![](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.
Wednesday, October 22, 2014
The Hundreds Of DNA Samples Taken And Analyses Done, Shown In Table Form
Posted by Olleosnep
1. Even Excluding DNA, There’s Massive Evidence
The DNA Spreadsheet will open using Microsoft Excel or alternatives such as the free OpenOffice. Please note the table is very wide.
Contrary to foolish claims elsewhere, there’s a great deal of evidence implicating not only Guede but also Knox and Sollecito in the brutal murder of Meredith Kercher.
The bulk of the evidence is circumstantial, and encompasses different categories of evidence, such as: wounds sustained by Ms. Kercher; ear and eye witnesses; footprints; shoeprints; fingerprints and lack thereof; blood patterns; evidence that Ms. Kercher was moved after she died; misplaced items in her room and in the cottage; evidence of partial clean-up; cellphone records; computer evidence; evidence of staged break-in; lack of evidence of actual break-in; statements by all three defendants; lack of alibis; lies by Knox and Sollecito; etc.
A lot of the most critical evidence has been repeatedly reviewed by many different judges involved in the case, from Judge Micheli to Judge Nencini, and led to the unanimous verdict at trial now confirmed by Appeal Judge Nencini.
2. The Massive DNA Evidence Is Equally Conclusive
We have carried nearly five dozen DNA posts previously on the Scientific Labs work in 2007-09, the discredited judges’ consultants work in 2011, and the Carabinieri Labs work in 2013.
They go to prove that some of the most damning evidence comes from the DNA traces found on hundreds of samples tested by the Forensic Genetics department of the Italian Scientific Police squadron in Rome. The department was presided over by the biologist Dr. Stefanoni at the time [seen above left with Prosecutor Comodi] who acted as the department’s principal technical director.
The results of Dr. Stefanoni’s work were collected in several reports issued by her lab during the 2008-2009 investigation and trial phases. Of these reports, two reports in particular comprise a “˜survey’ of the work performed by her lab at the time: the “Genetic Tests” report (GT), and the “Stato Avanzamento Laboratorio” report (SAL). Both reports are available on the Meredith Kercher Wiki.
These two reports are notable for highlighting the large quantity of testing done and the significant number of objects and items sampled. In addition, the reports not only look at items with blood traces, but also traces of skin cells, feces, semen, and above all, hair traces, an aspect of the evidence that has been largely glossed over in the testimony and in the motivation reports.
3. For The First Time A Complete DNA Roadmap
In order to better understand the extent of the work and types of the tests performed, I have taken the data that can be gleaned from these two reports and placed them into a single spreadsheet, in order to create a kind of “˜database’ of the testing and analyses done.
This spreadsheet uses the GT report as a basis, followed by additional information obtainable from the SAL report.
The spreadsheet is basically a list of each sample, object and/or test done by Dr. Stefanoni’s team. These include tests done for DNA analysis, testing done for Y haplotype analysis and hair sample analysis. In the SAL report, it is shown that a few samples were tested multiple times. The list also includes some objects which were not analyzed at all, or were only analyzed up to a point.
It should be noted that there are a few difficulties with the reports. The GT report references an associated photographic report that has not been made available. The GT report is also missing a couple of pages and the descriptions of the results are at times inconsistent. Other times it can be tricky to follow exactly what tests were done. Because the report is a black and white scan of an original likely printed in color, some of the information in the tables is difficult or impossible to read. And some traces are missing result tables altogether.
The SAL report is also incomplete. The luminol samples at the cottage and all the samples taken at Guede’s apartment are missing, as are other samples. The scanned pages in the PDF are out of order, making cross-checking with the GT report tedious. The SAL report does not have all the test data indicated in the GT report. For instance, the human antibody tests noted in the GT report are not indicated in the SAL report. The data in the SAL report is often not as complete as one might think. As an example, all hair samples were logged and assigned a sample number. But those hairs that had no DNA extracted, do not have a date of when they were analyzed. Presumably they were all analyzed as a set for each item, given that the sample number is frequently numerically sequential (i.e. 47084, 47085, 47086, etc.). But it’s not possible to say with certainty when the hairs were reviewed from the report.
Nevertheless the GT and SAL reports do have significant information that is of interest to the case. Hence the spreadsheet.
4. Some Guidance For The Use Of The Spreadsheet
Spreadsheets can be useful for presenting various pieces of data together “˜at a glance’. But the real power of spreadsheets for this type of data is that rows can be sorted in order to group similar pieces of data together, allowing one to get a overview of subsets of data.
So, for instance, if one wanted to order all the rows by “˜sample number’ to see the sequence of how they were processed in the lab, one need only highlight all the rows (done by clicking on row number 5, holding down the “˜Shift key’ and paging down to the bottommost row), then go to menu option “˜Data’ and then “˜Sort’ and select the column or columns to sort by- “˜AF’ in the case.
Or perhaps one wants to sort by “˜DNA yielded’ and “˜building’ to see where someone’s DNA was found. Simply select all the rows again, select the menu option “˜Data’ and then “˜Sort’, and select the first column as “˜DNA yielded’ (or column AD), then select as the second column as “˜building (or column F).
To return to the original order, select all rows again and sort on column A.
Note that the first four rows in the spreadsheet are “˜locked’, in order to allow the column headers to be always visible. If one wants to unlock these rows, select the whole spreadsheet by clicking on the upper left corner of the window where the column header labels and row numbers meet. Once the whole spreadsheet is selected, go to “˜View’ option and select “˜Unfreeze panes’. For Excel version 2007 and higher, click on the little arrow to the right of “˜freeze panes’ button on the menu bar, and there will be the option to unfreeze panes.
If one is handy with Access, or any other database program, it should be possible to import the spreadsheet into that database program, allowing one to perform more powerful “˜queries’.
The Rome headquarters of the Scientific Police which work closely with the FBI
5. Explanations Of Some Of The DNA Data
The data in each column was obtained directly or indirectly obtainable from the two reports by Dr. Stefanoni’s team.
1) Column “˜A’ allows one to resort rows to their original order, which is based on the order of the “˜item number’ noted in the GT report.
2) “˜Item number’ refers to the actual piece of evidence, whether an object sampled onsite or an object that was bagged and taken to the lab, as noted in the GT report.
3) “˜Original item label’ is data provided in the first pages of the GT report, as a way to tie the evidence item back to evidence markers used at the crime scene, and visible in some of the crime scene photos.
4) “˜Page in attached photo report’ indicates that there is an adjunct “˜photo report’ Dr. Stefanoni provided that has not yet been released, and likely has photos of the evidence items “˜in situ’. This information is also noted in the beginning item lists in the GT report.
5) “˜Sample date’ is based on the dates noted in the beginning list in the GT report, indicating when the evidence item was sampled or taken from the crime scene. This is sometimes difficult to read, due to the fact that the report was apparently printed in color and the black and white scan hides or obscures some text and graphics.
6) Columns F-K are location and object data, obtainable from the descriptions in the GT report, especially the first pages that provide a list of where evidence samples were obtained. I broke this data down into various categories to allow different possibilities of grouping the data.
7) “˜Sample obtained’ indicates the type of biological substance that was assumed to contain DNA. This was first obtained from the GT report, and later corrected with the data from the SAL report, which has a more consistent description of what the sample was assumed to be.
8) Columns M through AC list data either directly reported in the GT and SAL reports, or interpretable from them. Column M notes if an item was analyzed or not. In the GT report, unanalyzed items are noted in the beginning list as “˜not analyzed’ though not consistently. In the SAL report, they are noted as having 0 samples.
9) “˜Trace number’ was obtained from GT report, though on a few occasions, the actual number is not clear. Note that the number “˜starts over’ for each evidence item. Sometimes the trace number is sequential, independent of whether it is blood or hair or skin cells. Items having the most traces are those that were “˜heavily’ sampled, including Sollecito’s sneakers, the duvet, Ms. Kercher’s sweat jacket, her jeans, the kitchen knife, the kitchen sponge, etc.
10) “˜Additional trace info’ is additional information noted from both reports about a specific sample.
11) Column P “˜revealed in luminol?’ indicates with a “˜yes’ those samples obtained during luminol analysis. What often gets overlooked is that luminol analysis was performed not only at the cottage, but in Sollecito’s car, Sollecito’s apartment and Guede’s apartment. Notable here is that 14 different samples were obtained from luminol analysis at Sollecito’s apartment. While the DNA data yielded was meager, what is important is not the actual data yielded, but the number and location of samples investigated, including samples from door handles, and different locations like the bathroom, bedroom and kitchen. There was certainly a suspicious amount of blood, bleach or turnip juice at Sollecito’s place!
12) “˜Date of extraction’ comes from the SAL report, though, as mentioned above, it is not consistently reported for every trace or sample analyzed. This indicates when DNA processing occurred on a sample. This column is important to look at when discussing the issue of lab contamination. If one performs a sort on this column and on the “˜sample number’ column, one can clearly see that samples were processed in batches, often a week or two weeks apart. So for instance, claims that the sample 36B happened due to contamination at the lab is really not possible, given that Ms. Kercher’s DNA was analyzed one week earlier (11/5/07 and 11/6/07) and sample 36B is the only sample to contain Ms. Kercher’s DNA from all the samples analyzed on 11/13/07. Similarly, Sollecito’s DNA and Guede’s DNA are only found once each of all the items analyzed on 12/29/07, yet the last time Sollecito’s DNA had been analyzed was on 12/17/07, 12 days earlier. So the likelihood of lab contamination seems extraordinarily small, just from the dates of when samples were analyzed.
13) “˜TMB test positive’ was originally obtained from the GT report. Again because that report is likely in color, a number of tables have either missing graphics or are missing tables altogether. Fortunately the SAL report has duplicated this data consistently.
14) “˜Human antibody test positive?’ is obtained from other tables in the GT report, almost always paired with the TMB table. In some cases where the table data is illegible, I’ve placed a “?” in front of an assumed result. Curiously, this test is not shown in the SAL report.
15) “˜Cat antibody positive?’ is from the GT report, shows that the basement apartment blood samples were all made a by cat, which Dr. Stefanoni comments on in her Massei testimony.
16) Apparently they also ran “˜dog antibody’ testing as well, as is noted in the GT report.
17) “˜DNA extraction done?’ indicates if a decision was made to extract DNA. This was inferred from the GT report. Notable here is that even with samples having cat antibodies, Dr. Stefanoni does the DNA extraction anyway to make sure no human DNA is in the sample.
18) “˜Quantity extracted’ comes from the SAL report. This refers not to the amount of DNA extracted, but specifically to the amount of liquid (50, 100 or 150 microliters) filtered through the Qiagen Bio Robot EZ1 machine. This machine actually filters or purifies the sample, removing all other biological materials like cells, bacteria, etc. leaving only actual DNA molecules which can then be processed. This extraction process is also the quantification process, where from a 50 microliter sample a certain amount of DNA is found and quantified.
19) “˜Human DNA found during quantification’ was inferred from the GT report. It should be noted that for Dr. Stefanoni’s team, DNA analysis involved finding DNA useful for comparison. This means that Dr. Stefanoni was not looking for a sample of any human DNA, but a sample sufficiently “˜complete’ to be able to compare it with others samples. So it was likely often the case that a trace might have snippets and pieces of DNA, but these pieces were either too small or too fragmented to be useful for any profile comparisons. So “˜No’ in this column means not so much that no DNA was found at all, but that no DNA was found that could be useful for comparison.
20) “˜Decision to amplify and analyze’ was obtained from the GT report. Sometimes it is explicitly mentioned in the description of the results in the GT report. Other times, it can be inferred from the lack of tables.
21) “˜Concentrate sample with Speed VAC 110’ means that where “no human DNA was found” (i.e. when no DNA was found sufficiently complete or in sufficient amounts useful for comparison), Dr. Stefanoni decided to process the sample further in an effort to “˜bring out’ whatever DNA there might be. This was done using a “˜concentrator’, which dries the samples and vacuums them, thereby reducing sample fluid to make any DNA present more easily found by the subsequent DNA processing equipment.
22) “˜STR amplification’ is the DNA copying process whereby any DNA found is copied millions of times to obtain samples that can be adequately rendered by capillary electrophoresis. The process Dr. Stefanoni used is described specifically in the GT report for evidence items 12 and 13.
23) In some cases “˜Y chromosome amplification’ is also done. While this may be done at the same time by the same machine, I took any Y chromosome amplification to be a separate test, since per the GT report, it sometimes yielded different results. In a few cases, it is not clear from the GT report if Y chromosome amplification was done on only one sample, or on all the samples of an evidence item. In those cases, I assumed all the samples.
24) “˜Capillary electrophoresis’ is where DNA is rendered through a chemical/electrical process that tags DNA particles with fluorescence. These fluoresced particles are then read by the software of the machine and mapped onto a graph that shows DNA particles as “˜peaks’, which are an indicator of quantity of DNA found. The software of the machine then produced graphs of the peaks obtained and it is these graphs that Dr. Stefanoni and her team used for profile comparison.
25) “˜DNA yielded’ is what is indicated in the GT report and is based on Dr. Stefanoni’s comparison of the DNA profile(s) shown by capillary electrophoresis to index DNA samples she had of Sollecito, Lumumba, Guede, Knox and Ms. Kercher.
26) “˜Egram number’ is taken from the GT report.
27) The “˜sample number’ was taken from the GT and further completed by the SAL report, which has the sample numbers for all samples, whether they were analyzed for DNA or not. The sample numbers are useful for indicating what was happening at the Dr. Stefanoni’s lab. As an example, if one does a sort on column Q (Date of extraction) and column AF (sample number) one can see that between 11/5/07 and 11/6/07, there is gap of 129 samples that were likely performed for another case. The last sample analyzed on 11/5/07 was 47082, and on 11/6/07, the next sample number is 47211. So presumably her lab ran 129 additional DNA tests on samples related to other cases between these two runs. Generally the sample numbers increase sequentially by date, but there are a few exceptions. One in particular is sample 47821, which appears as the last sample on 11/23/07, though samples starting on 11/26/07, three days later, start with sample number 47711. This implies that samples were probably numbered in batches (by sticking numbered labels on tubes or bags) and not necessarily right before extraction or other machine processing was done.
28) “˜Compatibility notes’ are extra comments noted by Dr. Stefanoni in the GT report.
29) “˜Likely substance containing DNA’ is interpretable from the GT and SAL report and the results of the testing done.
30) Finally there are columns related to hair analysis. “˜Type of hair’ comes from the SAL report, and it is sometimes, but not consistently or legibly, noted in the GT report.
31) “˜Hair color’ provides a description of the hair color. Notable is that the hair description is quite consistent, with black, blonde, chestnut, light chestnut, red chestnut being the more significant categories. This is available in both the GT and SAL report and both reports match.
32) “˜Hair length;’ is obviously the length of hair analyzed. I’m not sure how this was done since the machinery used is not indicated in either report. Again, this is in both reports, and again the data matches in both reports.
33) “˜Hair width’ is the diameter of the hair in micrometers, and is available in both reports.
34) “˜Hair marrow’ is found only in the SAL report, and presumably describes the condition of the very core of the hair.
35) “˜Hair end condition’ indicates whether the end of the hair is “˜cut’, a “˜point’, frayed or otherwise. This is found in both reports.
36) “˜Bulb phase’ relates to the particular phase of hair growth, with DNA apparently present in the hair bulb only during the initial growth phases of the hair. This too is found in both reports.
37) “˜Hair remarks’ are any comments related to hair samples.
38) Lastly, the “˜remarks’ column contains my notes on a particular sample or test, indicating discrepancies or explanations of what I was able to understand.
As noted above, the SAL report does not contain data for all the samples. Per Dr. Gino’s testimony in the Massei trial on 9/26/09, additional SAL sheets were apparently released that indicate that TMB tests were done on the luminol samples at the cottage and that these tests were negative. However it should be noted that TMB is less sensitive than luminol, so it is possible that a luminol sample could be in blood, which however is too diluted to be registered by a TMB test.
6. More Commentary On the DNA Extracted From Blood
1) DNA is only found in white blood cells, not red blood cells
2) The luminol reacts with the iron in red blood cells, not white blood cells
3) Red blood cells outnumber white blood cells by roughly 600 to 1
4) Even if DNA is found it may be not usable for comparison
So just because there is a positive luminol or TMB result does not mean that DNA can be found.
