that (Kiriboga) subsequently, when interviewed, had made it known that she had in her turn been interviewed by me.
A: Yes.
Q: This statement, that I had then immediately deposited and afterward it was reviewed by my learned friend, have you read it?
A: (Kiriboga)‘s statement?Q: My statement which I deposited.
A: No, I haven’t read it, I have mine.Q: You haven’t read it?
A: No, I’ve read mine, the one that I’ve taken from [190] (Kiriboga), I haven’t read yours.Q: (Kiriboga) during the course of the statement says that: “the same questions that were being put by you”¦” by you the police officers, were also being put by me.
A: Yes, she says, in fact it’s written in the statement.Q: Therefore you again confirm not having read the statement that I’ve deposited?
A: No, I haven’t read your statement. She says to me: “Counsellor Maori asked me the same questions” and I’ve put it into the statement.Q: Very good, there’s congruency between the questions on my part first and on your part subsequently. Let’s go the second; on what relates to the bleach, you on the 16th November effected a domestic search.
A: Yes, I was present at the search but I had not entered into the apartment.Q: Yes”¦
A: And on the 16th November the two containers of bleach were seized.President: In the house used by Raffaele Sollecito?
A: Yes.Defence ““ Maori: I see in the seizure record signed by you that as regards the Ace brand bleach “on the cap there was a small sticker Conad brand bearing the numbers 085”.
A: Yes.Q: Therefore signifying what?
A: 85 cents.Q: Therefore referring to the price.
A: To the price.Q: And how was this sticker?
A: Conad ““ Margherita.Q: But was it faded, was it old, was it new?
[191] A: This I don’t remember, there was a sticker, the price was visible and”¦Q: Who redacted the record actually?
A: Perhaps”¦Q: Pick it up so that at least we can see”¦
A: Yes.Q: Go to page 3, it’s the first item of evidence, exhibit RS3.
A: Yes.Q: Here it says: “digits ““ after the numbers 085, which you have clarified as being the purchase price ““ digits barely visible with a magnifying lens.”.
A: Yes.Q: Therefore signifying what?
A: That it was faded but the amount could be read.Q: Therefore it was an old sticker?
Public Prosecutor ““ Dr Comodi: No!
Defence ““ Maori: Pardon me, I am asking the questions because you Madam Prosecutor want to suggest”¦
President: Counsellor, please!
Public Prosecutor ““ Dr Comodi: You’re right because the no came out too loudly.
President: Here though we can’t hear even the witness, but everyone is asked to not do so.
A: 085 the sticker was barely legible.Q: Therefore was does it mean.
A: That it was a bottle”¦Q: You remember now this sticker that we’ve identified?
A: Yes, yes, definitely.[192] Q: Therefore was it an old sticker or a new one?
A: Old.Q: Therefore surely prior to the 11 October as you have indicated?
A: Definitely, but prior as a price.Q: As a purchase as we will see. In relation to the credit card the police had received the letter of 4 January 2008, in this letter the owner, manager Paolo Farsi, tells you that it is not possible to effect a check, a check relative to the fact that there had been withdrawals with that card on 2 November at the ATM in Perugia or environs, and this thing needed to be asked of the issuing bank directly.
A: Yes, not exactly.Q: I’m reading it here.
A: Mr Farsi says that on the 2nd November and in the days immediately following there was no withdrawal of that amount made at that bank. If we want to know something more precise it was necessary to go to the English bank issuing the credit card, which was not done because from the moment that he tells me that no withdrawal of that amount was made neither on the 2nd day nor in the preceding days I had not considered it advisable to carry out this investigation.Q: I’ll read out what has been written in this letter: “our central accounting, suitably appraised, informs us that”¦”
A: I have it.President: Yes, also to facilitate the witness’s listening. Continue Counsel.
Defence ““ Maori: “Our central accounting, suitably appraised, informs us that the only way to find out the information for that withdrawal [193] (branch involved, date and time) is to ask for this information from the English bank issuing the card itself, seeing that each issuing bank is certainly able to retrieve all the activity performed on each of its issued cards”. Then to my question, which you have already partially replied to, seeing that the 2nd of November, it was the 2nd of November from at least from the indications that had been given to you, that an ATM withdrawal had been made from the San Paolo bank, and seeing that the San Paolo bank had said to you: “it is necessary to ask the issuing bank to be certain who had made this withdrawal” why hadn’t you felt it within your scope to ask the English bank who had made this withdrawal at what time, on what date and at which branch?
A: Because I hadn’t thought it useful, because the period before this which you have read out tells me that on the 2nd of November nor on the days immediately preceding there was no 20 euro withdrawal either at the IMI-San Paolo bank in Perugia or from the other three branches in the province of Perugia.Q: And if this withdrawal were to have been made somewhere else, in the province of Terni, you know perfectly”¦ you’re an experienced police officer”¦
A: No because the account statement”¦President: Wait until the question is finished.
Defence ““ Maori: You’re an experienced police officer and you well know that all the ATMs have a security camera and therefore who, and if it were to have been withdrawn effectively on that 2nd of November by means of that credit card, the person who would have made the withdrawal [194] would have surely been captured by the camera. You’d never thought of this?
A: Counsel I have already said before that the check had been made, that the camera covers the entrance to the bank and not the ATM and we had received the account extract at the end of November and the bank resets the video every week. If I need to repeat it again just tell me!President: Don’t worry, it could also be useful to us because these are particularly technical subjects and therefore maybe sometimes”¦
Defence ““ Maori: Apart from which there’s the memory in the camera by which it is possible to effect”¦
President: Counsel we will take notice.
Defence ““ Maori: An experienced person like you would have had to effect”¦
A: In fact.President: Let’s only ask questions please.
Defence ““ Maori: I show you now this letter from National Wide, a fax from 30 November 2007, referring, precisely, to Miss Kercher, with the reference “cash San Paolo ““ IMI, Perugia, 20 euro of the 2nd November, AT 1440”, it’s information naturally in your possession.