7. More Commentary On The Resulting Statistics
At the bottom of the spreadsheet are some interesting statistics, which I won’t reiterate here, except to note a few things.
a) 227 different objects or site objects were sampled/ obtained for analysis. 30 of these were not analyzed at all. From the remaining 197 objects and site objects sampled, 484 separate tests were set up for analysis, with 93 of these consisting of hair analysis. Of these 484 tests, 193 of them yield DNA data useful for comparison (40%).
b) Of the 193 tests that were “˜successful’, 100 tests yielded DNA compatible only with Ms. Kercher’s DNA (over 50%- again keep in mind their may have been other DNA but it may have been too small or too fragmented to be useful for comparison). Nine additional tests (comprising seven samples) yielded DNA compatible with Ms. Kercher’s DNA mixed with either Knox’s, Guede’s or Sollecito’s DNA. 27 tests had DNA compatible with Guede’s DNA; 18 tests had DNA compatible with Knox’s DNA; 11 more tests had DNA compatible with Sollecito’s DNA. Nine other tests yielded DNA compatible with a mixture of Knox’s and Sollecito’s DNA. 17 tests yielded DNA of unknown men and women (i.e. unmatchable by Dr. Stefanoni), and two tests were of samples obtained from Lumumba.
c) Of the nine tests yielding Ms. Kercher’s DNA mixed with others, five of these yielded DNA compatible with a mixture of Kercher’s and Knox’s DNA. They were all samples found in blood or potential blood- notably: three in the bathroom, one on the corridor floor in a luminol revealed bloody footprint, one in a luminol revealed blood stain in Romanelli’s room.
d) Returning to the discussions about contamination, it is notable that, whether the contamination occurred during site collection or in the lab, one might expect to find bits of contamination occurring here and there over 193 tests. Yet nearly all the arguments involve contamination about two samples, out of 193 tests. Over 50% of the tests that had useful DNA yielded Ms. Kercher’s DNA. If site collection, transport and/or lab procedures were so poor, one would expect to find Ms. Kercher’s DNA in other places as well. Yet very few samples have her DNA mixed with others, and conversely, very few other samples have other mixed DNA. Only nine samples have mixes of Sollecito and Knox’s DNA, eight of which were all obtained at Sollecito’s apartment or from Sollecito’s things (including a pocket knife), and one was obtained from a cigarette butt at the cottage. If contamination was so rampant, why does it occur on only two samples out of 193, (and curiously only on the two most damning samples)?
e) Continuing along the same lines, 118 samples were obtained from Sollecito’s apartment. Of these, 49 were not analyzed, (many were hairs not having bulbs in the right phase). Of the remaining 66 samples that were analyzed, only one, the one the blade of the kitchen knife, had Ms. Kercher’s DNA. And 41 yielded no usable DNA. So if there was contamination, or worse, direct framing of evidence by the lab, certainly there would be more of Ms. Kercher’s DNA amongst those 66 samples, in order to achieve an ironclad case. Yet there is only one sample out of 66 that had Ms. Kercher’s DNA.
f) Similarly, 224 tests were done on objects taken from the upper apartment. Of these 56 were not analyzed for DNA and an additional 61 that were analyzed, did not yield anything useful. Of the remaining 107 tests, only 3 had Sollecito’s DNA (a trace on the cigarette butt, and a trace on the bra clasp having Sollecito’s DNA as well as his Y chromosome.) Surely if there was rampant contamination or worse, direct framing of evidence, one would expect to find more of Sollecito’s DNA in Ms. Kercher’s room. Yet only one sample had his DNA and Y chromosome- the bra clasp.
g) Conversely, it is rather odd that Sollecito’s car was sampled in 16 locations (actually 19 samples were taken but only 16 analyzed), and none of those samples revealed his DNA. Did he ever drive his car?
8. And Finally More Commentary About The Hairs
Guede had black hair. From photos of Nov 2, 2007, Knox had blonde hair and Sollecito had chestnut to light chestnut hair. Meredith Kercher had chestnut to reddish chestnut hair.
93 hairs were found and analyzed. Seven of these were either animal hair or fibers. The remaining 86 hairs were, per the SAL report, all human. Seven of these hairs were black in color. Of the seven, six were short (4 cm or less) and one was long. Of the six short black hairs, four were found on the duvet covering Ms. Kercher, one was found on her mattress cover, and one was found on a sponge (containing fourteen other hairs) at Sollecito’s apartment. It is very likely these short black hairs were Guede’s, and if so, how it one of his hairs get on a sponge at Sollecito’s apartment.
Similarly, 21 blonde hairs were found, ranging from 4 cm to 20 cm. Of these, fifteen were found at Sollecito’s apartment, either on a sponge in the kitchen, or on a sweater. The other six were found at the cottage, with three being found on the duvet, one found inside the small bathroom sink, one found on a mop, one found on Ms. Kercher’s purse and one found on Ms. Kercher’s mattress cover.
Assuming the blonde hairs were Knox’s hair, it is difficult to imagine how they might wind up on Ms. Kercher’s purse and mattress cover.
There were four light chestnut hairs found. One, measuring 9 cm, was found on the kitchen sponge at Sollecito’s apartment. The other three light chestnut hairs were found on Ms. Kercher’s bra (2 cm), sweat jacket (7.5 cm) and the towel found under Ms. Kercher’s body (20 cm).
35 chestnut colored hairs were found, ranging from 1.5 to 30 cm in length. The vast majority were in Ms. Kercher’s bedroom. Two chestnut colored hairs (5 cm and 8 cm) were on the kitchen sponge at Sollecito’s house. It should be noted that three chestnut colored hairs yielded Ms. Kercher’s DNA, measuring 15, 18 and 23 cms.
So even from the hair evidence, it seems that hair having Knox and Sollecito’s color were on Ms. Kercher’s more intimate objects, while Guede’s and Ms. Kercher’s hair apparently were on a sponge in the kitchen at Sollecito’s apartment. In other words, an object used in a clean-up, and in a room that also had five luminol revealed samples.
Even the hair evidence points to Guede, Sollecito and Knox having acted together in the murder of Ms. Kercher.
Thursday, October 16, 2014
Knox, Tied In Knots By Her Own Tongue: Translation Of The 17 Dec 2007 Interview With Dr Mignini #4
Posted by Machiavelli, Catnip, Kristeva
Inmate-chefs at Capanne Prison, from which Knox was making a bid for release
1. Getting Up To Speed On This Fourth Post
How much serious questioning was Knox subjected to prior to this voluntary interview six weeks after her arrest?
In fact, none. In the early days of November, after Meredith was found dead, she had several less-formal “recap/summary” sessions with investigators on possible leads (as did many others), which the defenses conceded without argument at trial were simply that and no more.
So these were the first serious questions put to Knox - politely, and Knox is essentially not argumentative throughout
The transcript was in the evidence pile and all judges except Hellmann seem to have studied it hard. This was also the first-ever interview of Knox by Dr Mignini, as prosecutor appointed to the case. He had seen her twice at the house and heard her at her strong insistence early on 6 November.
But they had never before really talked.
Prior to this, Knox had already emanated over a dozen differing versions of what she wanted to claim took place and the police and prosecutors and Supervising Magistrate Claudia Matteini had tried to make sense of those.
2. Our Translation Of Approximately The Fourth 40 Minutes
This is the fourth 40 minutes of the voluntary interview which lasted in total about three hours. For a full understanding it would really be best to read (1) our first post and comment thread and (2) our second post and comment thread. and (3) third post and comment thread.
Transcript of Interview 17 December 2007: Statement of Interview Of Ms Amanda Knox (cont)
PM Mignini: After having talked, after you were heard at the Questura, did you go away or did you wait?
Knox: The first day I was questioned I was there for hours”¦ maybe 14”¦
Interpreter: The first time it seems to her that she had been there a very long time, 14 hours
PM Mignini: But questioned
Knox: No, maybe they questioned me for 6 hours but I stayed at the Questura a very long time”¦
Interpreter: It must have been more or less 6 hours that Amanda was questioned but staying in the Questura must have been about”¦
PM Mignini: But was there”¦ were you in the waiting room?
Knox: Yes the whole time together with everyone else we were there in the waiting room”¦
Interpreter Yes, yes together with the other ones
PM Mignini: And who were the other people?
[82]
Knox: The housemates, and later others arrived”¦ After quite a long time our neighbors arrived, after a while some people Meredith knew arrived, her friends
Interpreter: Her housemates and then other people who arrived later, the neighbors after a while”¦ and after, Meredith’s friends arrived, the people Meredith knew”¦
PM Mignini: But did you speak to them? Did you exchange any confidences?
Knox: Yes we were all there and I said “it appears that Meredith’s body was found in a closet”
PM Mignini: Who said that?
Knox: I remember talking to her friends and I remember telling them that it appeared the body had been found inside a closet”¦
Interpreter: She remembers having said it to Meredith’s friends
PM Mignini: But friends, who? You must tell us the name”¦ a name even just the name”¦
Knox: I remember having talked to Sophie”¦ But I don’t know the name of the other friends
PM Mignini: A certain Natalie? From London
Knox: The name sounds familiar but I don’t think I could recognize her face
Interpreter: She can’t tie the name to her face but”¦
PM Mignini: And what were you saying? What kind of comments were you making?
[83]
Knox: I told them what I knew, I told them that I had arrived home and found the door open, and told them what I knew”¦
Interpreter: She told what she knew that she had arrived home and found the door open
PM Mignini: Did you ever see, did you see in those moments the wound on Meredith’s neck?
Interpreter: Up to the moment?
PM Mignini: In that moment.
Knox: I never saw Meredith dead, I never saw her dead body”¦
Interpreter: No, she never saw her dead
PM Mignini: Ok, but was there anyone that night who said, anyone who said that she had died quickly? Did someone else say that she must have suffered for a long time”¦ was there anyone who said this?
Knox: Nobody of the people I talked to knew what had happened”¦
Interpreter: No, none of the people she talked to said something”¦ knew what had happened
PM Mignini: Did you come to know, did you ever come to know, and if yes, when, in what moment, Meredith had died”¦ that is, if Meredith’s death was immediate or if it was prolonged, if there was a death agony”¦ if yes, when did you find that out?
Knox: The only time when I heard of this was when Luciano [Ghirga] was describing the wound and how deep it was”¦ What kind of wound it was and he said “maybe she died slowly because no big vein had been struck”
Interpreter: So, the first time you had heard talking about the wound and how she died”¦ when was it with Luciano?
Lawyer: The morning of the 8th
[84]
PM Mignini: So, after the 6th…
Lawyer: The morning of the 8th
PM Mignini: The morning of November 8th
Lawyer: After the arrest validation [hearing]
Interpreter: And there she found out that no vital vein was directly struck and therefore”¦
PM Mignini: You say that she came to know on the 8th from the lawyer.
Lawyer: From the lawyers.
PM Mignini: From the lawyers, sorry.
Lawyer: We always came all together
PM Mignini: Either one or the other [of you] could have told her”¦ so”¦ [talking to Knox] I formally notify [for the record, a contradiction] that an Erasmus student and a colleague of this student, they said, on this past December 10th that on the night of the second in the Questura, while having”¦ a girl called Natalie, I won’t tell you her last name but she”¦ she was a friend of Meredith, she had noticed that you were talking at length with Sollecito, and at a certain point, in response to a comment made by one of these girls that they hoped Meredith had died without suffering, you instead said ” with those kind of wounds the death would not have come fast and that therefore Meredith must have died after a certain period of time”. I’ll reread it to you if you’d like, ok?
Knox: The police told me that her throat was cut, and what I know about that topic, I mean when they cut your throat, it is terrible and I heard that it’s a horrible way to die”¦
Interpreter: Yes the police had told her that Meredith’s throat was cut and what Amanda knew is that it’s an agonizing way to die”¦
[85]
PM Mignini: But this is something we found out after, we too found it out only later”¦ not right away”¦
Knox: The police told me that her throat had been cut.
Interpreter: The police had told her that her throat had been cut.
PM Mignini: Who from the police? Excuse me I’d like to know”¦ cutting the neck, it can happen in many ways, vital veins can be struck and might also not be struck, therefore one thing is about cutting the throat, and another is about the way how to cut it and therefore make it so that the death occurs instantaneously, or cause a death with agony. On the evening of the second, if it’s true, according to these results, on the evening of the second you knew that, with those kind of wounds, she must have suffered an agony”¦ and the police didn’t know that”¦
Knox: I thought that a death by cutting the throat was always slow and terrible”¦
PM Mignini: The autopsy was made on the fourth, two days later
Interpreter: What she thought was that cutting the throat was always a slow death in general
PM Mignini: It’s not like that”¦not necessarily”¦ anyway, who from the police told you about the neck wound? Tell us.
Knox: It was probably the interpreter”¦the first interpreter was the person I talked to the most”¦ all information I had came more or less from him”¦
Interpreter: Probably the translator/interpreter
PM Mignini: Therefore, therefore he told you while you were being heard”¦
Lawyer: She was in there 12 hours
[86]
Knox: When I was in there I was talking to the police and they told me that her throat was cut”¦ the whole conversation was between me and the interpreter. It was him who must have told me, a long time has passed but I think it was like that”¦
Interpreter: Directly from the interpreter, indirectly from the police
PM Mignini: So [it was] when you were questioned. Not before.
Interpreter: No, before she was questioned she didn’t know how she was”¦
Knox: No, when I was home the way she died”¦
PM Mignini: Before being questioned”¦ you were questioned until 15:30, until what time have you been heard? You were being heard since 15:30, until what time were you being heard?
Knox: I don’t know it was a long questioning”¦
Lawyer: She had been heard in the presence of an interpreter, maybe the interpreter”¦
PM Mignini: It was D’Astolto”¦ Fabio D’Astolto
Lawyer: The interpreter was present from the beginning or only from the questioning onwards?
PM Mignini: Yes, well he was a policeman acting as an interpreter, translating. Fabio D’Astolto. Assistant D’Astolto. When and how, in what terms did D’Astolto express himself, this translator what did he tell you?
Lawyer: When?
PM Mignini: When and what did he tell you
Knox: I don’t remember when but I asked him how she died
Interpreter: She doesn’t remember when but she asked him how she was killed”¦
PM Mignini: And he pointed out to you the wound on the neck. The wound on the neck and that’s all. Fine. This translator.
[87]
Lawyer: [to the Prosecutor] You referred to an Erasmus student who had said that on December 10th. Ms. Natalie would have said this.
PM Mignini: Yes
Lawyer: And is the Erasmus student indicated [in the records]?
PM Mignini: It is indicated
Lawyer: Do we have a name?
PM Mignini: Capruzzi, Filippo and the other one is a certain, a colleague of his, Chiara, Maioli.
Lawyer: So it was two Erasmus students
PM Mignini: Two Erasmus students who confirmed this confidentiality from this English girl. Some”¦ this is the December 10th hearing report”¦ ok
Lawyer G. She clarified if she had talked with the interpreter, with someone before”¦
Lawyer C. We have clarified that the interpreter was not an interpreter but was a police officer who speaks English and that apparently was present from the beginning and therefore at this point…
PM Mignini: Wait.. one moment”¦ did you, did you”¦ did you see this person who was translating at the house?
Knox: No
Interpreter: No
PM Mignini: Perfect
Lawyer: She was approximately 12 hours in the Questura and at some time she heard the first… let’s call it questioning but it was a long time, and before the questioning she heard of this wound on the neck, is that right?
[88]
PM Mignini: During the questioning, you said before, during the questioning so much as this policeman translator was present, therefore”¦ no I’m very sorry, who did you hear this from? The translator? The policeman
Interpreter: About the wound? The first time?
PM Mignini: The wound
Knox: I think so
Knox: The first time?
PM Mignini: Yeah
Interpreter: I think the interpreter the first time
PM Mignini: And it would be this D’Astolto”¦ so this D’Astolto told you, please excuse me you told me this “it was D’Astolto” now”¦ therefore this D’Astolto told you this during the course of the questioning?
Knox: I think so”¦
Interpreter: Yes, she thinks so
PM Mignini: Ok, one more thing, so the”¦ you did, the morning of the”¦ actually no, the night between the fifth and the sixth of November, you did, let’s say partially modify your previous declarations, so then you modified your previous declarations and you made a specific accusation against Patrick Dia Lumumba known as Patrick. You said that you were supposed to meet with Patrick, that you met with Patrick at the basketball court of Piazza Grimana, that you went to Meredith’s house, to your house, and then he had sex with Meredith, then you heard a scream and you accused him even if in terms you say “confusedly” of killing Meredith. Isn’t that so? Why did you make this accusation? “¦ Now remember, I was hearing you, I was present, you were crying, you were
[89]
profoundly upset, and you were as if relieved when you made this statement.
Lawyer: Maybe she was stressed?
PM Mignini: Well, stressed or not, in any case she was very she made these declarations
Lawyer: You asked her a question “Why did you make these declarations”?
PM Mignini: Well I also have to”¦
Lawyer: Eh these are opinions
PM Mignini: I am saying that you made a declaration not in a detached way, in other words in a very involved manner, why did you make these statements?
Knox: I was scared, I was confused, it had been hours that the police that I thought were protecting me, and instead they were putting me under pressure and were threatening me.
Interpreter: She was scared, she was confused, it had been hours that the police were threatening and pressuring her.
PM Mignini: Yes, tell me, go on
Knox: The reason why I thought of Patrick was because the police were yelling at me about Patrick”¦ they kept saying about this message, that I had sent a message to Patrick”¦
Interpreter: The reason why she thought of Patrick was because the police was asking her who was this Patrick to whom she sent, with whom there was this exchange of messages, they were asking her insistently.
Knox: That was the worse experience of my life
Interpreter: The worse experience of her life
[90]
Knox: I had never been more confused than then
Interpreter: She had been so confused or scared
PM Mignini: But in the following memoriale [spontaneous statement around noon 6 November] that you wrote before going to prison, basically you don’t retract this accusation. Even if in terms, still in terms let’s say of uncertainty, between dream and reality, in other words in such a way “¦ still you didn’t “¦ I believe that in this memoriale you say “I still see this image in front of me” and then you see yourself while hearing it, you say that in that first memoriale you wrote “you hear Meredith’s screams and you put your hands over your ears”. Why do you have this image? Your ears”¦ the scream”¦ it’s not like it’s changing much after all isn’t that so?
Lawyer: No, but she says she was very confused”¦ she was under a lot of stress
PM Mignini: Yes, but why does it basically remain the same, this one”¦
Knox: Yes, I imagined these things”¦
Interpreter: Imagined this scene
Knox: I was so scared and confused
Interpreter: I was so scared and confused
Knox: that I tried to imagine what could have happened. The police told me that I was probably not remembering well. So I thought of what could be another answer and therefore I imagined it”¦
Interpreter: She tried to think of what could have happened since the police was saying that probably she didn’t remember well. And therefore she imagined this scene, trying to think how it could have happened
PM Mignini: Well, you, I just tell you, I tell you only that this Dia Lumumba, this Patrick, only comes up in your statements, he wasn’t, he has never been indicated previously in the slightest, I mean why did you, why did you almost feel…
[91]
...forced to, so you say, to give this name? While this name had never been, you had never mentioned him previously”¦ in the statements of the 2nd, the 3rd”¦. Why only at a certain point di this Patrick pop up? I’m telling you, do you realize”¦ excuse me, eh? “¦ excuse me”¦.