A: I have it too in fact it’s IMI-San Paolo Perugia, not Terni, Counsel.Q: I never said Terni, I only said”¦
A: No, you said: “if it were to have been made at Terni”, I can tell you that for Perugia the investigations had been [195] made both at the central IMI-San Paolo office and at the three branches in the province of Perugia and the day journal of all four ATMs had no trace of this 20 euro withdrawal, neither on the 2nd nor the days before.Q: Therefore you didn’t feel it within your scope to ask the issuing bank”¦
A: No, for me that line of enquiry had finished.President: Counsel he has already given a reply to this, perhaps”¦
Defence ““ Maori: Maybe the face of the killer could have been found if things had proceeded differently! We take notice on this, it wasn’t done and therefore I’m not able to ask further questions on the point.
President: Please Counsel.
Defence ““ Maori: Investigations at Giovinazzo. You have spoken before in response to the Public Prosecutor’s question of the fact that you had investigative leads in relation to a wounding done by Sollecito at school and therefore you had gone to effect a transfer of these investigations. Had you seized the class rolls?
A: No, we had photocopied them and did authentications of various notes on various class rolls.Q: And which were the notes in relation to Sollecito, these serious notes?
A: No, they weren’t serious notes, they were notes in relation to Sollecito that we had however photocopied because we had considered it advisable to do so.Q: For example, “Sollecito plays with his pen notwithstanding [196] being reprimanded [196] for it”.
A: It was a note.Q: Therefore when a person is accused of murder you”¦
President: Excuse me, Counsel, let’s avoid opinions though! Let’s stay on circumstances of fact!
Defence ““ Maori: Another note: “Sollecito is throwing paper pellets at his classmate”.
A: Another note Counsel.Q: These are the notes that you have”¦
A: They are notes however that I had had the disposition to acquire, to verify, I had photocopied them and I had them authenticated.Q: You hadn’t found one note that Sollecito had wounded”¦
A: No, because”¦Q: Allow me to finish.
President: Excuse me, let’s always wait for the question to finish. Please Counsel.
Defence ““ Maori: You hadn’t found notes that Sollecito had wounded a classmate, boy or girl?
A: No because as I have already said before the school rolls of Molfetta Middle School, Einstein High School, Via Togliatti, had been sent for pulping because every five years they are sent for pulping and we found no trace in those rolls where maybe there was this note that we were looking for, but we had not been lucky.President: You were looking for this on the basis of what?
A: There was an investigative lead that there had occurred, an incident during Sollecito’s scholastic attendance, [197] where there had been a girl injured with scissors and we were looking for a note of the sort, but the rolls had been sent for pulping and we had not found it.
Defence ““ Maori: What does “lead” mean?
President: What were you aware of? That a girl had been injured with scissors?
A: Exactly, during Sollecito’s school attendance and we had gone to see if the class rolls, during middle school and high school, were holding a note that would have referred to this incident, but unfortunately the class rolls had been pulped.President: It could have been anyone in the class who could have occasioned this fact, not necessarily”¦
A: No, no, we had gone to see if there were a trace of this fact.President: And who it might have been?
A: Exactly.President: The hypothesis was that it could have been Raffaele Sollecito.
A: And we had gone to check, but the rolls were at the pulpers and so it had not been possible to look them up.President: You had not been able to find neither the truth of the fact nor the author?
A: Definitely.President: Please Counsel.
Defence ““ Maori: Just to clarify Mr President, seeing that your curiosity is also ours”¦
President: No it was a question pertinent to the question and the answer otherwise it would not have been able to be understood, it was not a curiosity. Please.
[198] Defence ““ Maori: This investigative lead what does it mean? Someone had said to you: “there was a wounding with scissors in Sollecito’s class”?
A: There had been report of this incident and we had gone to find out about it.Q: But what does “there had been report” mean? An informant?
A: An informant.Q: And this informant how”¦
A: I am not obliged to discuss informants.Q: The informant’s name no, this is true, but you are obliged to tell us in what manner this information had arrived, by phone, through a person who turned up at the Police Station and had made known that a boy or a girl had been injured, this you can say.
A: By word of mouth, an encounter on the street with a person who was aware of certain things and this fact had been mentioned to him and we had gone to find out.Q: And you found out that Sollecito was throwing paper pellets!
A: We had found out nothing because the rolls no longer existed.Q: And he was disrupting the lesson!
President: No, excuse me Counsel. Let’s stay solely on the questions. Please.
Defence ““ Maori: You before had made reference to ambient intercepts, quicksanding, etc”¦
A: Yes.Q: And there was reference to a proceeding in Cassation?
A: To an appeal in Cassation.Q: A proceeding before the Supreme Court of [199] of Cassation, therefore an appeal for Cassation. Given that neither myself, Counsel Maori, nor my learned friend, Counsel Bongiorno, were the defenders at the time of the proceedings in Cassation, I was only in on the phase on the merits, not for the proceedings in Cassation, and Counsel Bongiorno had not even been nominated for any kind of proceedings, can you explain what type of quicksanding would have been carried out by these gentlemen and then if there had been any final outcomes in relation to these intercepts?
A: I have not spoken about quicksanding, I spoke of attempts to derail and quicksand and tamper.President: Maybe these aspects can be circumstantiated.
A: There were intercepts Mr Justice on which I am not able to refer.President: Therefore we are directed to the contents of the intercepted conversations?
A: Exactly.President: Following these conversations however intercepted, about which you say you are not able to refer to, were you able though to carry out investigations, from succeeding investigative activity?
A: Yes, also following these intercepts the famous seizure was made of the dossier that had been made by the Sollecito family and that had been broadcast by Telenorba and by Panorama.Defence ““ Maori: Were criminal proceedings begun?
A: Yes, criminal proceedings were begun which however I don’t believe form part of these proceedings, they are different proceedings.Q: Do you know if the subjects have been investigated?
A: This I don’t know.
[200] Q: One other point Inspector. You in your experience have you done, not only in these proceedings but also in others, any activity directed with the prison for acquiring documents? In these proceedings you have acquired documents like memoirs, notebooks, from any of the accused?
A: No.Q: You are certain of this?
A: I don’t remember, show me the record but I haven’t acquired”¦Q: I’m not speaking of records, I’m speaking of”¦
A: If it was acquired there’s a record.Q: I am speaking of whether if you have ever received from a non-commissioned officer of the Penitentiary Police a notebook, a memoir of Raffaele Sollecito’s from around the middle of the month of November 2007?