Knox: They were telling me “why did you send this message to Patrick, this message to Patrick!”
Interpreter: Because they were always insisting about this message to Patrick and because”¦
PM Mignini: Well because there’s the message so [it’s] the message but it’s just that, it’s not that there was an attitude, I mean it’s not like there was any reference to a message according to what emerges from the statements. In fact there was a message that you”¦ since there had been an exchange of messages right before the time of the murder between you and this person it’s normal that the police would want to know why, what this message meant, this”¦ therefore it’s not something”¦ why did you threw yourself in this kind of”¦ ? While you had, you had the possibility to”¦?
Knox: Because I thought that it could have been true
Interpreter: Because she thought it could have been true”¦
PM Mignini: It could have been true?
Lawyer: Why?
Knox: When I was there, I was confused”¦
PM Mignini: [to the lawyers, ed.] No, no, excuse me, at this point no, I’m sorry. Not the lawyers. The defense can intervene against me but against the person investigated…?
Lawyer Ghirga: But there was no question”¦ Prosecutor there was no question
PM Mignini: It could be true. What does it mean?
[92]
Lawyer Ghirga: There was no question
PM Mignini: What? I am asking the question.
Lawyer Ghirga: Then ask it.
PM Mignini: What does it mean, how “˜could it be true’? What?
Lawyer Ghirga: What could be true?
PM Mignini: Excuse me, lawyer
Lawyer Ghirga: It’s like the phone call with her parents
PM Mignini: What could be true
Lawyer Ghirga: It’s like the phone call with her parents
PM Mignini: “¦Lawyer Ghirga”¦ what”¦?
Lawyer Ghirga: [seems to Knox] What do you want to say then? Let’s ask her”¦
PM Mignini: Excuse me, I am asking the questions, I am asking them now
Lawyer Ghirga Yes of course
PM Mignini: Then after you can”¦ I am asking her”¦
Lawyer Ghirga: Yes of course, we will ask them too”¦
PM Mignini: Lawyer”¦ she is saying “it could have been true””¦
Lawyer: What?
PM Mignini: “it could have been true”. She was telling me why did she accuse Lumumba of this fact? “It could have been true” is what she answered. Gentlemen, here”¦
Knox: I said it because I imagined it and I thought that it could have been true”¦
Interpreter: She said because she had imagined it and therefore she thought it could have been true.
[93]
PM Mignini: Look, listen”¦ listen, why did you imagine it?
Knox Why?... Because I was stressed
PM Mignini: Why didn’t you imagine”¦
Lawyer: No she was answering
PM Mignini: Yes; what did you want to say?
Interpreter: Because she was under stress”¦
Knox: Knox: Why? I was stressed, I was scared, it was after long hours in the middle of the night, I was innocent and they were telling me that I was guilty
Interpreter: Because they were saying that she was guilty
PM Mignini: Who was saying it? Guilty who’”¦.
Interpreter: After hours”¦
Lawyer: Excuse me, prosecutor, if we can correctly compile this translation, these words that were said in English at the right moment
PM Mignini: She is crying, we acknowledge, I’m sorry, we acknowledge that the”¦ investigated is crying.
Interpreter: Because she was stressed, scared under pressure after many hours, she was”¦ in the middle of the night, they had reached the middle of the night and because they were saying that Amanda was guilty.
PM Mignini: Who was saying that she was guilty?
Interpreter: The police
Lawyer: The police was accusing her
Interpreter: The police was accusing Amanda
[94]
PM Mignini: Why”¦ why did you accuse Lumumba and not others? How many people did you know who could”¦
Knox: Because they were yelling Patrick’s name”¦
Interpreter: She accused Patrick and not others because they were always talking about Patrick, suggesting”¦
PM Mignini: The police, the police couldn’t suggest…
Interpreter: Yelling Patrick’s name
PM Mignini: Excuse me, what was the police saying?
Interpreter: What did the police tell you?
Knox: The police were telling me that “˜we know that you were at the house, we know that you left the house’, and the moment before I said Patrick’s name they put.. someone was showing me the message that I had sent on the phone
Interpreter: The police said that they knew that Amanda was inside the house, and when she went in, when she went out, that she was inside the house, and while they were asking her this someone showed her Patrick’s message on the phone.
PM Mignini: But this is”¦ But this is normal. You”¦ there was this message”¦ I’m sorry, I’m very sorry. There’s a murder here. There’s a girl whose throat is slit, there was a phone number, there was a call that had been made, you were being heard. There was a call that had been made to you on the night of the murder from this person, you replied to this call in a way that could have been interpreted, according to the meaning in Italian “will see you”. Eh, so what is more normal than to insist? The police are doing their job. They insist to know, what did that mean, what was the, what relationship was there between you and Lumumba. This is normal.
[95]
Knox: I didn’t understand why they were insisting that I was lying”¦ they kept telling me that I was lying”¦
Interpreter: She didn’t understand why they were insisting that she was lying.
PM Mignini: Why are you”¦?
Interpreter: The police was insisting that she was lying.
PM Mignini: But why did you accuse, then if it was like this…. Again you are, you are crying again, for a long while since you started, I put in the record, I put in the record that”¦ it’s been ten minutes that you have been crying. Why did you accuse a person that, today, you’re telling us he is innocent, but earlier you just told us “it could be true” what does “it could be true” mean? You have told me “it could be true”.
Lawyer: The subject is missing
PM Mignini: No the subject is there, because I asked the question. Why did you accuse Lumumba?
Lawyer: Can we suspend a moment please?
PM Mignini: What reason?
Knox: It means that in the moment when I told Patrick’s name, I thought that it could have been true.
Interpreter: In the moment in which she said Patrick’s name, in that moment, she thought it could have been true.
Lawyer Ghirga: We ask for a suspension”¦ she is calm, you say she is crying, and we think she’s not.
PM Mignini: I put that in the record it because I could see the tears, she was crying and I could hear her too.
[96]
Lawyer: It was not ten minutes long
PM Mignini: Well, even more, maybe
Lawyer: maybe, no less
PM Mignini: Let’s interrupt, break off.
Lawyer: You asked her six times”¦
PM Mignini: For Heaven’s sake, let’s interrupt, break off.
(interruption)
[from this point on Amanda declares her right to remain silent]
PM Mignini: So, at 15:12 lawyer Luciano Ghirga resumes the interrogation
Lawyer Ghirga: In the name of the defensive collegium we submit a reason to confer personally, privately, we mean alone together with our client, for a time not longer than ten minutes.
PM Mignini: So, the Public Prosecutor is pointing out that the interrogation had already been suspended and it’s 15: 13 now, pointing out that the interrogation was suspended several times, and the last time for, how long? Ten minutes on request of the defence, and the defence will be allowed to fully have counsel with the person under investigation at the end of the interrogation. [The Public Prosecutor] orders to proceed, orders to go forward with the investigation procedure. So now I would like”¦
Lawyer Ghirga: If you may, ask to the suspect, to the person under investigation, whether she intends to go on or to invoke her right not to answer”¦?
PM Mignini: This is a”¦ it’s a”¦ it’s a”¦ she decided to answer questions at the beginning. Now if she decides to make a statement where she says “I don’t want to answer any more” she’ll be the one who says it, and it’s not that I must ask now, that question was done at the beginning of the interrogation. If now she wants to say”¦
Knox: I prefer not to answer any more”¦
[97]
Lawyer Ghirga: What did she say?
Interpreter: She doesn’t want to answer anymore.
PM Mignini: So, at this point, at 15: 15, on a question asked by the defence lawyers, about whether the person under investigation intends to go on answering or not”¦
Lawyer Ghirga: To your questions
PM Mignini: To a question by lawyer Ghirga”¦ yes, well, Lawyer Ghirga asked her that
Lawyer: He didn’t first ask the question
Lawyer Ghirga: But what question did I ask?
Lawyer: We told you to ask her…
PM Mignini: Yes, you asked me, and I did follow the request. But”¦
Lawyer Ghirga: She made a declaration, and we took note, unfortunately, about forbidden suggestions”¦ but on what request”¦?
PM Mignini: Now at this point, at 15: 15 the defence lawyers… Let’s put like this, the defence lawyers ask this Prosecutor about whether he intends to ask the person under investigation if she intends to go on answering questions, but then, after my decision, Lawyer Ghirga said”¦
Lawyer Ghirga: Who said? You said
PM Mignini: You asked her, I put in the record what happened, it’s recorded anyway, this is what I perceived you asked her, and she answered “I do not intend to answer”, she said, and then the interpreter…
Lawyer Ghirga: I asked whether she intended to make a statement, and she made a statement
PM Mignini: You indicated that to her, it changes nothing, doesn’t change”¦ I must only put in the record what happened. The public prosecutor points out that…
[98]
...the warning about the right not to answer was explained to the person under investigation at the beginning of the interrogation, as provided by the Code, and that same [person under investigation] declared she wanted to answer. It is not possible now to invoke the duty to inform the suspect about her right, because such requirement has been already fulfilled. Anyway the person under investigation can, if she decides to, declare that she doesn’t want to answer any more. Such option has been shown to the person under investigation by lawyer Ghirga.
Lawyer: ...by the defence lawyers
PM Mignini: By the defence lawyers, to the person under investigation. What do you want to do?
Lawyer: What do you mean by “It was shown?”
PM Mignini: It was shown, because you said”¦ I need to put in the record what happened. The lawyer… Facing my warrant which I described, the notice was provided at the beginning of the interrogation as the code requires. She said “I want to answer, I do not intend to invoke my right not to answer”. That answer had been given already, I informed her, and she answered. Now to this, at this point, however, I said nothing prevents her from wanting, from declaring “at this point I do not intend to answer any more”. I put it in the record and I don’t ask why, at that point, at that point.
Lawyer: You should not put in the record “the defence lawyers have shown”¦”
PM Mignini: “at that point”
Lawyer: We did not show anything, we asked to be allowed to, well”¦ and you said no.
PM Mignini: So”¦ lawyer, lawyer?
Lawyer: And you said no, and we didn’t have the possibility to show her…
[99]
PM Mignini: Lawyer Ghirga”¦ Lawyer Ghirga”¦
Lawyer: that she might invoke her right to not answer. It’s not that it’s we who’ve shown this possibility this is what I want to explain”¦
PM Mignini: Lawyer Ghirga told her something, so…?
Lawyer Ghirga: No, no, I only said, if you could give us a ten minutes suspension
PM Mignini: You told her something, now come on”¦ I need to put that on record
Lawyer Ghirga: what did I say”¦
PM Mignini: You have shown, I don’t know if the other lawyer did too, you told, Lawyer Ghirga, you told the person under investigation about… You said, if you can, if I remember correctly, we’ll hear her again”¦
Lawyer Costa: It was me who told her, Mr. Prosecutor
PM Mignini: So I understood Lawyer Ghirga… Lawyer Giancarlo Costa declares he explained that, I didn’t say anything else
Lawyer Costa: ... To Ms. Amanda Knox to use her right to invoke her right not to answer
PM Mignini: ... And she herself declares so, she is supposed to declare what she wants
Lawyer: She has already said that
PM Mignini: Let’s repeat it since with this superimposition of voices”¦ the interpreter will translate faithfully word-by-word what you say.
Knox: At this point I don’t want to answer any more
Interpreter: At this point she doesn’t want to answer any more
PM Mignini: So “at this point I don’t want to answer any more”. We put on record that the current transcript was recorded entirely.
[100]
Lawyer Costa: Mr Public Prosecutor, we lawyers may renounce to our own time terms of deposit if Your Honour would give us a copy
PM Mignini: Yes, no problem”¦ at 15: 22. The parties demand a transcription, I mean the defence lawyers request the transcription of the recording.
Wednesday, October 15, 2014
Knox, Tied In Knots By Her Own Tongue: Translation Of The 17 Dec 2007 Interview With Dr Mignini #3
Posted by Machiavelli, Catnip, Kristeva
Warden of Capanne Prison Bernardina di Mario (not present at Knox’s interview)
1. Getting Up To Speed On This Third Post
How much serious questioning was Knox subjected to prior to this voluntary interview six weeks after her arrest?
In fact, none. In the early days of November, after Meredith was found dead, she had several less-formal “recap/summary” sessions with investigators on possible leads (as did many others), which the defenses conceded without argument at trial were simply that and no more.
So these were the first serious questions put to Knox - politely, and Knox is essentially not argumentative throughout
The transcript was in the evidence pile and all judges except Hellmann seem to have studied it hard. This was also the first-ever interview of Knox by Dr Mignini, as prosecutor appointed to the case. He had seen her twice at the house and heard her at her strong insistence early on 6 November.
But they had never before really talked.
Prior to this, Knox had already emanated over a dozen differing versions of what she wanted to claim took place and the police and prosecutors and Supervising Magistrate Claudia Matteini had tried to make sense of those.
2. Our Translation Of Approximately The Third 40 Minutes
This is the third 40 minutes of the voluntary interview which lasted in total about three hours. For a full understanding it would really be best to read first our first post and comment thread and also our second post and comment thread.
Transcript of Interview 17 December 2007: Statement of Interview Of Ms Amanda Knox (cont)
[recording begins again at 01.35 pm]
PM Mignini: At 13.35 the recording resumes, so where were we, so you, I asked you if you looked inside the toilet, or not?
Knox: I didn’t look closely inside the toilet
Interpreter: Only from a distance
[55]
PM Mignini: And you saw the faeces, but this time you got worried, what did you think, because, we said that already, didn’t we? Have you seen them [faeces] other times in the house?
Knox: It’s there when I thought something was wrong
Interpreter: At that point she started to be worried and to think there was something wrong
Knox: I couldn’t imagine what it could be because the house was in order
Interpreter: But she was unable to imagine what it could be because the house was in order
Knox: First of all I didn’t know the phone number of the Police
Interpreter: She didn’t know the police number here in Italy
Knox: Second I didn’t know if it was necessary
Interpreter: She didn’t know if it was necessary
Knox: So what I decided to do, I was thinking about it, I thought what these things would mean put altogether
PM Mignini: What is “if it was necessary”, I’m sorry, I don’t understand”¦
Interpreter: To call the police, she thinks”¦ it didn’t seem to her it was necessary to call the police
PM Mignini: But, excuse me, you found the house door open, blood in the house, closed bedroom doors, and you did not try to”¦ they didn’t answer, you called and then you didn’t try to look inside the rooms, you found faeces in the bathroom, sign of the presence of a foreign person, and you didn’t feel the need to call the police or the Carabinieri?
[56]
Knox: No, because if you come into the house and nothing is missing it usually means that no foreign person has come in
Interpreter: No, because nothing was missing, and so it appeared to her that”¦
PM Mignini: I understand, but there was blood”¦
Knox: It was not much”¦
PM Mignini: Did you check if anything was missing?
Knox: I didn’t really check; there was my computer in my room, and that was a big clue that everything was ok in the rest of the house.
Interpreter: She saw the computer was still in her room, so this”¦
PM Mignini: But you didn’t look inside the other rooms
Knox: They seemed okay.
Interpreter: And for the rest everything seemed ok to her”¦
PM Mignini: The drawer with the money, did you look [there] where the money was supposed to be?
Knox: No, I didn’t think that a foreign person or a thief could have been there, and I didn’t even think about it
Interpreter: No, She didn’t think about a theft and she didn’t imagine”¦
PM Mignini: Ok, let’s go forward, then I’ll make”¦ so you went to Sollecito, how were you dressed?
Knox: I was wearing the white skirt, the blue t-shirt and tights
Interpreter: White skirt, the light blue t-shirt and tights
PM Mignini: Well, what was the time, what route did you walk? Was it the usual rout to walk to Sollecito’s”¦? At what time did you arrive?
Knox: I think around midday
Interpreter: Around midday
[57]
PM Mignini: What did you say to Sollecito? Who was there”¦ was there someone with him or was he alone?
Knox: He was alone, and when he opened the door he was in his underpants
Interpreter: Yes he was alone, and when he answered he was in his underpants
Knox: When I went to the house, I took the bucket and mop with me
Interpreter: So she said (same as before our pause) before returning back to Raffaele’s house, she picked up the bucket and mop she promised to bring him on the previous evening”¦
PM Mignini: What bucket? How was that? What colour?
Knox: Red
Interpreter: Red
PM Mignini: Red. So where did you take it from?
Knox: In the corridor, which is between my room and Meredith’s room, there is a wardrobe, it was in there
Interpreter: She picked it up from a wardrobe that is in the corridor between her room and Meredith’s [room]
PM Mignini: There was a cleaning rag or a”¦ a towel”¦ a rag?
Knox: It was a red bucket and the mop
Interpreter: She took, it was a set, a bucket, and a rag with stick [mop]”¦
PM Mignini: The mop
Lawyer: The bucket was red, the rag was not, the bucket was red
Interpreter: Yes, sorry
PM Mignini: And you picked this in the”¦? Where was this mop?
Interpreter: This bucket was in the wardrobe that is in the corridor
[58]
PM Mignini: So you arrived at Sollecito’s, and you found him in his underpants, and what did you tell him?
Knox: At the beginning I didn’t tell him anything because I didn’t know what to say to him, still I didn’t know if there was anything strange”¦
Interpreter: She didn’t speak immediately with him because she was not sure whether there was something strange or not
PM Mignini: What, you were not”¦ Excuse me.. excuse me but you just told me everything was strange
Interpreter: Yes
PM Mignini: I can’t [understand]”¦ I mean you, what were you thinking, please explain yourself because this is a version that honestly”¦
Knox: I was trying to understand what the whole could mean
Interpreter: She was trying to understand how the things could fit together
Knox: Because I knew it was strange
PM Mignini: Thus, understand it by asking Sollecito about it, didnt you?