A: No.Q: The notebook, this photocopied notebook, prison of Perugia, travel notes, which were the reflections of Raffaele Sollecito and which should have been handed over to us lawyers, were photocopied inside prison and they were handed over by whoever.
A: To me?Q: Can you confirm this circumstance or not?
A: I’m telling you no.President: Excuse me, Counsel. He has already twice replied no.
Defence ““ Maori: Let’s formalise his negative response in a more forceful manner, and then we will see in the course of the proceedings if his declarations are truthful or not. I ask its acquisition, or rather I would like to produce therefore I ask acquisition into the documents of the court file of the two annotations of the 19 November 2007, [201] of the 28 November 2007 of Inspector Volturno, as well as a copy of Raffaele Sollecito’s class rolls from Molfetta High’s third class, as well as a copy of the San Paolo corporation letter of 4 January 2008, signed by the manager Paolo Farsi.
A: Sorry for interrupting, those photocopies are from the Giovinazzo middle school, not from Molfetta High.Q: Yes, from the middle school.
President: So they’re from the middle school?
A: Yes, from the middle school because as I’ve been saying those from the high school”¦President: And how come, do they have a different practice?
A: They have a different archival philosophy.President: On these requests? But the Public Prosecutor had asked for the production of the San Paolo corporation letter.
Public Prosecutor ““ Dr Comodi: But why are we always making triplicate productions, we have already produced it.
Defence ““ Maori: It’s your letter.
President: The Public Prosecutor has produced the letter.
Public Prosecutor ““ Dr Comodi: Then it’s Public Prosecutor production.
President: Yes, it’s Public Prosecutor production and the others are Raffaele Sollecito Defence productions.Notice is taken that, given the absence of opposition, they are to be acquired for the purposes of utilisability.
Defence ““ Bongiorno
[202] Q: Counsel Bongiorno. Respecting the three politicians to which you have made reference to in the ambient intercepts, you have carried out subsequent investigations yourself personally, or did others, to see if these politicians had committed breaches, were they enrolled on the notification of crime register; or were they politicians, these three to which you have referred, mentioned in the ambit of conversations, and then that’s it, finished?
A: Mentioned in the ambit of conversations as persons to be looked at.Q: Have you investigated if then effectively these politicians had been contacted, had they pressured Cassation?
A: No.Q: Respecting instead the Telenorba thing”¦
President: Excuse me Counsel, you hadn’t investigated or else there were no”¦
A: No, I hadn’t investigated, they only emerged from the intercepts as persons who”¦Defence ““ Bongiorno: Because then confusion is created, in the intercepts there are these names, those that I have understood and he has confirmed to me, then they haven’t followed through on investigations on these matters and that’s it, finished. Instead the fact of Telenorba is a fact on which investigations do exist or don’t they.
A: There are investigations, the dossier had been seized.Q: Who’s following up on the investigations?
A: Bari I think.Q: The Public Prosecutor’s Office of Bari?
A: Yes.Q: With respect to these investigations, do you know what outcome they’ve reached?
A: No.Q: When were they begun?
A: I think after the seizure of the dossier, of the [203] video cassettes, of the materials.President: Therefore what period are we in?
A: This I don’t know, I don’t remember.Defence ““ Bongiorno: Do you know if case archivation was requested, or of remand to trial? You don’t know anything about this?
A: No, I don’t know.Q: That is you at that point, in terms of jurisdictional competency as to what was relating to the Telenorba matter, Bari was dealing with it. Is this the idea?
A: Definitely.Q: And so then you don’t know what”¦
A: No.Q: No other questions.
Defence ““ Dalla Vedova: Counsel Dalla Vedova for Ms Knox. I wanted two clarifications, the first in relation to the activity that you had carried out in dealing with the Marco Quintavalle matter.
A: Yes.Q: You have said that you had asked the manager of the commercial enterprise if he had ever seen the two accused.
A: Exactly.Q: Exactly what was the response?
A: He said that Sollecito was a usual customer while Amanda Knox had been seen on a couple of occasions in company with Sollecito.Q: You asked this question of the other managers?
A: Yes, I went round all the shops in the street, but the others hadn’t recognised them.Q: In Corso Garibaldi?
[204] A: Yes. The only other one who had recognised Sollecito’s photo was the other Conad above his place, where he had been seen one or two times, rarely however.Q: And Amanda?
A: No, Amanda no.Q: You carried out other investigations in the surrounding zones or just in Corso Garibaldi?
A: Corso Garibaldi and surrounding zones but I did not”¦Q: But still all business concerns?
A: Yes, business concerns that had that product on sale, the famous bleach that then had been seized, it was done due to that.Q: Therefore only business concerns that were selling this product, not in general?
A: Exactly, no.Q: In relation to another activity where you appear to have participated in, that is the 16 November search of Sollecito’s house, in the objects collected there appear the entire contents of the topmost drawer of the kitchen cupboard, specifically 6 spoons, 4 knives, 5 (..) , 2 ladles, 1 breadknife with serrated edge 35 cm in length in total. You are aware that there already had been, a seizure had been made from that same drawer of another knife?
A: This no because I had gone back to work on 7 November and the day after I did the first search in Sollecito’s house where the clothing and intimate apparel were seized and then the second time, the 16th, the one that you are referring to, I participated in the search but I didn’t enter inside the house and they were bringing me the envelopes that I was putting into a big box about which I’m not able to tell you what there was in the envelopes, I can see from the subsequent record.Q: I wanted to know whether you had already been ordered on a seizure”¦
[205] A: No, because I had come back to work on the 7th and that day when that seizure was done I wasn’t there.Q: Because it appears that”¦
A: The seizure of that knife that you are talking about had been done when I was still not back at work, I came back on the 7th.Q: However you knew that already”¦
A: No, I became aware gradually that investigations were going forward but I did not know that.Q: Therefore when did you come to know of it? On the 16th you had gone at 16:30”¦
A: Yes.Q: At 16:30 you already knew that in the case in hand Dr Chiacchiera and his assistants had already organised the seizure of a single knife on the 6th November.
A: I on the 16th knew what we had seized that day, not what had been seized prior because given that there were multiple apartments and a whole flood of”¦Q: No, I was not asking you if you knew.
A: No, I didn’t know.Q: I was asking if you knew if there had been a seizure already done at that house.
A: No I didn’t know, I came to know about it subsequently.Q: Therefore after your one?
A: After.Q: All the same you are aware that there exists a seized 31 cm knife with a 17cm blade retrieved from the same drawer?
A: If it’s that one in the kitchen yes.Q: You know today.
A: No, not today, I knew about it before but in any case not on the date you’re saying, subsequently.[206] Q: Thank you.
Public Prosecutor ““ Dr Mignini: You are aware of an article appearing in Panorama recently on the case containing an interview with members of the Sollecito family.
A: No, I am not aware of this.Q: Thank you.
Public Prosecutor ““ Dr Comodi: Let’s go back for a moment to the bleach. You have perfectly described the investigations that you did, including on the items, the various items that had been sent from PAC 2000 to the two shops in Corso Garibaldi, therefore I won’t go back to that because I imagine the Court has understood perfectly. You have also said that the bleach found, one of the two?
A: Yes.Q: One of the two containers found in Sollecito’s house had”¦ you can repeat it, a sticker?
A: The Conad-Margherita sticker with the price.Q: With the price?
A: 0.85.Q: Which therefore corresponded according to your investigations to what item?
A: To a consignment of bleach to one or other shop before the 11th of October.Q: And had they been sold out before the 11th?
A: No, usually the shopkeeper puts an order in for a new box when he sees they are getting close to finishing.Q: When was the subsequent reorder?
A: The subsequent consignment was the 5th of November and from the 11th of October the PAC-recommended price was €1.09, while up until the 11th of October it was €0.85.[207] Q: When you had spoken of an old sticker what did you mean?
A: That it was a bit worn on top.Q: And that the price was old?
A: No, the price was legible, with the magnifying lens you could in fact read it was corresponding to the price that was in force prior to the 11th of October.Q: When you had interviewed Raffaele Sollecito’s cleaning lady”¦
A: (Kiriboga) or Natalia?Q: The one you had asked”¦ let’s put it this way: what questions did you ask both of them as regards the bleach?
A: If they had ever used bleach inside Sollecito’s residence.Q: And what had they replied?
A: Natalia, who is the one who actually did the last cleaning, up to Monday 5th”¦Defence ““ Maori: Can we have the other two answer directly when they are heard?
Public Prosecutor ““ Dr Comodi: There is no prohibition on this because they are on the witness list.
Defence ““ Maori: I ask for the contents of the declarations!
Public Prosecutor ““ Dr Comodi: Yes, but they are on the witness list therefore there is no prohibition, the important thing is that the main witnesses are then heard.
Defence ““Maori: No, the member of the Prosecutor’s Office cannot answer on this.
Public Prosecutor ““ Dr Comodi: No, I can refer to it [208] then, why not?President: Excuse me, everybody”¦.
Public Prosecutor ““ Dr Comodi: We’re arguing a point of procedure, but you can mention the main things that were said to you and have been said to you.President: Therefore you had interviewed”¦
A: Yes, both the two girls who were doing the cleaning at Raffaele Sollecito’s house. Natalia, who was the one who had actually done the cleaning until 5 November 2007, had said that she had never used bleach because Raffaele Sollecito asked her to use Lysoform, that is she was using Lysoform inside Sollecito’s house, Viakal and other products but never bleach and she didn’t remember seeing the two containers under the sink. While (Kiriboga), when she was interviewed, subsequent to the meeting at the Maori law firm, said that a container had been used by her to wash the floor rags and for this reason she had asked Sollecito to buy some bleach, he went out and came back with another container which was likewise Ace bleach, same as the first, and with which she then washed those rags and remembered well that under the sink there were two containers, one half full and the other full.Q: And this washing when would it go back to?
A: So then (Kiriboga) told us she had been working as a cleaning lady at Sollecito’s house until the end of September, then due to the state of her pregnancy she sent her friend.Q: And how had you found these containers when you had seized them?
[209] A: One was half full and the other was full.Q: Therefore the woman, let’s repeat this again one more time, the woman who instead did the cleaning subsequently?
A: Subsequently to this she said she had never seen the two containers in the house.
Civil party ““ Maresca: Counsel Maresca for the Kercher family. Inspector a clarification if you can tell us the people who were placed under telephone intercepts.
A: So then there was Francesco Sollecito, Vanessa Sollecito”¦Q: Tell us also the”¦
A: Francesco Sollecito is the father, Vanessa Sollecito is the sister, then there was Francesco Sollecito’s current wife, Marisa Papagni, then there was the uncle, Giuseppe Sollecito, then there were still more people forming part of the family but I don’t remember the names.Q: These phone intercepts were all carried out by you?
A: Yes, by me and by my colleagues.Q: They were all authorized with the relative writ obviously?
A: Yes, they weren’t only telephonic, they were also ambient.Q: You have mentioned earlier about attempted pressuring of political personages etc. Can you tell us the names of these political personages?
A: Yes, I have already said them before”¦Q: And then they became the object of intercepts themselves, that is I’ll frame the question like this, did you also intercept the phone call of the political personage or else was it just as matter of choice?
A: No, it was a matter of choice, phone [210] calls to these people had not been intercepted and in any case the politicians were the Honourable Nania, the Honourable Formisano and the Honourable Mastella.Q: Do you remember”¦
A: Persons who were named by them as possible”¦Q: When you say “by them”, by everybody or by some members in particular?
A: By some members of the family, above all by the father and the sister.Q: Do you remember if the lawsuits by the Kercher family for the Telenorba incident and for the Panorama incident had been filed at Perugia or at Bari?
A: This I don’t remember, in any case I know that Bari is proceeding as regards concerning the seizure of the material broadcast by Telenorba.Q: Thank you.
President
Q: But the two people who were working at Raffaele Sollecito’s house, you took their witness statements [the SIs]?
A: Yes.Q: Therefore those circumstances you were referring to them on the basis”¦
A: Yes, of the SIs.Q: The house in use by Raffaele Sollecito how big is it? If you remember?