Knox: At the beginning I didn’t tell that to Raffaele because I didn’t know if there was something really serious”¦ I understood there was something strange, but I didn’t understand if it was serious”¦
PM Mignini: Contradiction is noted [for the record] here [io le contesto = a legal formula by which a judge points out a contradiction] that you”¦. that you”¦
Interpreter: But the situation was not worrying…
PM Mignini: Because about this [point]”¦ in particular about this point you said contradictory things”¦ well because you said, at a certain point “blood, open front door, faeces, etcetera, I became worried”, now you are saying “I was not worried”
[59]
any more, I asked Raffaele if I should worry””¦ so honestly, explain yourself, because it’s not clear at all
Knox: It seemed strange to me but not worrying or alarming
Interpreter: It seemed strange to me but not so worrying, alarming
Knox: Because the house is exactly how it should have been, except for those small things
Interpreter: At her house, in Amanda’s house, everything was as it should have, except for those details
Knox: I had the idea that if someone entered the house and did something there should be visible chaos
Interpreter: Had some foreign person come in they would have made more mess
PM Mignini: Well so, did it happen other times that you saw blood in the house, open house door, faeces in the toilet?
Knox: No
PM Mignini: This one was the first time?
Knox: Yes
PM Mignini: And”¦ and Raffaele, when you asked him about it, what did he say to you?
Knox: I talked with him about it after we cleaned up the water”¦
Interpreter: She told him after they cleaned up”¦
PM Mignini: So before that you told him nothing
Knox: No
Interpreter: No
PM Mignini: You cleaned up”¦ but excuse me?... Let me understand, that was water”¦ was that the water that spilled on the previous evening? At what time did it spill? Around 21 hours?
[60]
Knox: I don’t know because I didn’t look at the watch”¦ it was after dinner”¦
Interpreter: Ehm”¦ after dinner
PM Mignini: Ok, what time could that be? When did the leakage occur? 21: 30?... 20: 30? Have no clue?
Knox: I think it was about 10: 30
Interpreter: More like half past ten
PM Mignini: Half past ten”¦ and so almost, about twelve hours”¦ had passed, if I’m not mistaken, well, but didn’t the water dry up?
Knox: No, there was a lot of it
Interpreter: No it was a lot of water
PM Mignini: But hey it’s twelve hours that had passed, I didn’t make the count now but anyway it’s many hours that had passed, so…
Interpreter: But there was still the water
PM Mignini: As if those hours hadn’t passed. And then, what did Raffaele tell you? When did you talk about it with him? After finishing drying up [the floor]”¦
Knox: While he was dressing up I dried up the floor and when he got dressed I had finished drying up, we started to have breakfast, and then I told him”¦
Interpreter: Amanda was drying up the water while Raffaele was getting dressed and then when they”¦
PM Mignini: So when you finished everything taking your time, you said “this happened”
Interpreter: After he had dressed and they had breakfast she talked with him about it
PM Mignini: Oh so he dressed up, you had breakfast, so like about an hour has passed”¦ how long?
[61]
Knox: Yes, I don’t think quite a whole hour”¦
Interpreter: Almost an hour yes”¦ about an hour”¦
PM Mignini: At that point you told him what had happened”¦ what you had seen
Knox: Yes I told him the door was open, that there was some blood in the bathroom and there was the shit in the other bathroom”¦ the first thing I told him was “look, hear about these strange things that happened to me this morning”
PM Mignini: And what did he say?
Interpreter: Yes she told him about these three elements that were in the house
PM Mignini: And what did he say? What did he say?
Knox: Yes it’s strange, you need to call your housemates”¦
Interpreter: He said “yes it’s strange, call your housemates”
PM Mignini: But excuse me, he didn’t say call the Police or the Carabinieri? Not even on that occasion?
Knox: No, he said to call the housemates, I didn’t think that someone entered the house but that something could have happened to the girls”¦ thus he said “you should call the housemates”
Interpreter: She was thinking something happened to her housemates, not that someone, a foreign person had entered, so he suggested to her to call the housemates
PM Mignini: And did you [plural, referred to both] call them immediately?
Knox: I called Filomena
Interpreter: She called Filomena
PM Mignini: And what did Filomena say to you?
[62]
Knox: She was more worried than me”¦
Interpreter: Filomena was more worried than her”¦
Knox: She said she spent the night with her boyfriend and Laura”¦
PM Mignini: Excuse me”¦ excuse me”¦ excuse me”¦ when you called, where did you call Filomena, from where did you call Filomena and when?
Knox: From Raffaele’s house
Interpreter: From Raffaele’s house
PM Mignini: After you talked with him
Interpreter: Yes
PM Mignini: Is that after?
Interpreter: Yes
PM Mignini: So, now I note a contradiction [for the record] from you, that Ms. Romanelli said she received a phone call from you, she reported that “you were very frightened”¦ you told her you were very frightened, and you were going to call Raffaele Sollecito”. Thus on these findings, you called Filomena before you talked with Mr. Sollecito. And she, Filomena, urged you to call Police or Carabinieri
Knox: I’m sorry, I didn’t understand well
Interpreter: I’m sorry, I didn’t understand well
PM Mignini: So from statements given by Ms. Romanelli on Dec. 3., it comes out that you, Amanda, you called Filomena, you told her you had slept at Raffaele’s house, that you had gone back to the cottage in the morning and you found the front door open and some blood in the bathroom, you told her you took a shower anyway, that you were scared and that you intended to call Raffaele Sollecito. Then the thing seemed strange [to] Ms. Romanelli, and she urged you to call immediately Police and Carabinieri….
[63]
...This is what Ms. Romanelli says, according to what Ms. Romanelli says, you called her before talking to Raffaele Sollecito.
Knox: What I remember about that morning, the first time I remember I called Filomena it was when I was at Raffaele’s home”¦ An interesting thing I didn’t remember about that morning is that I called my mother three times, but I had completely forgotten about it. So what could have happened is that I forgot I called Filomena or we failed to communicate because she doesn’t speak English very well and I don’t speak Italian well. So I may have forgotten about calling her before, or I could have talked with her with some difficulty”¦ but”¦ I remember the first time I called her it was at Raffaele’s home. I might be mistaken but the other thing I didn’t remember was I called my mother three times and I don’t even remember about it”¦
Interpreter: As for what concerns her, as for what Amanda remembers, she remembers she called Filomena the first time from Raffaele’s home. It may not be she called her before. She doesn’t remember about it because she also talked that morning three times [sic] with her mother, something about which she doesn’t remember. Or it could be that they didn’t understand each other very well, since Filomena doesn’t speak English well and Amanda doesn’t speak Italian well, so they didn’t understand each other well.
PM Mignini: How many times did you speak with Filomena that morning, how many?
Knox: I recall she called at least three times when I was at Raffaele’s. I called her and she told me to call Meredith. So I tried to call Meredith and then she called me again to ask me if Meredith answered and I told her no, she didn’t answer. I said “we must go home and check then” and while we were getting ready she called again asking if we had arrived at home yet.
[64]
Interpreter: She believes she spoke with Filomena three times because Filomena told her to call Meredith, something she did but she didn’t answer. After that Ms. Filomena wanted to know the answer, and then Amanda said she would go to her house again to see the situation, and then she called Filomena again.
PM Mignini: You alerted Filomena, let’s go forward with the”¦ then we’ll see”¦ So you talked with Filomena, then you went with Mr. Sollecito, you went to the house, didn’t you? At what time did you arrive?
At this point, we put in the record that, at 13.55, clerk of the court Daniela Severi leaves and [Carabinieri] officier Paciotti takes her place.
Knox: I think I’ve left at around half past twelve
Interpreter: She thinks about half past twelve
Knox: I know it seems strange, I realize I should have arrived at the house before that time, before twelve. Because I washed (? unintelligible)
Interpreter: She should have arrived at Raffaele’s house before twelve, earlier than she thought. Because she did”¦
PM Mignini: Did you look at the time? The time?
Knox: No
Interpreter: No
PM Mignini: Who was there when you arrived at the house?
(interruption of the recording)
PM Mignini: So we start again at 14.02
Lawyer: On a question by the lawyers, we ask if she was in possession of a watch
PM Mignini: Did you have a watch?
[65]
Interpreter: No
PM Mignini: Well, but the cell phone had a watch, you had the time
Knox: Yes but I didn’t think about looking at the time
Interpreter: Yes but she didn’t think about looking at the time
PM Mignini: Well, so there were”¦ what did you see inside the house when you came in?
Knox: It was there that we started to open the doors, I checked in Filomena’s room and there was some broken glass”¦
Interpreter: So she opened FIlomena’s room where she saw broken glass
Knox: Yes it was broken, on the floor and the window
Interpreter: On the floor and the window
PM Mignini: Did you enter the room?
Knox: No I just opened it [the door]
Interpreter: No she just opened the door
PM Mignini: Excuse me, just to understand better this point, the first time you saw the door closed you might even”¦ you didn’t open it? You only opened on your return visit?
Knox: The first time I didn’t open the door
Interpreter: The first time she didn’t open the door
PM Mignini: It was closed. Now why did you open the door this time?
Knox: Because Filomena was afraid there could have been a burglary, a theft, so I opened to check if everything was ok.
Interpreter: Amanda opened Filomena’s room door because Filomena feared there could have been a theft and so she wanted to verify
[66]
PM Mignini: So then why didn’t you check? Didn’t you check if anything was missing?
Knox: I don’t know exactly what Filomena has in her room, I saw the computer on the table so I was not so much worried. The computer was the most valuable thing
Interpreter: So she didnt know of all Filomena’s items, but she immediately saw that Filomena’s computer was on the table, and so she thought”¦
PM Mignini: Well, and the door? Meredith’s door?
Knox: I was unable to open it
Interpreter: She couldn’t open it, the door of Meredith’s room
PM Mignini: Did you try to open the door?
Knox: Yes, first I tried to open it but it was locked so I knocked to see if she was sleeping, since it was locked I imagined she could be inside so I knocked to see if she was asleep
Interpreter: Yes she did try”¦ yes she tried to open but the door was locked and so she knocked to see if she was inside, if she was sleeping”¦
PM Mignini: I go back for a moment”¦ did you entered Filomena’s room, or you didn’t?
Knox: No
Interpreter: No
PM Mignini: You should be precise about this
Knox: No
Interpreter: No
PM Mignini: You didn’t enter”¦ so, as you saw that”¦ you knocked at Meredith’s door you saw her door, her room”¦ her room door was locked, at that point, did you try to call her?
Interpreter: Do you mean calling by voice?
[67]
PM Mignini: No, I mean calling her cell phone
Knox: I had already tried to call her three times from Raffaele’s home. I thought it would be easier to wake her up by knocking at the door.
Interpreter: She had tried to call Meredith three times already, when she was at Raffaele’s home, so she wanted to wake her up by knocking at the door
PM Mignini: And then what happened? “¦ oh just a moment, [you mean] you went to look inside the bathroom on the right, from the entrance point of view, not in your bathroom, the other bathroom”¦
Knox: When I looked inside, after we tried to open her door and everything, we were in the kitchen, and he would call his sister [sic]. I went to check the bathroom, I didn’t do down to the bottom, I went into the anteroom and what I had previously seen it had slipped down. It was as if it [the toilet] had been cleaned.
Interpreter: Amanda came back into the larger bathroom while Raffaele was calling his sister, and from a distance she could see the faeces had slipped down, apparently it had been cleaned.
PM Mignini: But did you go to look?
Knox: I didn’t look inside, I checked from a distance
Interpreter: She didn’t get close to see, she saw that from a distance
PM Mignini: From a distance? It’s hardly understandable”¦ from a distance of how many meters?
Knox: From the anteroom where I had dried my hair, I looked very quickly and I didn’t see anything and I got scared, because the man or whoever left the faeces had been there.
Interpreter: From the area where she dried her hair she gave a quick glance and she saw it was no more like it was before, it was clean, the faeces had slipped down and…
[68]
... thus at this point she got worried because apparently someone”¦
PM Mignini: At the same distance you”¦ you saw that from the same distance?
Knox: Yes, I had gone a bit closer the first time
PM Mignini: It’s where you dried your hair?
Knox: In the bathroom anteroom in front of the mirror”¦
Interpreter: In front of the mirror, in the area in front of the mirror”¦
PM Mignini: At what distance is that from the toilet?
Knox: I don’t understand meters”¦
PM Mignini: You mean it was in the bathroom anteroom [apparently Mignini shows her a picture or a map, ed.]
Knox: From here”¦ maybe I was here”¦
PM Mignini: It’s a couple of meters
Knox: The second time I was not at the mirror [sic] I was in the door [sic], I entered this way here and”¦
PM Mignini: At the same distance, so…
Knox: No, not at the mirror, because when I entered the mirror is this way, but I entered”¦
Interpreter: The second time from a bit more far away
Knox: But only a little more far
PM Mignini: Excuse me, you couldn’t see anything from there”¦ there is the bathroom anteroom and the bathroom, where were you?
[69]
Knox: I was at the door, I mean I entered the anteroom yet I was very close to the door, that leads to the kitchen..
Interpreter: Between the bathroom anteroom and the bathroom. Yes she was in the anteroom
PM Mignini: From the anteroom, so I note a contradiction [for the record], that you can’t see anything from there, so you made a statement, you told Raffaele the faeces were not there anymore, despite that you didn’t see anything. Because you would not be able to”¦
Knox: Because the first time I also saw from a distance
PM Mignini: Ok, that’s ok”¦ I doubt that you could see from there anyway”¦ you didn’t go to check, you say “let’s see if the faeces are still there or not”?
Knox: No
Interpreter: No
PM Mignini: You remained outside [from the bathroom], you didn’t check, but you said to Raffaele “the faeces are not there anymore” in a worried fashion
Knox: I thought they were not there anymore
Interpreter: Because she thought they were not there
PM Mignini: Listen, so, then did you tell Romanelli about the break-in? about the broken glass? “¦ Filomena?
Knox: Yes I called her and she said she was coming
Interpreter: Yes she called her and she said she was coming too
PM Mignini: And what was Raffaele doing in that moment?
Knox: We decided to call his sister
Interpreter: They decided to call Raffaele’s sister
Knox: And she said, call the Carabinieri or the Police
Interpreter: And Raffaele’s sister told them to call the Carabinieri
[70]
PM Mignini: What time it was? “¦ excuse me I wanted, there’s another question I wanted to”¦ did you have any vaseline at home? Vaseline?
Interpreter: At their house?
PM Mignini: At their house, the apartment, Via della Pergola
Knox: No I don’t use it, the only thing I know about Vaseline is Meredith always looked for it and when we went in a store together she would always go to see if there was any Vaseline”¦ because she said it was very useful. I don’t think we had any, I don’t think, but I never use it
Interpreter: Amanda never used it, she only knows Meredith was always looking for it since she thought it was very useful, she [Knox] herself doesn’t know if there was any at home
PM Mignini: So you don’t know if Meredith had any?
Knox: I know she wanted it but I don’t know if she bought it
Interpreter: She knew she was going for it but she doesn’t know whether she bought it or found it
PM Mignini: Who arrived next?
Knox: After we called the police, I and Raffaele, we went outside because we felt very uncomfortable, two police men came”¦
Interpreter: After they called the police Amanda and Raffaele went outside and two police officers came
PM Mignini: So they called the police?
Interpreter: Yes
PM Mignini: At what time?
Knox: I don’t know because it was Raffaele who called them.. they came.
[71]
Interpreter: She doesn’t know if they called the Police or the Carabinieri because it was Raffaele who did it but two officers came, dressed in uniform…
PM Mignini: Yes, yes”¦ no, not in uniform
Interpreter: In plain clothes
PM Mignini: At what time did they arrive?
Knox: I didn’t look at the time
PM Mignini: I note the contradiction [for the record] that the calls to the Carabinieri were done after the arrival of the Provincial Police [sic]”¦ the Postal Police”¦
Knox: I did not call
Interpreter: Amanda didn’t call
PM Mignini: Well, did you see Raffaele calling?
Knox: Yes
Interpreter: Yes
PM Mignini: How many times did he call?
Knox: Once
Interpreter: Once
PM Mignini: Once? He called twice”¦
Lawyer: she doesn’t know
PM Mignini: So two officers of the Police came, did they identify themselves as such? [Did they say] “Polizia Postale”?
Knox: Yes, they showed us the badges
Interpreter: Yes, they did
[72]
PM Mignini: Well, but in the meanwhile, did two other young people arrive?
Knox: Yes after the police arrived, I led them into the house, because I thought they were those Raffaele had called, and I showed them that the door was locked and I showed them the window was broken and in the meanwhile Filomena and the boyfriend arrived”¦
Interpreter: Yes when the two police officers arrived, she thought they were those Raffaele had called and so she showed them”¦
Knox: And also two friends of hers [arrived]
Interpreter: “¦ Meredith’s locked room and Filomena’s room with the broken glass, with the broken window and then Filomena with her boyfriend arrived and also other two young people”¦
PM Mignini: Oh”¦ so you”¦ you entered, I ask you this once more, you didn’t enter Filomena’s room, did you enter the other rooms?
Knox: It’s not that I went to look around, but I opened Laura’s door, that was all ok, there the bed was done up. There was the computer, so it was all ok.
Interpreter: She opened Laura’s room and she saw it was all in order
PM Mignini: Did you enter the room?