A: So then I seem to recall that it gives out onto a landing on the ground floor, there is the front door, there’s the kitchen on the right, a room used as a kitchen, then there is the bathroom immediately to the left of the front door, then stairs go up and there’s the bedroom upstairs.Q: Therefore it covers these environments?
A: Yes.[211] Q: And you before have hinted at the presence of the odour of bleach when”¦
A: Yes, when you go in there’s the kitchen and you could smell the odour of bleach.Q: Where was it, was there a place where there was more”¦
A: Yes, the kitchen because there’s the tiled floor and given that the apartment was placed under sequestration and sealed when I went for the first time on the 8th of November to do the search this bleach odour was still permeating the inside.Q: And the bleach in the kitchen environment?
A: In the kitchen environment.Q: Although the kitchen was tiled.
A: It was tiled.Q: The other environments instead, what type of flooring was there?
A: Look I think there might have been parquetry in the bedroom but I’m not sure.Q: Very well, you may go.
Trial: More Testimony On Knox Acting Weird After Meredith Was Murdered
Posted by Peter Quennell
Overview
Click above for the full ABC website report.
Perhaps ABC News is attempting to turn over a new leaf here. Long conspicuous for banging the PR-inspired drum about a frame-up of Knox by those meanie Italians, ABC now seems the one American network attempting its own reporting.
This story was written by Ann Wise, apparently in Rome on 13 and 14 March, with Zach Nowak, an American resident of Perugia, in the courtroom.
Witnesses on these two days included investigators D’Astolto and Volturno and interpreters Colantone and Donnino.
1) Testimony about Knox hitting herself on the head
Fabio D’Astolto, an English-speaking police officer in Perugia, told the court today that he was asked to come to the police station on Nov. 2, 2007, the day Kercher’s body was found, to help question Knox.
“She seemed calm, as if nothing had happened, while everyone else was crying,” said D’Astolto. However, when D’Astolto accompanied Knox to have her fingerprints taken, he said Knox “paced up and down the hallway pretty nervously, and brought her hands to her head, hitting herself on the temples.”
D’Astolto said her behavior worried him, and he offered to get her something to drink, but Knox said she was fine.
At bottom here is a full translation of this testimony by Catnip.
2) Testimony about Knox shaking uncontrollably back at the house
Another interpreter, Ada Colantone, described Knox’s behavior two days later when she and the two Italian women who also shared the Perugia apartment were taken back to confirm that the knives found in the kitchen belonged there. Knox “started shaking,” recounted Colantone.
“She was shaking so hard that the coroner went over to her. She was visibly upset, and made to lie down on the couch.” She said Knox also began crying.
3) Testimony about Knox’s “emotional shock” at seeing Patrick’s text message
Anna Donnino, an interpreter for the Perugia police, said she was summoned to the police station to translate just after midnight. Knox was calm as police talked to her again about what she had been doing the evening of Nov. 1, the night Kercher was slain, Donnino said.
But Knox had an “emotional shock” when she was shown a text message she had sent to Patrick Lumumba, her boss at the pub where she worked occasionally. “She brought her hands to her head, and shook it,” Donnino told the court. And also: “It’s him, he did it, I can feel it,” referring to Lumumba.
The questioning stopped, and when Knox was asked if she wanted a lawyer, she said no, according to Donnino. Donnino repeatedly confirmed that Knox was never mistreated, and made her statements voluntarily.
Included in this post is a transcript of Anna Donnino translated by Catnip.
4) Testimony about Chief Inspector Oreste Volturno’s investigations
He testified that he took part in the search of Raffaele’s place; and investigated when and where the bleach found there was purchased, and investigated the 20 euro withdrawal from Meredith’s account, and tried to track down Raffaele’s school and police records; and also participated in the seizure of material from the Telenorba TV station after their broadcast had gone to air.
On the next post here is a full translation of this testimony by Catnip.
5) Finally, Knox rose in the court today to attempt some damage control:
In Italian courtrooms, defendants are allowed to make statements during their trial, and Knox stood today to refute the police depiction that they treated her well and that her statements were made voluntarily.
In a respectful but insistent tone, Knox said in clear Italian, “The witnesses are denying things about the interrogation. There were hours and hours that they don’t talk about, during which I confirmed my story and there was an aggressive insistence on the text message to Patrick,” she said.
6) Translation Of Testimony Of Assistant Fabio D’Astolto
Fabio Astolfo helped translate during interviews, helped with food and drink from the vending machines, and observed Amanda hitting herself while on the way to get her fingerprints taken.
Transcript translated is of testimony given in the hearing of 13 March 2009, pp 68-84
[68]
Depositions of the witness Fabio D’AstoltoThe witness, admonished pursuant to Article 497 of the Criminal Procedure Code, reads the oath.
Particulars: Assistant Fabio D’Astolto, with the Perugia Police ““ Flying Section; born 22 July 1972 in Sydney (Australia).
President: Mr Public Prosecutor.
Public Prosecutor, Dr Mignini
QUESTION: You on the date of 2 November 2007 were in service at the Perugia Police Station, in which office in particular?
ANSWER: I was at the Flying Section of the Station.Q: You were born in Australia?
A: Yes.Q: Your mother tongue is English?
A: Yes, yes, I lived in Australia until 14 years of age, I studied several”¦Q: I wanted to know this, you remember the murder of Meredith Kercher, you took part in investigation activity or anyway had been called in relation [69] to the investigations that were being carried out?
A: I had been simply called as someone knowing English the afternoon of the 2nd.Q: Do you remember the exact time?
A: It was afternoon but the exact time, exactly I don’t remember.Q: Were you there in the Police Station?
A: I was at home and then they had called me from the Station saying that they needed a person who obviously knew the English language, I did nothing else but take the car and go to the Station.Q: You knew that Meredith Kercher was dead and how she died?
A: No.Q: What did you know?
A: I knew that there was a decease, but how”¦Q: Knew from whom?
A: Yes, then when I had arrived at the Station that I went to the office they had mentioned that there was an English girl but I absolutely didn’t know how this girl had died.Q: So it could even have been a natural death?
A: For me it could have been a natural death, suicide, I don’t know, anything.Q: So no one had informed you?
A: No.Q: So you arrive at the Station and then what happens?
A: I arrive at the Station, I go into the Inspector’s office, I go in, I sit down beside the Inspector and I begin, in quotes, to translate what they were asking me and then I was referring, that is I was re-translating the words of the signorina.Q: You’d spent”¦
A: This was my job. Miss Amanda.[70] Q: You’d spent how many hours at the Station?
A: A lot, up until around seven in the morning, more or less.Q: You had in practice carried out the functions of an interpreter?
A: Yes, simply translating what was asked and then the reply.Q: By Amanda Knox?
A: Yes.Q: Can you say what behaviour Amanda had?
A: Her behaviour was, in my opinion, enough”¦Intervention: No, not your opinion, let’s avoid evaluations!
President: Like a photograph.
A: Yes. Her behaviour was one thing only, in the sense that it seemed to me to be something calm enough, as if absolutely nothing had happened, this was her behaviour.Public Prosecutor ““ Dr Mignini: Were there also other girls?
A: Yes, there were other friends, I think acquaintances, anyway there were other girls inside the Station, at the Flying [Squad] and they were all obviously tried.Q: What were they doing?
A: They were seated quietly, they were really”¦ some were crying, some were a bit distressed obviously by the event.Q: Amanda, you had seen her also waiting to be heard or else you’d seen her only in the”¦
A: I had seen Amanda for the entire span of time that I was inside the Police Station because obviously then we were there also with the other persons, every now and then I was accompanying some girl down to get something to drink, something to eat, we have a little [71] automatic machine, a vending machine downstairs, so if they needed anything we were always obviously at their disposal.Q: You saw her with Sollecito in the Station?
A: Yes, yes.Q: This when, before being heard or after?
A: After.Q: And after what was she doing?
A: There’s a small waiting room there by the Flying Squad offices where there was obviously everyone, the ones who were waiting to be heard etc etc, their behaviour they were kissing each other, they were hugging, every now and then they were laughing.Q: Were they talking to each other?
A: Yes, they were talking also between themselves.Q: Were they talking in a loud voice?
A: A lowered voice, I in fact had heard absolutely nothing of what they were saying. They were talking amongst themselves.Q: But they had said something at that moment or one of the two”¦
A: Every now and then, I remember that Sollecito asked me once: “But what time are we finishing?” and I had simply told him: “a bit of patience, we’ll try and finish as quickly as we can”, to stay calm for a sec, it takes what it takes.Q: You’ heard her first at the beginning, that is you’d translated the questions and the answers.
A: I had simply translated the questions that the Inspector had asked and then I’d referred obviously to Amanda, always asking her: “you’ve understood?” and then as Amanda was going me the reply I simply retranslated for the Inspector.Q: She was demonstrating an ability to in part understand Italian?
[72] A: Yes, yes, she was understanding also because I more than once had asked her “Have you understood? Do I need to repeat the question?”, so.Q: Then you had also seen her subsequently? Had there been things ascertained?
A: Yes, then I think that it was around four, now I don’t remember well, in the morning obviously, I had accompanied her down where there’s the Scientific Police to take her prints, for the mugshots basically. We had gone down, no problems, then at a certain point along the corridor, right in front of the Scientifica there’s a corridor, she was walking up and down in a quite nervous manner and every now and then she was taking her hands and she was putting them like this on her head, she was hitting herself a bit like this. I at a certain point I started to get a bit worried, if she was feeling ill, I don’t know. Then I asked: “Do you need some water? Do you want a coffee? Do you want to sit down for a bit? Don’t worry yourself, stay calm” and I remember that she had turned round as if to say”¦ in fact she’d said to me: “no, no, I don’t want anything, I don’t need anything”. I’d left it at that, I’d said: “OK, it’s no trouble at all’, if you don’t need anything”.Q: These blows she was giving herself”¦
A: Basically she was making this gesture here.Q: Were they strong?
President: A gesture where she was lifting both her hands simultaneously to the height of her temples?
A: Yes, of her head.President: Repeatedly?
A: Yes.Public Prosecutor ““ Dr Mignini: She was hitting herself on the head with her hands or just lifting her hands to her head and that’s it?
A: No, no, she was hitting herself.[73] Q: You have said in the statement of 21 December 2007 “strong enough”, you were saying that she was hitting herself rather hard, at page 10.
A: Yes I confirm that.Q: You then tried, you insisted?
A: Seeing this scene I became worried and asked her: “Do you need some water? Do you need a coffee? Do you need something? Do we want to go a bit to the machines and get something?”President: This, when is it that”¦ what time are we at, what day are we at, can you make it precise?
A: It was around four in the morning of the 3rd, so at night basically, around four in the morning if I’m not mistaken. Nothing, I asked her if she needed anything, she turned round and said, “no, I don’t need anything!”, “sorry, OK”.Public Prosecutor ““ Dr Mignini: Did you by chance hear what they were saying to each other, what she was saying?
A: No.Q: What she was saying not only to Sollecito, but in the event to the other girls present, to the young English people for example?
A: No, I don’t remember having heard anything, also because she was whispering quietly.Q: And after having taken her to the Scientifica she left there?
A: Yes, then I accompanied her back up.Q: How was she after the mugshots actually?
A: She was calm enough and settled herself back down in the waiting room.Q: So these blows to the head, she was giving them to herself before going to the Scientifica?
A: While we were downstairs, when we had gone down to the [74] Scientifica”¦Defence ““ Bongiorno: Mr President excuse me because while I’ve been talking to Sollecito, and asking him questions, we have documents on the computer, it’s an electronic instrument”¦
Intervention: It’s linked to the Internet, Mr President!
Defence ““ Bongiorno: {incomprehensible "“ overlap of voices}
President: Everybody! Please, I point out that the order of proceeding in this hearing at this moment is”¦ given the defenders may speak with each other, there are no particular security reasons for which the accused need a different location, they can remain where they are, they can talk and also consult the documents they’re consulting. Please continue”¦
A: Then actually while we were down at the Scientifica, I repeat around four in the morning, more or less that was the time, we had gone down, at the moment in which we had entered the corridor where there was the door to the Scientifica, she started to walk up and down the corridor making this gesture of lifting her hands.Public Prosecutor ““ Dr Mignini: Multiple times, this?