Knox: Maybe one step but I didn’t go inside
Interpreter: Maybe she made a step but she didn’t go around much
PM Mignini: And in which other”¦ did you enter other rooms?
Knox: I entered my room, and I tried to open the door of Meredith’s room
[73]
Interpreter: She entered her room, and tried to enter Meredith’s room but it was locked
PM Mignini: And so what did you”¦ what happened at that point?
Knox: After Filomena arrived, she handled the talking with the police, and I stayed in the kitchen with Raffaele
Interpreter: After Filomena arrived, it was Filomena talking with the two officers and Amanda and Raffaele remained in the kitchen
PM Mignini: And so did you two see”¦ what happened next? You two, did you see?
Knox: I know the police opened Meredith’s room
Interpreter: She knows the police opened Meredith’s room
PM Mignini: You know that because they told you?
Knox: No, no, I was in the kitchen, and from there I could see they were beside Meredith’s room, but I was not there, I was in the kitchen
Interpreter: No, no, she saw that from the kitchen
PM Mignini: But you, what did you see of Meredith’s room?
Knox: I did not see inside the room
PM Mignini: You didn’t see anything”¦
Interpreter: She didn’t see down into the inside of the room
PM Mignini: So did you see the scene? Neither you nor Raffaele?
Interpreter: No
Knox: No we didn’t see
PM Mignini: Neither of you two, when they opened it, where were you?
Knox: In the kitchen
[74]
Interpreter: In the kitchen
PM Mignini: So you were a few meters away
Knox: Yes, yes
Interpreter: Yes
PM Mignini: In what area of the kitchen were you staying?
Knox: more or less near the entrance
Interpreter: In the.. near the [outside] entrance of the kitchen”¦
PM Mignini: About the entrance, you mean the house entrance, just beyond”¦ so you were”¦
Knox: Yes we were inside
Interpreter: Yes
PM Mignini: When they entered, then was the door immediately closed again?
Interpreter: With the officers?
PM Mignini: Meredith’s [room].
Knox: I don’t know, they just told me to get out of the house
Interpreter: She doesn’t know, because they told her to get out of the house
PM Mignini: The Carabinieri, at what time did they arrive? Did [some people] wearing black uniforms come? Other police officers?
Knox: The Carabinieri came”¦ at that point I was very frightened”¦ I don’t remember when they arrived, I’m sure that was after, when I went out, and I sat on the ground and I couldn’t understand what was going on”¦
Interpreter: The Carabinieri arrived afterwards when I was outside
PM Mignini: How long after the arrival of the two plain-clothed police officers?
[75]
Knox: I’ve already said in these instances it’s too difficult to define the time, because I only remember Filomena saying “A foot! A foot!” We were pushed out, there were police officers outside and I sat on the ground, I couldn’t”¦ I was under shock and couldn’t understand what happened”¦
Interpreter: What Amande remembers is that after Meredith’s door was opened, Filomena was screaming “A foot! A foot!” and Amanda was told to get out of the house and it’s hard to explain at this point, to tell if she was frightened..
PM MIgnini: When did the Carabinieri come? When? After the body had been discovered?
Knox: I saw the Carabinieri when I went out, I don’t know when they came”¦
Interpreter: She saw the Carabinieri when she got out of the house, she doesn’t know when they came
PM MIgnini: But the Carabinieri did not enter? You did not see them inside the house.
Knox: No I don’t think so”¦
Interpreter: No
PM MIgnini: So you saw them when you went out, so was that after a long time since the arrival of the Postal Police? After”¦ ten minutes, fifteen minutes?
Knox: Yes, maybe after some ten minutes, I was still in shock and I was scared so it’s difficult to tell at what time the various things happened”¦
Interpreter: It’s difficult for her to say how much time had passed because she was in shock but something like ten minutes must have passed
PM MIgnini: Oh well, I wanted to know this: did Raffaele tell you about what was in the room?
[76]
Knox: Before, he didn’t know himself what was inside the room
Interpreter: Before, he didn’t even know himself
Knox: But after, when they were all talking”¦ he found out yes”¦ After the police was there and we were all outside together I don’t know who told him but it must have been Filomena or I don’t know who else”¦ but someone explained him that it was not just a foot in the room but the body”¦ but what they saw of it was the foot”¦ So he explained to me that the body was in the room, but you could only see the foot.
Interpreter: When she was outside with Raffaele, to [sic] him, he understood that it was not just a foot but it was the body that had been found
PM MIgnini: But he told you, did he tell you textually “there was a girl’s body inside the wardrobe covered with a sheet, and the only thing you could see was a foot”. This, did Raffaele tell it to you?
(the interpreter, at this point translates the question asked by PM MIgnini this way: “did Raffaele tell you that in the room there was the body covered by a cover?)
Knox: Yes
Lawyer: She [the interpreter] did not say: in the wardrobe?
PM MIgnini: These are your statements. You declared on December 2”¦. on November 2. “¦ On November 2. 2007 at the first questioning when you were heard, the very first one, a few hours after the discovery of the body, you told, you said Raffaele told you that “in the wardrobe, there was the body of a girl covered by a sheet and the only thing you could see was a foot”. Is this true, that Raffaele told you this?
Lawyer: Please judge, could you read it to us?
[77]
PM MIgnini: So “in the wardrobe..” Excuse me, please translate this word by word to her”¦ “in the wardrobe there was the body of a girl covered with a sheet and the only thing that you could see was a foot”
Knox: As Raffaele said
Interpreter: This is as Raffaele told it to Amanda”¦
PM MIgnini: Yes, she said this in the first [2 November] questioning.
Knox: Yes, apparently, it seemed to me, he told me the body was in the wardrobe”¦ it’s this that he told me”¦ obviously he did not see himself inside the room, it was things that were told to him by someone else”¦
Interpreter: Yes, on November 2. she said so because it’s what Raffaele told her. Because not even what he thought he understood [sic “neanche quello che secondo lui ha capito”]... Since he did not see”¦ he did not see inside the room”¦. Raffaele told her that way
PM MIgnini: These are textual, precise words so? “¦ I may read them again to you”¦ You confirmed”¦
Lawyer: She confirmed that Raffaele heard other people saying that maybe this was the version, and he referred this version, referring to something he heard
PM MIgnini: I read them again, I can read them again”¦.
Lawyer: We’ve read it, you explained to us
PM MIgnini: So on November 2. you say, that means the first questioning at 15: 30, this is the first one, the most aseptic one let’s say, so: “I learned in that moment from my boyfriend that inside Meredith’s room in the wardrobe there was the body of a girl covered with a sheet and the only thing you could see was a foot”.
Knox: Yes
Interpreter: Yes
[76]
PM MIgnini: You confirm that he spoke to you this way
Knox: Yes
Interpreter: Yes
Lawyer: She pointed out to the previous question, the source from which Raffaele had this information
Interpreter: Raffaele did not see, so it was what it seemed to him
Lawyer: Raffaele collected this information from other people
Interpreter: From the people around, Carabinieri and other young people
PM MIgnini: But excuse me, excuse me, did Raffaele tell you this, did he tell you “this one told me, that one told me”, or instead Raffaele limited himself to just telling you this? What did Raffaele tell you?
Knox: I think it was Filomena’s friends who told him
Interpreter: She thinks it was Filomena’s [male] friend who told Raffaele
PM MIgnini: You think”¦
Knox: I don’t know who told him
PM MIgnini: Excuse me”¦
Interpreter: Yes she thinks but doesn’t know
PM MIgnini: Excuse me, the question was as follows, here’s the question”¦ Are you ready? “¦ So, Raffaele comes to you”¦
Knox: Yes
PM MIgnini: And what does he say? “There is the body of a girl in the wardrobe, covered with a sheet, and you can only see a foot”? Or did he say “someone told me that there is the body of a girl” and said who [told him]?
[79]
Knox: I understand”¦ I understand”¦ He said precisely “Apparently there is a girl, there is the body of a girl, in the wardrobe”¦ But the only thing that you can see is her foot”
Interpreter: He did not say who told him, he just said “it seems like”¦” and “apparently”¦”
PM MIgnini: He said so: “It seems like”¦” ?
Interpreter: Yes
PM MIgnini: The body is in the wardrobe covered with a sheet, and you only see a foot
Interpreter: Yes it seems like they say apparently
PM MIgnini: Oh, then when did you know, you, how Meredith died?
Lawyer: How Meredith was dead?
PM MIgnini: That she was dead, and about how she died
Knox: The police told me
PM MIgnini: When did they tell you?
Knox: At the beginning they didn’t tell us if was Meredith or not, Filomena said “Oh no, Meredith!” so I imagined it was her but I didn’t know”¦ So at the Questura when they were already questioning they told me then that it was Meredith. I don’t remember the exact moment when they told me but it was at the Questura”¦
Interpreter: She actually learned this when she was at the Questura, later, before she learned about the body of a girl and then she heard Filomena saying “Oh my god, its Meredith!” and hence”¦
[80]
PM Mignini: And about the way she was killed, when did you come to know that? Excuse me, I’ll give you an example, she could have been shot with a gun, with a stab, poisoned”¦ I mean”¦
Knox: I didn’t know how she was killed”¦ I thought that there was this foot in the room but didn’t know anything else”¦ The police…
Interpreter: The police told her
PM : When? Who told you from the police?
Knox: I don’t remember
Interpreter: She doesn’t remember
Lawyer: No, but she also said that she doesn’t know how she was killed”¦
PM Mignini: This is important: therefore you don’t know how she was killed?
Knox: No
Interpreter: No, she didn’t know
PM Mignini: You didn’t know how she was killed, what was it the police telling you?
Knox: The police told me that her throat had been cut”¦ and from what they told me I had pictured something horrible”¦
Interpreter: The police told her that her throat had been cut
PM Mignini: Who told you from the police?
Knox: I don’t remember
Interpreter: Eh, she doesn’t know who
PM Mignini: Well, a man, a woman”¦?
Knox: I don’t remember
Interpreter: I don’t remember
[81]
PM Mignini : And when were you told?
Knox: When I was at the questura, but I don’t remember. When they interrogated me the first time I remember that they said “we don’t even know if it’s Meredith” I don’t remember when they told me, I only remember that the police told me when I was in the Questura because I didn’t know what had happened”¦
Interpreter: She only remembers that she was in the questura when she came to know how
PM Mignini: At what time?
Knox: I don’t remember”¦
Interpreter: I don’t remember.
Continued in Part #4 at this address.
Monday, October 13, 2014
Knox, Tied In Knots By Her Own Tongue: Translation Of The 17 Dec 2007 Interview With Dr Mignini #2
Posted by Machiavelli, Catnip, Kristeva
Prominent Rome criminal lawyer Dr Giancarlo Costa who walked off the Knox team soon after this
1. Getting Up To Speed On This Second Post
How much serious questioning was Knox subjected to prior to this voluntary interview six weeks after her arrest?
In fact, none. In the early days of November, after Meredith was found dead, she had several less-formal “recap/summary” sessions with investigators on possible leads (as did many others), which the defenses conceded without argument at trial were simply that and no more.
So these were the first serious questions put to Knox - politely, and Knox is essentially not argumentative throughout
The transcript was in the evidence pile and all judges except Hellmann seem to have studied it hard. This was also the first-ever interview of Knox by Dr Mignini, as prosecutor appointed to the case. He had seen her twice at the house and heard her at her strong insistence early on 6 November.
But they had never before really talked.
Prior to this, Knox had already emanated over a dozen differing versions of what she wanted to claim took place and the police and prosecutors and Supervising Magistrate Claudia Matteini had tried to make sense of those.
2. Our Translation Of Approximately The Second 40 Minutes
This is the second 40 minutes of the voluntary interview which lasted in total about three hours. For a full understanding it would really be best to read first our first post and its insightful comment thread before tackling this.
Transcript of Interview 17 December 2007: Statement of interview Of Ms Amanda Knox (cont)
PM Mignini: Listen when you did you find out that Ms Romanelli and Ms Mezzetti would not have been there? Ms Romanelli, Laura and Filomena”¦
Knox: I discovered it when I had called Filomena on the morning of the second.
Interpreter: On the morning of the second when Amanda had called Filomena, she had found out that she had not been”¦
PM Mignini: And about Laura, did you know?
Knox: Filomena had told me that Laura was in Rome
Interpreter: Now then that morning of the 2nd of November Filomena had said to Amanda that Laura was in Rome.
(interruption of recording)
PM Mignini: Now then at this point the recording resumes at 11:50 am and I repeat the question, what did you do on the afternoon of the 1st of November and during that night between the 1st and the 2nd? Oh and the morning of the 2nd obviously.
[29]
Knox: When I had woken up in the morning I was at Raffaele’s house, the 1st of November, and I went to my house to have a shower to change myself, I had already spoken to Raffaele and he had said to me that he would have come over to my place, when he would have woken and everything”¦ So what I did was that I studied and then I put away my linens [whites]”¦
Interpreter: The morning of the 1st of November, so that night she had slept at Raffaele’s house
PM Mignini: The night between the 31st and the 1st?
Interpreter: Yes, in the morning she had woken up at Raffaele’s, after which she’d gone, gone back to her house to have a shower, change her clothes in expectation that Raffaele would meet up with her. In expectation that Raffaele would meet up with her she set herself to studying, to washing her clothes, and to put the clothes away
PM Mignini: And then?
Knox: While I was there in the kitchen studying and while I was in the kitchen Filomena came back home with her boyfriend, Marco, and they had wrapped a present and they got ready very quickly for a party to which they had to go and I had continued to study and I had helped them to wrap the present with Marco and when they’d left I’d continued to study.
Interpreter: She was studying, they’d only returned for a bit the housemate Filomena with her boyfriend who set themselves to wrapping a present that was going to be for a party. And she had helped them, she was studying in the kitchen and she helped get the present ready and then”¦
PM Mignini: Was Meredith there?
Knox: Meredith was sleeping
PM Mignini: In that moment”¦
Interpreter: She was sleeping
[30]
PM Mignini: Ah she was sleeping
Interpreter: Yes
PM Mignini: Ah”¦ then go on
Interpreter: Then after the couple, Filomena and her boyfriend, had gone out, and she continued to study.
Knox: While I was studying, Meredith had woken up and I think she went to the bathroom first and then she came to say hello and she sat down to have breakfast. And we had chatted while I was studying”¦
Interpreter: Then while she was still at studying in the kitchen Meredith woke up, she went to the bathroom first and then into the kitchen
PM Mignini: At what time? “¦ at what time?
Knox: I think around midday
Interpreter: I believe around midday and then Meredith had joined her in the kitchen to have breakfast and they had exchanged chitchat about the night before
PM Mignini: Was Sollecito there as well?
Knox: No, not yet
Interpreter: No, not yet
PM Mignini: There wasn’t”¦ and then? Go on if”¦
Knox: We had spoken about Halloween she’d given me some advice about young men and went to have a shower and while she was having a shower I had thought about what to prepare for lunch, because I was starting to feel hungry”¦ I pulled out some things for lunch and that is bread and cheese”¦ then Raffaele arrived and while all this was happening Meredith was under the shower or in her room getting dressed. After Raffaele arrived he got some pasta ready,
[31]
...I believe for lunch while we were eating together Meredith had entered and had either put in, or taken out clothes from, the washing machine, she said hello to him and had gone back into her room”¦
Interpreter: Now then, Meredith was in the kitchen having breakfast with Amanda they chatted a bit after which Meredith had gone to have a shower and get dressed. In the meantime Amanda who was starting to get hungry had thought about what to prepare for lunch had taken out bread and cheese and Raffaele had also arrived who had set himself to cooking some pasta, it seems to her, for lunch. In the meantime Meredith was still either in the shower or getting dressed. And while Meredith had returned, while they were eating lunch, she’d returned to take her clothes from the washing machine.
PM Mignini: She’d eaten with them?
Knox: No, she had just had breakfast
Interpreter: No, she had just had breakfast
PM Mignini: Please go on
Knox: After Raffaele had eaten, I felt like playing the guitar for a while and Raffaele sat himself down to listen to me”¦ and in all this time Meredith had returned, she had dressed and everything she had gone to the door and she had said “Buona giornata” [have a good day] to us. I remained at home with Raffaele playing the guitar and singing a bit and around five I hadn’t looked at the clock but I believe it might have been five we’d decided to return to his house.
Interpreter: Now then, after lunch Amanda and Raffaele set about playing the guitar and in the meantime Meredith had left the house with a greeting to them. It seems to her that they stayed home playing the guitar until around five in the afternoon when they’d gone instead to Raffaele’s house.
[32]
PM Mignini: Just a moment, before going on. When you both had saluted Meredith, did Meredith tell you where she was going? And at what time would she be back?
Knox: No
Interpreter: No
PM Mignini: Go on
Knox: At Raffaele’s house we made ourselves comfortable and I sat at the computer to find songs that I wanted to learn to play on the guitar and in the meantime I know that Raffaele had gone to the bathroom, I was at the computer transcribing songs from the Internet it’s difficult to say what happened first, but what happened was that while I was using the computer a friend of Raffaele’s arrived to ask if she could use his car. She was speaking Italian very quickly and so I don’t know what they said to each other. When Raffaele was in the bathroom the doorbell rang and I let this girl in, and Raffaele came out of the bathroom to meet her.
Interpreter: At Raffaele’s house Amanda searched for songs, music on the computer to play on the guitar in the meantime Raffaele had gone to the bathroom. While Raffaele was in the bathroom a friend of Raffaele’s rang the doorbell to whom Amanda had opened the door and afterwards this friend of Raffaele’s had spoken with Raffaele and it seems to her that this friend had asked him if she could borrow his car.
PM Mignini: Yes, before going further. At Raffaele Sollecito’s house in the bathroom, right? In Raffaele Sollecito’s bathroom is there a shower?