A: Multiple times, yes.Q: But you had asked her questions? Had there been something, had you encountered someone?
A: Nobody, we hadn’t encountered anybody, I had taken her and accompanied her downstairs.Q: And as soon as you had arrived downstairs”¦
[75] A: As soon as we had arrived downstairs we entered into the corridor where the Scientific is she had started to make this gesture and to walk obviously nervously up and down the corridor.Q: You didn’t occupy yourself with asking any more questions?
A: No, absolutely.Q: Then you accompanied her back and that was it?
A: I’d accompanied her back up and then I did other things.Q: I have no further questions.
Defence ““ Ghirga:
Counsellor Ghirga, Amanda Knox defence. It was the 2nd of November when they called you, true?
A: Yes.Q: Now 15:30 or 16:30 we’re in the Police Station. You were at home, you said?
A: Yes.Q: Was your morning shift finished, or else were you on holidays? You were at home?
A: Yes, I was at home in any case.Q: And they were calling you for?
A: They were calling me saying”¦Q: You were at home, but I asked you: had you finished your shift, were you on holidays?
A: Honestly I don’t remember. I was simply at my home where a call arrived from the Station saying that they needed a person who knew English. No problem, I did nothing else but take the car and go into the Station.Q: So you take the car and go to the Station?
A: Yes.Q: Why are you still today saying: “for me, it could have been an accidental death?” If they were calling you that [76] first afternoon, you go to the Station”¦
A: For only a bit.Q: You’ve used this expression.
A: Then, for a bit only”¦Q: Mr President he cannot contest what I’m saying!
A: No, I’m not contesting anybody, if you make me respond I will explain.President: He’s not contesting, he’s waiting to be able to respond.
A: If I’m made to respond I will explain everything.President: The defence is asking how come they were calling you at home”¦
A: They called me at home.President: You knew if there was”¦
A: No, absolutely, I went up to the Station, I entered the Inspector’s office, I sat myself down and I began to translate, that’s it.Defence ““ Ghirga: I’m a step before that, you have said: “for me it could have been an accidental death”, yet you say: “once I arrived at the Station I was informed about something”, is that so? Relating to the death of the girl.
A: Now then after ten minutes or so, twenty minutes, I don’t remember perfectly now, obviously I tried to understand what might have happened, but I was aware that there had been a decease, but I was unaware for what reason.Q: A couple of questions on the modality of exercising the interpretative activity.
A: Yes.Q: So you get to be called because you know English, you’ve said, and it couldn’t have been anyone else but, who was translating Inspector Ficcara’s questions.
A: Yes.[77] Q: Therefore questions in Italian translated into English for Amanda Knox, Amanda was replying and you were translating into Italian the replies given in English?
A: Yes.Q: Is that so?
A; Yes.Q: You were translating the questions and you were translating the answers?
A: Exactly.Q: In the first three pages of the statement of the 2nd, which is in the case file, I don’t see one question, can you explain why?
A: By question is meant, obviously in the moment in which we were taking the summaries [the SIs] it needed a second to say: “What do you call”¦”Q: No, no, no, excuse me for interrupting, you’re going ahead. I don’t see one question asked by Inspector Ficcara and translated by you, how come?
President: Counsel is asking, in the statement you had said”¦
Defence ““ Ghirga: Not the personal details or the address.
President: You’ve said that you were translating the questions that were being put to Amanda Knox, but Counsel is saying: “I can’t find the questions in the statement”.
A: In the moment in which I was being asked to translate what it was called, where it was obviously needed to formalise the summaries.President: Yes, but at the moment of the exposition of the facts, who was transcribing it into the record?
A: The Inspector.President: You were translating into Italian and into English?
A: Yes.Defence ““ Ghirga: Then he doesn’t remember, he doesn’t know why the questions were not translated.
[78] Public Prosecutor ““ Dr Comodi: But translated or transcribed?
Defence ““ Ghirga: Listen, in the first three pages there isn’t”¦
President: Counsel it’s clear.
Defence ““ Ghirga: It was only to understand the modality and that’s it.
President: Do you know how come the questions weren’t also put into the record?
Defence ““ Ghirga: When he says: “I was translating the questions”, he’s not saying something true because the questions aren’t there.
President: Excuse me, Counsel, please! Why aren’t the questions you say you were translating also reported in the record, if you know.
A: I don’t know.Defence ““ Ghirga: And the last three are: “RTQ ““ replies to question”, here as well do you know why?
A: I don’t know.Q: Do you know at what time the bar at the Station opens in the morning?
A: The Station bar varies, the times vary every now and then, in the sense that if there’s a service or anything else, a special service, I don’t know, usually they also open earlier, usually around a quarter past seven, 7:20, I don’t know the opening times exactly because I hardly ever go there.President: Who manages the bar? Internal Station personnel?
A: No, no, if I’m not wrong they’re external, they have a contract [79] if I’m not mistaken.President: So they are called in for a particular need?
A: It happens, it’s happened often.Defence ““ Ghirga: No, I haven’t understood then.
A: The opening hours”¦Q: You’ve answered about the opening hours, there’s no bar inside the Station?
A: Yes, it is, of course! Sure there is!Q: You’ve said no now.
A: It’s on the first floor.Q: Who manages it? Someone private?
A: I think that it might be someone private.Q: You don’t know the opening hours?
A: Exactly, no, because I hardly ever go there, I’ve been only a very few times.Defence ““ Dalla Vedova: Just one clarification: do you remember the exact time that you arrived at the Station?
A: Frankly I don’t remember because I wasn’t standing there with a watch, usually I don’t even wear a watch.Q: Was it in the afternoon or in the evening?
A: No, no, in the afternoon.Q: Could we say around five or around six?
A: No, it was earlier, at five or six I was already in the Station, it was earlier, much earlier.President: It was still daytime?
A: Yes, yes.President: Daytime still?
A: Yes, yes.President: It’s November, it was still daytime, afternoon.
[80] A: Yes, although I repeat I don’t remember the precise time because I don’t wear a watch, out of habit, and I wasn’t there either to look at the clock honestly, they had called me, they needed someone, I take the car and go, inasmuch as I had no particular need at home and I went.President: He doesn’t recall. Please, Counsel.