Knox: Yes
Interpreter: Yes
PM Mignini: Have you had showers at Sollecito’s house?
[33]
Knox: Yes
Interpreter: Yes
PM Mignini: Oh, go on yes
Knox: After having used the computer I grabbed, I read Harry Potter in German, I gave him the Harry Potter book while he was in the bathroom, but he didn’t understand it, so after we sat ourselves down and I was reading from it to him and I was translating for him and then let’s think about what else did we do”¦ We watched the film Amelie a message from Patrick arrived and in response to the message I said to him, I wished him a good evening and that I would see him again later when he would be”¦ Patrick told me that I didn’t need to go to work because”¦ he told me that in Italian but I believe the message was “there aren’t many people, there’s no need that you come to work””¦
Interpreter: Afterwards since Amanda is studying German and Raffaele also wants to learn Amanda has a Harry Potter book in German that they were reading together, trying to translate it together. Afterwards they had watched the film Amelie.
PM Mignini: At what time?
Knox: I don’t remember the time exactly”¦ sorry.
Interpreter: She doesn’t remember
PM Mignini: Doesn’t she remember, the film?
Interpreter: Amelie it’s called yes, so Patrick had sent a message in Italian but”¦
PM Mignini: And what did this message say?
Interpreter: That there weren’t many people that there was no need that she come to work
PM Mignini: That is he said exactly this. At what time did you receive it?
[34]
Knox: I hadn’t looked at the clock
Interpreter: She hadn’t looked at the clock
PM Mignini: After the film or before?
Knox: I don’t remember
Interpreter: I don’t know
PM Mignini: Did Sollecito see this”¦ did he know about it, or else”¦ did he become aware of this message?
Knox: He hadn’t seen it but when I read it I said, “Wow! I don’t have to go to work!”
Interpreter: He hadn’t seen it although she informed him that she didn’t need to go to work and that she was happy so”¦
PM Mignini: And then?
Interpreter: And then she had responded to Patrick saying “ci vediamo più tardi” [we’ll meet up later]
PM Mignini: Meaning? How did you answer in text precisely?
Knox: My message in English but I wrote it in Italian, what I was trying to say was “ci rivediamo e buona serata” [see you later and have a good evening]”¦ that is “ci rivediamo e buona serata””¦
Interpreter: Now then two things. One thing is that she wrote in Italian and another thing what she wanted to say in English. In English what she was thinking of wanting to say was “ci vediamo dopo buona serata intanto” [see you later have a good evening in the meantime] and instead she had written in Italian “ci vediamo buona serata” [let’s meet up have a good evening]
Lawyer: She had written the same thing that it also means in English. She had translated the same thing, I don’t know if she had said the same thing..
Knox: I’m saying to you in English what I wanted to say but I’ve told you I wrote it in Italian
[35]
PM Mignini: Make me understand then, excuse me a moment, he sends a message, an SMS, this message says “there’s only a few people don’t come. Don’t come tonight”
Interpreter: Don’t come to work.
PP Mignini: Don’t come to work. This had never happened before we’ve seen.
Knox: No
Interpreter: No the first time
PM Mignini: So that time, for the first time he calls and says “don’t come”
Knox: Yes it was the first time
Interpreter: Yes it was the first time
PM Mignini: How long after did you reply to him with an SMS? Do you remember?
Knox: I think I replied immediately after I received it
Interpreter: It seems to me I replied immediately, straight after having received it.
PM Mignini: But how did you reply? Try to remember the exact words.
Knox: Okay, I said “ci vediamo” or “ci vediamo più tardi buona serata”
PM Mignini: Più tardi buona serata
Interpreter: It seems to me I’d replied something in the affirmative to his message, saying “Okay, ci vediamo più tardi”
PM Mignini: Ci vediamo più tardi
Lawyer: In Italian, but in English what she said something that she”¦ let her say it clearly in Italian, if you would
Knox: Saying “See you later” is like saying ciao
Interpreter: What she wanted to say was only a salutation ciao
[36]
PM Mignini: But in Italian you wrote let’s meet up later. In Italian you wrote it like this, do you remember this?
Knox: In Italian I had written let’s meet up later have a good evening but it means in my language, see you later have a good evening
PM Mignini: Oh, does Lumumba know English?
Knox: No, he’s never spoken to me in it, we speak in Italian
Interpreter: She has never spoken in English to him only in Italian
PM Mignini: Go on
Knox: We had fish for dinner, I remember this, because it was very good and afterwards, we had eaten in the kitchen and then afterwards he started to wash the dishes, and while he was washing some water dripped on the floor. From under the sink, because the pipes had come unscrewed and the water had fallen on the floor.
Interpreter: They had dinner, they ate fish and after the meal Raffaele washed the plates and while he was washing the plates the water had gone onto the ground because the sink was broken, the sink pipes were broken, they had leaked.
PM Mignini: But did it break suddenly?
Knox: It wasn’t exactly broken, it was rather that the pipes had come unscrewed
Interpreter: Yes it was the first time that the pipes had become detached and afterwards Raffaele had readjusted them
PM Mignini: Therefore it happened unexpectedly, this breakage?
Interpreter: Yes
PM Mignini: They had become loose? What happened? What breakage was it? What type of breakage was it?
Knox: Yes it was the first time that it had happened
[37]
Interpreter: Yes it was the first time that it had happened
PM Mignini: But what happened? I mean was there a pipe breakage or else the screw let’s say, how do you call it, had come unfastened”¦ is it? “¦ we would need to see it”¦
Knox: I hadn’t examined them myself but what happened is that it had become detached”¦ it had come loose and I don’t believe that”¦
Interpreter: The pipe had become detached, it had come loose yes
PM Mignini: The pipe came loose right go on
Knox: So to remove the water we grabbed the rags [canovacci= rags or floor rags] “¦ there was too much water and I went into the storeroom to see if there was a mop [in English in the transcript], but there wasn’t then I came back to the kitchen and I said to him “Don’t worry I have a mop at our house” and so tomorrow morning we can go and get it and we can clean”¦
Interpreter: So to get rid of the water from the ground they used the towels from the kitchen they weren’t enough, they were looking for a rag [sic “˜straccio’ in Italian in the transcript, but obviously the interpreter means “˜mop’] in Raffaele’s house, in the bathroom there wasn’t any so had said “don’t worry tomorrow morning I’ll bring you one, I’ll bring you a rag from my house”
PM Mignini: But in the meantime he’d turned the tap off, no? “¦ So the water wasn’t running out any more
Interpreter: Yes
PM Mignini: Right go on, continue”¦
Knox: After this Raffaele was a bit upset that the pipes had got broken, he asked me what I wanted to do and we had thought about going, to go back in the bedroom I was laid out on his bed and he was at the desk preparing the joint.
Interpreter: Now then Raffaele was unhappy about this incident because he was saying that the pipes were new and then to cheer her up he thought about what they could do…
[38]
...together and they were thinking about smoking a joint together. They went back to bed and Raffaele manufactured a joint.
PM Mignini: Before going on I wanted a clarification. So you had put down towels right?
Knox: They were tiny and so they had done nothing and in the end I’d thrown them into the sink”¦ yes we had put them on the ground, they had taken up a bit of the water but nothing to speak of”¦ so I had put them in the sink and we’d gone to his bedroom.
Interpreter: They were tiny kitchen towels that had no great effect and which afterwards she had thrown into the sink, these towels
PM Mignini: had Raffaele any newspapers at home?
Knox: I think so
Interpreter: Yes
PM Mignini: Dailies?
Knox: Yes
Interpreter: Yes
PM Mignini: Why didn’t you use the newspaper paper since it absorbs a lot? It’s a question that I put to you
Knox: I didn’t think about it”¦
Interpreter: They didn’t think about it
PM Mignini: Oh, OK, go on continue to recount this”¦ go on, yes
Knox: While we were smoking we started chatting about what we had done, and after we had chatted we had sex”¦ and after that I believe I had fallen asleep”¦
[39]
Interpreter: Now then after they had smoked the joint they had made love and afterwards she believes she fell asleep.
PM Mignini: So Sollecito what did he do? Had he fallen asleep with you, he hadn’t gone, he didn’t stay awake?
Knox: I fell asleep in his arms
Interpreter: Yes she had fallen asleep in his arms
PM Mignini: Then? Go on. He received”¦ one last thing, were there phone calls that night?
Knox: No, I switched off my mobile phone
Interpreter: No she had switched off her phone. Amanda had switched off her phone.
PM Mignini: You switched off yours and Raffaele also switched off his?
Knox: I don’t know because I don’t check him so”¦ I don’t know if he switched off his or not
Interpreter: Now then she doesn’t know if Raffaele had switched his off but she doesn’t seem to remember him receiving any phone calls
PM Mignini: But why did you switch off your phone?
Knox: To save the battery, usually I keep it on at night if the following morning I have things to do, but the morning after was the day that everyone was going to skip school and we were going to go to Gubbio the day after with Raffaele. So I switched off my phone because I didn’t want that maybe Patrick might call to tell me to go to work. That’s why I switched it off and saved the battery.
Interpreter: To not have the battery discharge
PM Mignini: But you could recharge it
Interpreter: Since she was out of the house she wanted to save the battery because the next day she would have gone to Gubbio with Raffaele and since the day”¦ she leaves it…
[40]..
on during the night when the following day she has to go to school, but the following day there was no school and so she switched it off also to not run the risk that Patrick would change his mind and would call her to go to work
PM Mignini: Because there was the risk, that is you weren’t sure that”¦
Knox: He had told me that I didn’t need to go to work but it was still early and I didn’t know if he might have called back to tell me “Yes, now I need you””¦
Interpreter: No, when Patrick had called saying that she didn’t need to work it was still early enough and the situation could still change in the sense that more people could turn up and he couldn’t”¦
PM Mignini: One thing I wanted to know, the phone in the house rang? In Sollecito’s house?
Knox: I don’t remember I can’t be sure about it”¦
Interpreter: She doesn’t remember, she doesn’t know
PM Mignini: What’s the cell phone that you have? Which one was the cell phone that you switched off? What’s the brand?
Interpreter: the brand, or the [telephone] company”¦?
PM Mignini: No the brand, I meant the brand
Knox: It’s a Nokia phone
Interpreter: Nokia
PM Mignini: Nokia, but what’s the battery duration, I mean how long normally does the charge of your cell phone [last]..?
Knox: Let’s see”¦ I think a day but I don’t know”¦ because what I do is that I switch it off if I don’t use it during the night. But if I need it for example as an alarm clock, I let it stay on, then I go home and I charge it again, I put it on charge”¦
[41]
... I never use it to the point of battery exhaustion. Sometimes I put it on charge, sometimes I don’t.
Interpreter: It seems it lasts 24 hours, and she never lets it run out of battery to the limit
PM Mignini: So there was no risk that it would run out of battery while going to Gubbio?
Interpreter: It normally lasts 24 hours
PM Mignini: What?
Interpreter: The battery lasts 24 hours
PM Mignini: No, I’m asking, what the risk that it would run out of battery be like? I don’t understand
Knox: But why should I waste the battery leaving it on?
Interpreter: She only wanted to feel safe since she didn’t need to keep it on in order to”¦
PM Mignini: But she usually keeps it on at night
Interpreter: Only when she uses it as an alarm. In the morning
PM Mignini: Well but you’d use the alarm every morning, I use it every morning
Interpreter: But she was not going to school on the next day
PM Mignini: Ah”¦
Attorney: She said it previously, it was a holiday and I did not put the alarm on
PM Mignini: When you were going to school you said previously. Go on with the description.
Knox: You want to know more about that morning? “¦ When I woke up in the morning, I got up and Raffaele was still in bed, I dressed up and I went to my home, to take care about my things”¦ when I arrived at my home the door was wide open which was strange, so I went in my room, I undressed, I took a shower and…
[42]
...when I got out of the shower, I noticed the blood in the bathroom”¦ There was not much of it but even that I found it strange”¦ but at the same time it’s not that I immediately thought “Oh my God, there was a murder!”
Interpreter: She fell asleep at night and the following day she woke up at Raffaele’s home, while Raffaele remained in bed she went back home
PM Mignini: Let’s stop here for a moment. I just wanted to know this: On November 2 was it holiday at the “¦ [University?]”¦ because the 2nd is not a holiday here
Knox: The teachers said it was not a problem if I stayed home, because it seems like everyone was going to skip that Friday
Interpreter: Yes there was the sequence. Also the teacher said”¦
PM Mignini: Go on, so she said”¦
Interpreter: She said students were not expected to go, they were not coming”¦
PM Mignini: [the teacher] told her so, on the previous day?
Knox: Yes, on Wednesday I think
Interpreter: Yes on Wednesday at school
PM Mignini: Who was the teacher who told you that?
Knox: I don’t know her name but she is the Professor of Culture, I don’t know the day when she said that to me”¦ but it was during that week”¦ while we were talking during the week, one day she said it was a tradition to make a holiday bridge on Friday if Thursday was a holiday, so they can do [holiday] the whole weekend
Interpreter: So the teacher said it’s a classic for the students to make a holiday bridge when there is a holiday Thursday and have a prolonged weekend
PM Mignini: What’s the name of this teacher?
[43]
Knox: I’m not good at remembering names..
Interpreter: She doesn’t remember the name
PM Mignini: A woman?
Knox: Yes a woman
Interpreter: A woman
PM Mignini: Ok, go forward. You wake up at what time, at Sollecito’s place?
Knox: More or less at ten
Interpreter: Around ten
PM Mignini: And then?
Knox: Then I went back home, the door was open
Interpreter: Then she went back to her home where she found”¦
PM Mignini: Why did you go back home?
Interpreter: To take a shower and change her clothes
PM Mignini: Why didn’t you take a shower at Sollecito’s?
Knox: Did you see his shower? “¦ It leaks [drops?] everywhere”¦ It’s a dreadful shower”¦ I hate to use it”¦ and moreover all what I need to have a shower like shampoo is at my home”¦
Interpreter: Because it’s an ugly place, small, there is little space
PM Mignini: But you took the shower other times, but also during the afternoon you had one”¦
Knox: I prefer to take a shower at my home
Interpreter: She prefers to take a shower at her home, she also has clothes at home”¦
[44]
Knox: And also all my clothes are at my home”¦
PM Mignini: So she needed to go home, to take a shower and, let me understand, take a shower and to what?
Interpreter: To change her clothes
PM Mignini: To change your clothes”¦ well and so what [did you]”¦ did you bring anything with you?
Knox: I think I brought some clothes”¦ dirty underwear”¦
Interpreter: Yes she thinks she brought dirty clothes from Raffaele’s home
PM Mignini: Dirty clothes that is”¦ dirty clothes from previous times? Or since which”¦ since what day were they lasting from?
Knox: I had spent two weeks living a bit at my home and a bit at his home
Interpreter: Because for two weeks she had been living half the time at her home and half the time at his home, and thus she had a bit of”¦
PM Mignini: What clothes were those ones?
Knox: Maybe underwear
Interpreter: Probably”¦
Knox: But I don’t remember, maybe it was a t-shirt
PM Mignini: You don’t remember
Interpreter: Dirty clothes…
PM Mignini: Well dirty clothes, I mean a skirt, a pullover”¦
Interpreter: No rather”¦
PM Mignini: Underwear garments
[45]
Interpreter: Underwear garments
PM Mignini: She doesn’t remember?
Interpreter: She thinks rather pants and vests /undershirts”¦ and t-shirts
PM Mignini: Well, how were you dressed when you went at your house?
Interpreter: From Raffaele’s house to her house?
Knox: I was wearing trousers I remember that and let’s see”¦ so much time has passed”¦ I know it was trousers
PM Mignini: Yes
Interpreter: She put on some trousers, she remembers it was trousers
PM Mignini: What colour?
Knox: A t-shirt and a sweater
Interpreter: And a sweater
PM Mignini: A jumper?
Interpreter: No, sweater normally means felpa [cotton sweater]
PM Mignini: A sweater [felpa]? Ask her
Attorney: Was it made of cotton or wool?
Knox: I don’t know
Interpreter: She doesn’t know
PM Mignini: What colour?
Knox: I don’t remember”¦ a long time has passed, I remember what I put on but I don’t remember exactly”¦ I’m sorry”¦
Interpreter: She doesn’t remember
[46]
PM Mignini: You don’t remember
Interpreter: She remembers she put on but not what”¦
PM Mignini: And the trousers, what colour were they?
Knox: I don’t remember, I only remember I was wearing trousers”¦ I think they were jeans”¦
Interpreter: She does not remember even this one”¦ maybe they were jeans
PM Mignini: So around blue? Light blue?
Interpreter: Yes
PM Mignini: What route did you follow to walk”¦
Knox: The same route I do every day, I walk down Corso Garibaldi I follow the lane close to the basketball court, and next there’s my house
Interpreter: Down Corso Garibaldi then along aside of the basketball court to the house, the route she did every day
PM Mignini: You walked down the stairs?
Knox: No
Interpreter: No
PM Mignini: On the side of the basketball court”¦
Knox: This road here that”¦
PM Mignini: Oh, so you walked down the lane not the”¦ the basketball court was on your right?
Knox: Yes
PM Mignini: So, excuse me, did you carry a bag, a [plastic] bag with the dirty clothes, or an empty [plastic] bag?
[47]
Knox: The clothes in a plastic bag
Interpreter: Yes a plastic bag with the dirty clothes
PM Mignini: With the dirty clothes. Well, please go on with the description”¦ then”¦
Knox: When I arrived home the door was wide open and I thought it was strange, I thought that maybe somebody.. but nobody ever leaves the door open, however there was the possibility that someone went out without locking, maybe for a moment. I saw it I thought it was strange, I closed the door without locking it, because I didn’t know if someone was out, I went into my room, I undressed and I went into the bathroom, I took a shower, first I took off my earrings, I took a shower and I used the bath mat on which there was some blood because I left my towels in my room. I saw the blood on the mat and I dragged it to my room to grab the towels. And then I took it back into the bathroom.
PM Mignini: Maybe you should stop
Interpreter: So when she arrived home she found the house door open, that was strange, she thought it was one of the girls who went out for a moment, she pulled it ajar [sic], she did not lock it because she thought maybe someone left it open on purpose and she went in her room to remove her clothes to take a shower. When she took a shower”¦
Knox: When I went to take a shower I forgot the towel in my room, I took off my earrings, I took a shower I had to use the bath mat and drag it to my room and then I dragged it back into the bathroom I put on my earrings
[48]
.. again, I saw the blood on the bath mat and in the bathroom but I did not think something terrible happened.
Interpreter: when she had gone [sic] into the bathroom to take a shower she forgot the towel and so there was this, how’s the word in Italian, bath mat which she used to go back and walk in her room to take the towel”¦ she had taken away her earrings in the bathroom and from there she noticed there was some blood on the mat and on the basin, but she noticed it was strange but she didn’t think about something”¦.
PM Mignini: I’m sorry I didn’t understand, but you took the bath mat to walk, to go in her bedroom?
Interpreter: Yes in order not to slip.. so to avoid walking barefoot
PM Mignini: When did you realize?
Knox: After the shower
Interpreter: After the shower
PM Mignini: When did you realize there was blood?
Interpreter: After the shower
Knox: I saw the blood when I entered the bathroom, I saw a little of blood just as I entered the bathroom, before taking the shower I took off my earrings, I took the shower and then I noticed blood on the bath mat
Interpreter: She noticed the blood while entering the bathroom, on the basin when she took off her earrings, then she had a shower and after the shower she was without the towel, so she used the mat to shuffle into her room
PM Mignini: Yes, so you saw blood before you took a shower?
[49]
Interpreter: Yes, in the basin
PM Mignini: In the basin
Interpreter: But on the bathmat, there she saw it when she was about to use the bathmat
PM Mignini: On the basin, where did you see it”¦ where was the blood?
Knox: It was inside the basin, that was after”¦ and it was also on the faucets
Interpreter: Inside the basin and on the taps
PM Mignini: So the blood was in the basin in the [inside] part”¦ and on the tap”¦ well, then”¦ this was before taking a shower”¦ then after taking the shower..
Interpreter: The towel was missing and she used
PM Mignini: She walked and realized that there was blood on the bathmat as well
Interpreter: Yes, yes
PM Mignini: And what did you do then?
Knox: I used the bathmat to walk to my room to get the towel and I went back into the bathroom, I think I washed my teeth, something I usually do, and when I dried myself I went back to my room and I put my clothes on.
Interpreter: So after she dried herself up in the bathroom and”¦
PM Mignini: Just a moment, before going on. The dirty clothes you had with you, where did you put them?
Knox: Between my bed and the wardrobe there is a heap of dirty clothes”¦ there is a little space between the two and I usually put the dirty clothes there, behind the guitar”¦ the guitar is not mine”¦ the guitar is Laura’s..
Interpreter: So she put the [plastic] bag between the bed and the wardrobe, there is a space where she placed the guitar her friend has lent her
[50]
Knox: Not the bag, just the clothes
Interpreter: And she placed the clothes, without the [plastic] bag, behind the guitar
PM Mignini: Why didn’t you put them into the washing machine?
Knox: Because I put all the dirty clothes in the same place, and when I’m ready to do a washing I put all the clothes in the washing machine
Interpreter: Because she was waiting to have some more to do a whole washing
PM Mignini: The bathmat, where did you”¦ where did you take it after?
Knox: Once I finished using it to go and to come back from my room, I put it in the bathroom again
Interpreter: She put it back into the bathroom
PM Mignini: Were the bedroom doors open or closed?
Knox: No they were all closed”¦ Filomena’s door was closed, Meredith’s was closed and Laura’s I think it was slightly ajar
Interpreter: Only that one, the door of Laura was only a little bit open, so it seems to her, the other two were closed.
PM Mignini: The other two were closed, you tried to open ... to knock?
Knox: No
Interpreter: No
PM Mignini: Why didn’t you try? With .... blood ... with the front door open .... I mean….
Knox: I didn’t see a reason to do it…
Interpreter: She did not see a reason for knocking
[51]
PM Mignini: So, excuse me, you find the door open, the front door open and itself this is something”¦ then you find the blood in the bathroom and you have a shower despite this and this is something, allow me to say that, for”¦ a bit strange this one, I mean you could imagine that there could be some, there could be some ill-intentioned person in the house or around, you find the front door open and the blood in the bathroom and in spite of everything you took a shower. The rooms were closed. You didn’t attempt to knock. Did you enter the rooms? This is strange.
Knox: In my whole life nothing that was ever remotely similar to this has ever occurred to me”¦ I do not expect to come back home and find there is something wrong
Interpreter: She did not expect to find something wring because she never experienced something”¦
PM Mignini: But there was blood, there was the front door open
Knox: There was not so much blood.. it could have been anything”¦ when I saw the open door I thought it was strange, it’s that the thing I found most strange, I did not think it was so strange to find blood in the bathroom”¦
PM Mignini: But did you enter the rooms? I asked if you entered the room
Knox: No
Interpreter: No
PM Mignini: You didn’t even knock?
Knox: No because when I came in I called to hear whether there was somebody at home
[52]
Interpreter: As she entered the house she called to know if there was somebody
Knox: But there was no answer
Interpreter: But there was no answer
PM Mignini: Listen, where did you dry up yourself?
Knox: In the bathroom
Interpreter: In the bathroom
PM Mignini: The bathroom, the small one, the one nearby”¦ yours?
Knox: Yes I took the towel from the room, I dragged myself into the bathroom [sic], I dried myself up a little more”¦
Interpreter: Yes she dried herself up in the bathroom more or less, then she finished drying herself up in her bedroom
PM Mignini: Listen, were there broken glasses?
Knox: When I came out of from the shower I used the bathmat to go to my room, I took the towel I obviously wrapped it around myself and then I went back to the bathroom and I dried myself up
Interpreter: Before, since after taking the shower she had no towel cause she had forgotten it she went back into her room with the bathmat, there she took the towel which she wrapped around herself and then she finished to dry up herself in the bathroom. She went back in her room when she had finished drying herself
PM Mignini: Still stepping on the bathmat? Still bringing the bathmat?
Knox: I dragged the bathmat, I made more or less a heap to enter my room, I jumped back on the bathmat again and meanwhile my feet had got dry”¦ and since my feet were dry I brought the bathmat back into the bathroom”¦ I did not drag it back with my feet
[53]
Interpreter: To go back she picked it with her hands because her feet were dry, she was dry
PM Mignini: Listen, but what did you do after?
Knox: I put my earrings on again
Interpreter: She put on her earrings again
PM Mignini: Oh just one thing, I wanted to know, did you see the pieces of broken glass?
Knox: No, I didn’t see them. I saw them the second time I entered the house
Interpreter: No she didn’t see the broken glasses
PM Mignini: Another thing I wanted to know: did you enter the other bathroom? The one with the washing machine?
Knox: Yes after I dressed up I went to dry my hair, and I used the hairdryer that Laura and Filomena use so I went into the other bathroom which is a large bathroom, there is a part, an area where they store all the make-ups”¦ and there is another part with the bathroom fixtures. I passed through the anteroom where they have the make ups, the hairdryer and”¦
Interpreter: Yes after she dressed up, then”¦
PM Mignini: Try to interrupt her, or it gets [difficult]
Interpreter: She dressed up she went in the other bathroom of Laura and Filomena because they have the hairdryer to dry her hair, the bathroom has two areas, let’s say the toilet area and the hairdryer area.. she saw the toilet from a distance, she did not see well because she was not in front of it she was far, and she say some shit, yes
PM Mignini: The toilet paper was there too?
Knox: I did not look into the toilet. From a corner
Interpreter: She only looked from far distance, not at close distance
[54]
PM Mignini: Excuse me, excuse me, I wanted to know this: when you saw this thing, what did you think? I mean did you think that a foreign person entered the house or”¦ ?
Knox: It’s then when I thought something could have happened because the open door and that little amount of blood did not worry me
Interpreter: The fact that the front door was open and the blood seemed strange to her but not so much to feel alarmed”¦
PM Mignini: I was talking about the faeces
Knox: It’s there that I thought there was something strange, I felt scared”¦ It’s when I decided to go back to Raffaele’s house, because I got scared”¦
Interpreter: On that circumstance when she sat the [big] bathroom she started to become afraid
PM Mignini: Have you seen that other times? Did you see un-flushed faeces in the toilet other times?
Knox: No that’s why it was strange, because nobody in our house would do that
Interpreter: No she never saw that before and exactly for this reason it seemed strange to her and she started to worry
PM Mignini: At this point there were many elements, the blood, the open front door”¦
Knox: Yes I was worried, after when I saw this, I saw the open front door and also the blood and I thought okay, maybe, I don’t know, but when I saw the blood”¦
Continued in Part #3 at this address.
Saturday, October 11, 2014
Knox, Tied In Knots By Her Own Tongue: Translation Of The 17 Dec 2007 Interview With Dr Mignini #1
Posted by Machiavelli, Catnip, Kristeva
A view of Capanne Prison where this interview was done
1. What Had Already Happened Prior To This Interview
How much serious questioning was Knox subjected to prior to this voluntary interview six weeks after her arrest?
In fact, none. In the early days of November, after Meredith was found dead, she had several less-formal “recap/summary” sessions with investigators on possible leads (as did many others), which the defenses conceded without argument at trial were simply that and no more.
Early on 6 November 2007 at Perugia’s central police station, Knox had headed off down a slippery slope, from which nearly seven years later she is still trying to crawl back.
It was recorded at the arrest hearing before Judge Matteini on 9 November that her newly-appointed lawyers had told her not to say a word. But by the end of that November alone the ever-talkative Knox had come out with ten-plus differing statements, and in early December she came out with even more.
The ten-plus differing November statements included an email to many in Seattle, two voluntary statements she insisted upon making early on 6 November, and another around noon; two letters she wrote to her lawyers dated 9 November, a daily diary which she began writing on 9 November in Capanne (partly in Italian, apparently beamed at police, prosecutors and judges, as she left it in her cell after she was warned the cell needed to be searched), several recordings of conversations with her parents in Capanne (into which the Supreme Court read a great deal), a letter to Raffaele Sollecito dated 22 November and another to Madison Paxton around six days later.
None of her statements prior to 17 December had helped her and several had dropped her in deeper. In some Knox was not simply in defiant denial mode all of the time about any role in attacking Meredith. In some she seems hard on herself for things she had done including the framing of Patrick, though she never wound hat back. In Capanne Prison her parents had shushed her to be quiet just when she seemed to be coming clean, as she seems close to doing so here.
2. Our Joint Translation Of This Extremely Crucial Interview
This interview by Dr Mignini at Capanne Prison was eagerly agreed to by Knox, possibly seeing this as her last best chance to get herself off the hook and to avoid remaining locked up. This lasted about three hours, until Knox’s lawyers interrupted to got her to clam up.
Despite the many false claims about “interrogations” to the contrary, this was Knox’s first-ever in-depth interview. It was also the first-ever interview of Knox by Dr Mignini as prosecutor appointed to the case - as we have shown he asked Knox no questions on 5-6 Nov.
All of the trial judges and appeal judges and lay judges had clearly studied this document hard. Also prosecutors and the Knox and Sollecito defense counsel periodically refer to it.
Knox’s lawyers were Luciano Ghirga and Giancarlo Costa who soon after departed from Knox’s team for mysterious reasons rumored as being that he saw guilt. (Giancarlo Costa is not even mentioned in Knox’s book; if that isnt suspicious, what it?).
Knox very much mischaracterizes this interview in her book Waiting To Be Heard (2013) but has never seriously been called on that so far, because there was no English transcript.
We need to forewarn you that this is not a trial transcript but a transcript of a suspect interview over which Dr Mignini presided, requested to be put fully into Italian (many of Knox’s words were in English) by Knox’s defense team. That is why sometimes you will read the interpreter translating Knox (and the Italian speakers present to her) and sometimes not.
3. Our Translation Of Approximately The First 40 Minutes
Transcript of Interview 17 December 2007: Statement of interview Of Ms Amanda Knox
Criminal Proceeding n. 9066/07, r.g.n.r. Public Prosecutor’s Officer Perugia
On the day of 17.12.2007 At the Perugia Prison
Those Present:
Public Prosecutor Dr Giuliano Mignini
Daniela Severi ““ Clerk of the Court
Agent Danilo Paciotti ““ Carabinieri Section Judicial Police
Giacinto Prefazio ““ Head of Flying Squad Perugia Police
Monica Napoleoni ““ Deputy Superintendent Perugia Police
Julia Clemesh ““ Interpreter
Translation Into Italian
For the transcription of this Statement, the declarations made by Ms Knox have been translated by Prof Dr Alesssandro Clericuzio. The statement is transcribed in 100 numbered pages from number 1 to number 100. [page numbers shown in square brackets here] (signed) Technical Consultant Rosanna Siesto
[Note by our translation team. In the Italian, the header on each page consists of: “Statement of information supplied by Ms Amanda Knox, assisted by the interpreter Julia Clemesh. In the statement, the phrases reported and pronounced in the language of Amanda Knox have been translated by the Technical Consultant Dr Alessandro Clericuzio.” and the administrative annotations “Crim. Proc. n. 9066/07” and “Of the day 17 December 2007”. The footer on each page carries the annotations: “Technical Consultant Rosanna Siesto”, “Interpreter Dr Alessandro Clericuzio” and the page number.]
Complete statement of the declarations made as a person being investigated on the facts by Ms Amanda Knox.
[1] Public Prosecutor Mignini: It’s 10:45 am I’m assisted for the redaction of this current statement. The date is 17 December 2007, in the proceeding 9066/07 mod. 21 in Perugia, Capanne Prison, before the Public Prosecutor Dr Giuliano Mignini, assisted for the redaction of the statement by Clerk of the Court Daniela Severi and by Carabinieri Agent Danilo Paciotti from the Carabinieri Judicial Police Section qualified for recording, present for investigative exigency Dr Giacinto Profazio, head of the Perugia Flying Squad, and Deputy Superintendent of the Perugia Flying Squad Monica Napoleoni, also present, and the interpreter Dr Julia Clemesh, born at Frankfurt-on-Maine?
Interpreter: Yes.
PM Mignini: Federal Republic of Germany, 17 September 1974, resident in Perugia, Via [address edited]. Amanda Knox has appeared, since she in a state of detention audio recording is provided for and the other requirements under Article 141 bis of the Criminal Procedure Code and the other requirements of Law. A summary report is also provided for; she is invited to declare her particulars and whatever else is required to identify her with the admonition of the consequences which apply when one refuses to give them or gives them falsely, [2] in answer. Now then, you have to tell me your particulars. And you have to tell me, exactly. So, what’s your name? You have to say, I am and my name is”¦
Knox: My name is Amanda Knox.
PM Mignini: Born at? You see, you have to tell me”¦
Knox: Born in Seattle.
PM Mignini: Seattle, Washington State, isn’t that?
Knox: Yes in the United States on the 9th July 1987.
PM Mignini: What date sorry? The”¦
Knox: The 9th July ‘87.
PM Mignini: 9 July ‘87. Resident at?
Knox: Here?
PM Mignini: No, resident in the United States in Seattle”¦
Knox: 37th Avenue”¦ a pen”¦
PM Mignini: She needs to write it down”¦ a pen”¦ yes so yes notice is given that 9821. Now then, can you speak Italian? Do you understand it a bit?
Knox: Yes but I prefer to speak in English.
PM Mignini: Yes, but in any case do you understand Italian a little bit?
Knox: Yes, yes but I can help better”¦
PM Mignini: Do you have a pseudonym? A nickname?
Knox: In the soccer team they called me Foxi Noxi (naughty fox, ndr)
Interpreter: In the soccer team they called her Foxi Noxi.
PM Mignini: Can you dictate it for the”¦
Interpreter: How to spell it?
PM Mignini: They call me Foxi Noxi.
Knox: Only when I play soccer.
PM Mignini: Nationality from the United States, residence as above, domicile as above, place of employment? “¦ Where do you work, are you a student
Knox: I’m a student.
Interpreter: Yes, student.
PM Mignini: Marital status, single, is it? Conditions of your specific life, social relations, study title?
Knox: I’ve finished high school.
Interpreter: She hasn’t graduated yet.
PM Mignini: High school diploma.
Interpreter: Yes senior high yes.
PM Mignini: Occupation? “˜I am”¦’ You’re a university student?
Knox: Yes.
PM Mignini: “I’m a university student [male adjectival form], university student [female adjectival form].” ?
Knox: Yes.
PM Mignini: Listen, do you have real estate? Do you own houses, land?
Knox: No.
PM Mignini: Propertyless. Are you under other criminal trials, besides this one, involved in other processes or proceedings?
Knox: No.
[4] PM Mignini: Do you have any convictions under the State or in foreign countries? Careful, you need”¦ Whether you have proceedings in foreign countries. Do you understand? Proceedings in the investigation phase.
Knox: No.
Interpreter: The second question instead?
PM Mignini: Whether you have had convictions, in the Italian State or in foreign countries”¦ so therefore also in the United States”¦
Lawyer: I would like that you explained”¦
PM Mignini: But is that a crime?
Lawyer: No administrative.