Defence ““ Dalla Vedova: You carried out the function of interpreter also with the other non-Italian girls who were present at the Station, true?
A: Yes.Q: Exactly what did you do? Were you translating questions also for them?
A: I have to repeat, my job was to translate”¦Q: I’ve understood that, I asked you if you also interpreted for the other girls, for example Ms Jade Bidwell?
A: Yes.Q: And also other girls as well?
A: Yes, I remember having also done translation for the other girls.Q: It was always an interview with an Italian functionary who was asking questions in Italian and you were translating into English and then the English person was answering in English and you were translating into Italian or was there”¦
A: There were summary informations [SIs].Q: Was it only an enquiry if they needed something, like you referred to earlier, because you were also concerned with offering them a coffee, some water, taking them downstairs.
A: Certainly. Now the point is this: we are human beings to start with, so if a person needs something we have to”¦ if they need a coffee, a glass of water, something else, there are [81] machines downstairs, they’re accompanied downstairs and they’re given it, that’s it. We aren’t”¦President: Yes, but Counsel was asking, in addition to this activity, which before you had described in relation to Amanda Knox, you have also carried out the function of interpreter and in the examination of Amanda Knox and also in the examination of the other English girls.
A: Sure.President: How many other English girls if you’re able to recall? All of them or “¦
A: No, now I don’t recall, I think it might have been three, now I don’t remember exactly.Defence ““ Dalla Vedova: Do you remember having taken part in the statementing of the SIs of Jade Bidwell, mentioned earlier, on the 2nd at 21:30?
A: Possibly yes, although I repeat I frankly don’t remember the names. I don’t remember the names of these girls.Q: Another clarification in relation to your activity at the Police Station, when you took Ms Knox to the Scientifica to do the prints and photos had you informed her what thing you were going to do?
A: Yes.Q: And what did you say to her?
A: I said to her that we were going downstairs, that we had to take these prints and that’s it, like what was done with all of the others.Q: And you also accompanied the other English girls in this activity?
A: I don’t remember, I think no.Q: You don’t remember?
A: I don’t remember, I honestly don’t remember.Q: But the other girls also had had the same [82] necessity to do the ID-ing with their fingerprints?
A: I think so, I say I think.Q: But they were foreigners, was there someone helping the girls in explaining what was happening? If you were with Amanda how was it done? Was there someone else?
A: The point is also this, that some of these girls were also understanding Italian a bit, therefore definitely my colleagues had explained it to them definitely, then I must reiterate I am only one person.Q: There was some other interpreter that evening?
A: I don’t think so.Q: So you, from the afternoon of the 2nd until four in the morning of the 3rd, were the sole official interpreter who was working inside the Police Station for all the foreigners, for all the foreign girls?
A: Yes, I think so.President: You were however the only one, that’s what he’s asking, that you knew about?
A: That I know of I think it was only me.Defence ““ Dalla Vedova:
In this whole period of time you had always stayed near Amanda?
A: During the summaries and then when I took her for the prints and mugshots, then I was present while she and the other friends and with the other friends were in the Squad office, in the waiting room, so I was there next to the wall, standing there, watching.Q: And listening to the conversations?
A: No.Q: But if you were standing there”¦
A: Obviously when they were talking aloud I was hearing something, but it wasn’t that I was”¦Q: Do you remember if Ms Knox’s phone rang, [83] did she receive calls?
A: This I don’t remember.Q: Do you remember if Ms Knox had made calls?
A: I don’t remember this either frankly.Q: Do you remember whether in translating the questions the subject of sexual activity had been put to Ms Knox? If anyone had asked her questions on this subject?
A: I don’t remember.Q: You don’t remember this subject?
A: No.Q: And do you instead remember the subject of the vaseline? Whether this question in relation to a presumed usage or in any case the presence of this material had been put?
A: This I absolutely don’t remember. This is news to me, I don’t remember.Q: You remember in any case whether Amanda Knox had a phone?
A: If I’m not mistaken yes, I think yes.Q: And the other young people had a phone?
A: I think so, some had used it, I think so.Public Prosecutor ““ Dr Mignini: But this is cross-examination, they’re not questions”¦
President: Let’s limit it to what was the examination.
Defence ““ Dalla Vedova: Although seeing that he was changing his stance and that he had acknowledged the fact that”¦
President: In fact these questions are being put.
Defence ““ Dalla Vedova: Since it appears from the documents that almost everyone was making phone calls, it would have helped me [84] to understand how come he can claim that the young people were quiet, therefore I wanted to know if anyone had made calls for example to their parents or in any case at that moment.
President: So he remembers that they had them, from their behaviour, under this aspect.
Defence ““ Dalla Vedova: Exactly, under the aspect of their behaviour, when he had claimed that the other girls were quiet, I wanted to better understand what led him to that conclusion, that’s all. Thank you, I have finished the examination.Public Prosecutor ““ Dr Comodi: Only one question: when the bar in the Police Station is closed, if you want to have a coffee, a tea, a brioche, a bottle of water, do you have to go outside?
A: No, actually on floor zero, on the ground floor”¦Q: Which is the same floor where there is the bar also?
A: No, the bar is on the first floor. So on the ground floor there are three small machines, one for drinks, the other obviously for snacks etc etc, then there’s the other one for coffee, like those outside.Q: Which work 24 hours a day?
A: Yes, yes, 24 hours a day.Q: Is the electricity switched off?
A: No, 24-hour, they’re always on.Q: Thank you.
President: Very well, you may go.
- - -
Note: “fotosegnalazione” ““ “the taking by police authorities of a person’s fingerprints and face-on and profile photos for identification purposes” ([Italian Neologism Observatory]) ““ has been translated here as “˜(fingerprinting and) mug shots’, according to context. Usage of the term carries no imputed meaning as to legal status.
On the next post here is a full translation of the testimony of Chief Inspector Oreste Volturno by Catnip.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Sky News Video Of Meredith’s Final Moments Outside DRAFT
Posted by Peter Quennell
We maybe need to point out that this video is from the INTERMEDIATE level pf the parking building. The camera up on top of the building, the one we showed earlier, has a much superior view.
Why is not THAT the video now being presented? Presumably, one day, all will become clear.