PM Mignini: You shall say it, have you had fines, have you paid fines in the United States
Knox: Yes
PM Mignini: Yes? “¦ But was it about facts constituting an offence? You don’t know this”¦ or was it facts which constitute administrative breach
Knox: For having made noise
PM Mignini: I understand. Do you exercise or have you exercised public offices or services or of public necessity? No. Have you ever carried out public duties? Electoral for example”¦
Knox: No
PM Mignini: Public duties no. Now then you therefore have the right to nominate a defender, you have two defenders, you confirm the nominating of these defenders that are present, therefore you confirm the nominating of the advocates Luciano Ghirga of the Perugia Bar and Advocate Carlo Dalla Vedova of the Rome Bar, present at the taking down of this document. Also present as collaborator from the Dalla Vedova Law Firm, advocate Giancarlo Costa also of the Rome Bar. Now then. [5] The choice of domicile, where do you want the notices of this proceeding to go to?
Interpreter: In Italy right?
Knox: To the office of my lawyer
PM Mignini: I confirm the choice of domicile as at the firm of advocate Ghirga. The Public Prosecutor therefore notifies to you the charges that you have seen in the precautionary custody orders which are the offences contrary to Articles 110, 81 main paragraph, 575, 578, and 609 bis of the Criminal Code, committed in Perugia on the night of the 1st and the 2nd of November 2007 against Meredith Kercher in acts as registered. Statements of summary information, findings pursuant to Art 354 and 360 CPC searches and seizures, statemented search proceedings and all the elements mentioned by the Perugia Re-examination Court in the order dated 30 November, 5 December 2007. Therefore all the elements against you there are declarations by persons informed of the facts, there are the results of the tests carried out by the Scientific Police, therefore the traces, in particular the trace on the knife, the DNA trace on the knife, the DNA in the bidet, and all the other results mentioned by the Perugia Re-examination Court in the 30 November, 5 December 2007 order. Therefore you shall make known what you consider to be useful for your defence.
Lawyer: Excuse me, we’re given to understand that there have been indicated things, in the 30 pages of the re-examination some other things have been indicated, so you put them to her and invite her to say things useful for the trial, you’ve given four or five examples, if”¦ I don’t believe that it acquits your task to put them to her.
PM Mignini: Now then look. Well she was found to be”¦
Lawyer: You’re going through the evidence against her, can we describe it like that? Now then.
PM Mignini: Of course. So it resulted during the course of the investigations there was a series of items of evidence, items against her that are, that derive from the declarations of persons informed of the facts, in particular the declarations made by, from some declarations that have been made by you yourself during the phase, during, in the period in which you were a person informed of the facts, so prior to the 6th November 2007, there are also declarations by Raffaele Sollecito when he was still a person informed of the facts, and declarations by Raffaele Sollecito at the Validation Interview, because at the Validation hearing Sollecito had responded to the interrogatory and has therefore, his declarations are therefore fully utilizable and are”¦ now then from these declarations, then I’ll pass to the other items, from these declarations one can deduce a reconstruction that in the opinion of the Public Prosecutor’s Office is not credible, of what had occurred. Of what had occurred, things are different, I’ll explain to you then in particular it’s not credible in the opinion of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, what was and then what had been declared by Sollecito even during his interrogation, the whole reconstruction that had been made of both your whereabouts, yours and Sollecito’s, the night of the 1st and 2nd of November 2007. In particular what happened the morning of the 2nd November up until 13:00. Then there are the findings, the DNA trace, the DNA trace on Sollecito’s knife and on the blade of this knife there’s Meredith’s DNA. Then on the handle there’s your DNA, the blood traces therefore in the bidet, yours, also in the washbasin.
Lawyer: On the bidet there’s DNA and in the washbasin.
PM Mignini: On the bidet of her and of Meredith and in the washbasin there’s blood, her haematic traces. Then there are, in the ambit of fingerprint tests that were done, the prints despite she lives, despite she lived in that house and she was the person who remained, who had moved around the inside of the house as [7] the last one there, up until”¦ there was one trace only on a glass, only one print of hers. And this, this makes one think that there had been, that she had removed her other prints, because it isn’t, in the opinion of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, it’s not likely that she had, that there would be only one single print of hers from”¦ although she lived in the house. Now then. It’s these ones. Then there are the findings they are basically these ones. Now then. There are also further findings that derive from declarations made by persons informed of the facts. I’ll limit myself to mentioning this. So you have the possibility, I invite you to specify what you consider useful for your own defence with the advice that your declarations can be used against you, right? But in any case you have the right to not answer, you can refuse to answer any question but in any case the Proceedings will take their course. Even if you don’t answer. Then if you make declarations on the facts that concern the responsibility of others you’ll take on as regards these facts the role of witness with all the”¦ now then, so you intend to answer?
Knox: Yes
PM Mignini: First of all do you intend to answer? Then “˜I intend to answer’, “˜I claim I’m innocent’, right? What do you say? Do you admit the deed or not? Admit the facts that are being put to you or not? “¦ That is you have been accused of the murder-in-company of Meredith Kercher and sexual violence. You, do you admit this fact or else do you protest your innocence?
Knox: Innocent.
PM Mignini: I protest my innocence. So”¦ when did you arrive in Perugia?
Knox: The first time I had arrived with my sister for three days but the second
Interpreter: When?
Knox: It was August that I had come the first time in my life here
[8] Interpreter: This year?
Knox: Yes, for three days.
Interpreter: The first time was August of this year for three days with her sister.
PM Mignini: And your sister is called?
Knox: Diana.
Interpreter: Diana
PM Mignini: And then?
Knox: And I went to Germany for a bit and then I came for the second time to Perugia to stay on the 20th September”¦
Interpreter: In August for three days, then she went to Germany and came back to Perugia to stay, to remain for a while”¦
PM Mignini: In Germany where?
Knox: Grunenwald near to Hamburg where my aunt lives.
Interpreter: Where her aunt lives near Hamburg.
PP Mignini: And your aunt is called?
Knox: Dolly which is the diminutive of Dorothy.
Interpreter: Dorothy. She came back to Perugia on 20 September
PM Mignini: On the 20th September and you found, in the Via della Pergola house who did you find when you’d come back to Perugia on the 20th September?
Knox: In reality I found Laura the three days that I was here with my sister and they introduced me to Filomena and we had decided to live together. I had met Laura in front of the University for Foreigners, we had spoken of the fact that [9] she was looking for a flatmate and I had met Filomena and we had decided to live together”¦
Interpreter: In August during the three days she had met the housemate name of Laura
PM Mignini: Mezzetti?
Knox: I don’t know”¦ we were calling her Laura.
Interpreter: She doesn’t know.. she met Laura in those three days when she was looking for a housemate and then they had agreed that in September she would have gone”¦
PM Mignini: And it was only Laura there?
Interpreter: She had met her, when she had gone to see the house, she had also met Filomena
PM Mignini: Filomena Romanelli
Knox: Yes
Interpreter: Yes
PM Mignini: Meredith wasn’t there?
Knox: No
PM Mignini: Listen, do you use drugs?
Interpreter: Marijuana sometimes
Knox: I take marijuana
PP Mignini: Marijuana. Only marijuana?
Knox: In the form of hashish
Interpreter: Marijuana in the form of hashish
[10] PM Mignini: No other substances?
Knox: No
Interpreter: No
PM Mignini: And up until when have you used it?
Knox: Do you want to know when I started? Ah no, you want to know up until when “¦
Interpreter: The last time the first of November? But you asked up until when right?
PM Mignini: Up until when, yes, yes the first of November. In the evening?
Knox: Yes
Interpreter: Yes
Knox: Yes
PM Mignini: With Sollecito?
Knox: Yes
Interpreter: Yes
Knox: With Raffaele yes
PM Mignini: And how much did you have that evening?
Knox: We shared a joint”¦
Interpreter: She had shared a joint, yes they had shared a joint.
PM Mignini: From whom had you obtained this substance?
Lawyer: From whom had you obtained it?
Knox: I didn’t obtain it myself”¦ it was Raffaele’s I simply used his smoke
Interpreter: It was a joint of Raffaele’s.
PM Mignini: And you don’t know who he got it from
[11] Knox: No
Interpreter: No
PM Mignini: And before, when you had come to Perugia had you used it? Before the first of November.
Interpreter: Ah, before the first of November?
PM Mignini: Yes
Knox: Yes
Interpreter: Yes
PM Mignini: And from whom were you getting it?
Knox: I was smoking it with friends I never bought any”¦ I wasn’t buying it since for example I would give ten euro to Laura and she used to buy it for me”¦
Interpreter: She never bought it directly herself only with friends they shared joints
PM Mignini: And who were these friends?
Knox: A flatmate”¦
Interpreter: A housemate, the two Italian housemates and the neighbours down below.
PM Mignini: Who of these? Giacomo?
Knox: We were all together and we were smoking all together”¦ There was a young man who was living on the floor below who was called Riccardo and we didn’t use to visit him, so we weren’t smoking with Riccardo and with the others yes.
Interpreter: Everybody. It was shared amongst everybody, except for a young man who is called Riccardo who had never been around, who happens to be downstairs who had never been in their company, apart from him with the others
[12] PM Mignini: And Meredith was using it?
Knox: Sometimes but not as often as me”¦ not as much
Interpreter: Eh sometimes times but not much.
PM Mignini: But who was giving it to you? “¦ Do you know who gave it to you?
Knox: No, I don’t know who was giving it, we were smoking together but I don’t know who was giving it”¦
Interpreter: The same story, only in company.
PM Mignini: Listen and when did you start working for Patrick, for Lumumba?
Knox: Straight after when I had arrived I had looked for a job, I knew a friend of Laura’s called Jube (phonetic) and who was working for Patrick”¦ I don’t know the day, I can’t remember the day. It was October, I think”¦
Interpreter: Then when she had arrived she was looking for a part-time job through, there was a boy called Juve (phonetic) who was working with Patrick and he was a friend of the housemate Laura, through Laura and this boy Juve (phonetic) she ended up at Patrick’s in October it would have been.
PM Mignini: October?
Knox: I don’t remember precisely.
Interpreter: She doesn’t remember exactly.
PM Mignini: And the salary, what was it? That is how much was Patrick giving you?
Knox: Around 5 euro an hour”¦
Interpreter: Around 5 euro an hour
PM Mignini: How many hours were you working at Patrick’s?
Knox: It depended on how many people there were at the beginning I was working every day up until around”¦ between midnight and 2 am, starting at 10. But I was also [13] handing out flyers during the day, independent of how many hours I was working her was giving me 15, 20 euros at the end of the day”¦ and so it was”¦
Interpreter: Depending on the amount of work, how many people there were in the pub, she used to finish work between midnight and two in the morning and she used to start at ten. During the day she was distributing flyers, always for Patrick, and Patrick at the end of the evening used to give her 15 to 20 euro and doing the sums it came to 5 euro an hour on average.
PM Mignini: I want to know this, what were the work hours? If you can repeat it.
Knox: Depending on if there were things to do, I was finishing at midnight or at two.
Interpreter: She was starting at ten and depending on how much work there was she was finishing between midnight and two AM.
PM Mignini: Every day or else only some days only during the week?
Knox: At the beginning it was every day but when they had arrested me the last two weeks I had worked twice a week.
PM Mignini: What days?
Knox: Thursday and Tuesday”¦
Interpreter: Tuesday and Thursday
PM Mignini: Did it ever happen that you weren’t, beyond that, apart from the evening of the first of November right? Before, did it happen that you didn’t go to work one night on which you had work, right? That you hadn’t gone and for what reason”¦ anyone advised you?
Knox: If it had ever happened”¦ let’s see”¦ did it ever occur to me? It could have happened that one time I didn’t go because I was feeling sick”¦
[14] Interpreter: It’s possible that she didn’t go there one time because she was ill
PM Mignini: So only on one occasion. So the evening of the first?
Interpreter: She said maybe also one other time
PM Mignini: Ah so
Interpreter: But she wasn’t feeling well
PM Mignini: Ah because she wasn’t feeling well
Interpreter: Yes, yes, to be precise she doesn’t remember
PM Mignini: You weren’t feeling well and you’d informed Patrick about not being well and so you couldn’t go
Interpreter: This she didn’t say. She hasn’t said this.
PM Mignini: You say: “˜it could have happened that I hadn’t gone because I was sick once’
Interpreter: You’ve asked apart from the first of November, true?
PM Mignini: yes, yes
Interpreter: So we speaking of apart from the first of November, the question is whether she had informed Patrick”¦
PM Mignini: The question is if on other occasions she had not been able to go to work because she had been advised”¦ on other occasions”¦ ask her the question
Lawyer: Eh but this one is different to the one from before
PM Mignini: Now then the question that I asked before was this one: did it happen at other times she had not gone to work?
Interpreter: And the answer was yes, maybe when she was feeling ill
[15] PM Mignini: She was feeling ill, did it happen on other occasions that you hadn’t gone to work because Patrick had called you telling you not to go to work?
Knox: No, it never happened
Interpreter: No
PM Mignini: It never happened. Listen, how were you maintaining yourself? That is how much were you earning? How much let’s say per week were you earning from Patrick?
Knox: I had saved that I had had from my parents”¦
Interpreter: The money from her parents and also her savings she had from before
PM Mignini: But how much from Lumumba were you earning in a week? You’ve said so right? “¦ I think
“¦
Interpreter: From 15, 20 euro a night
PM Mignini: A night, so 30 euro a week broad brush right? Because it was two days
Knox: Yes
Interpreter: Yes.
PM Mignini: And the parents, how much were your parents sending you, what amount were they sending you and how often?
Knox: They were sending me each month more or less what was needed to pay the rent”¦
Interpreter: They were sending her enough each month to pay the rent
PM Mignini: How much? So how much was the rent?
Knox: 300 euro a month”¦ but they were giving me a bit more”¦ they used to put in my bank account”¦
[16] Interpreter: 300 euro a month. But they were giving her a little bit extra, they were putting in her account. Her parents were putting it into Amanda’s account
PM Mignini: So they were giving you a little bit more, so how much? How much, around 400”¦ 500 euro I don’t know”¦
Knox: Maybe around 400 euro”¦
Interpreter: Around 400 euro yes
PM Mignini: Oh, and then your savings, isn’t that? “¦ Yes
Knox: Yes
PM Mignini: Right then, can you tell us how much money you had, the first of November”¦ eh?
Knox: In my bank account?
Interpreter: Where did she have this money? “¦
PM Mignini: How much did you have and where did you have it? If you had accounts”¦
Knox: Okay, it was in my bank account
Interpreter: In her savings account
Knox: “¦I think around about 5 thousand dollars but I don’t know
Around [sic: read: Interpreter]: She thinks around 5 thousand dollars in her savings account
PM Mignini: Savings account at which bank?
Knox: Washington Mutual
Interpreter: Washington Mutual
PM Mignini: Did you have an ATM [=cash dispenser]? Or a credit card?
Knox: Yes
Interpreter: Yes
[17] PM Mignini: Right then, this ATM [card] where is it? This card or credit card?
Knox: In my wallet
Interpreter: In the wallet that has been seized
PM Mignini: How much had you withdrawn the last time before the first of November?
Knox: I always take out 250 euro because that’s the maximum and I always take the maximum because there’s a cost to pay for each withdrawal so I always take the maximum”¦ and I put in the drawer of my desk”¦
Interpreter: She doesn’t recall exactly which day she would make withdrawals, she knows that she always used to withdraw the maximum because she has to pay a fee and the maximum is 250 euro and this money she used to put in the little drawer of the desk at home
PM Mignini: In your room?
Knox: Yes
Interpreter: Yes
PM Mignini: And so you had 250 euro on the first? How much did you have?
Lawyer: Translate the question for her
Knox: In my room?
PM Mignini: I’m asking you where you had it, where were you holding it?
Knox: I think I could have had around 300 euro”¦ about”¦ in my desk”¦
Interpreter: She thinks she might have had 300 euro in total in the little drawer
Knox: Usually I would take 20 euro and I would put it in my wallet when I needed to
Interpreter: and she would take 20 euro that she would put in her wallet
[18] PM Mignini: Listen, did you know Guede? Rudy?
Knox: Vaguely”¦
Interpreter: Vaguely
PM Mignini: How did you know him? Where did you meet him?
Knox: I’d encountered him a couple of times, I’d seen him at my place of work and also in the city centre and I’d encountered him with my neighbours in the city centre and I’d also seen him at the basketball court”¦ I was there with all the others in my neighbours’ house
Interpreter: At the basketball court?
Knox: No
Interpreter: At a party at the neighbours’ house?
Knox: Yes
Interpreter: She’d met him she thinks in Patrick’s pub, no, she had seen him she thinks in Patrick’s pub and then she’d seen him at the basketball court and at a party in the neighbours’ house below.
PM Mignini: Now, when had you known him?
Lawyer: How much time before
PP Mignini: How much time before, with when you’d arrived in September”¦
Knox: I believe that it was around mid-October but truly I don’t remember”¦
Interpreter: I think towards the middle of October
PM Mignini: Did you used to visit him? Guede
[19] Interpreter: Meaning?
PM Mignini: If she visited him with a certain regularity in short, with a certain, whether they were going out together
Knox: No
Interpreter: No
PM Mignini: Did it happen that you had to give him some money?
Knox: No
Interpreter: No
PM Mignini: Listen, but were you, were you missing any money that night of the first and second?
Knox: I don’t know I didn’t look”¦ the 2nd I didn’t look”¦
Interpreter: She didn’t look in the room
Lawyer: But when?
Interpreter: The 2nd of November
Lawyer: Ah right
Interpreter: On the 2nd of November she didn’t look
PM Mignini: And where did Meredith used to keep her money?
Knox: I don’t know
Interpreter: She doesn’t know
PM Mignini: Listen, when was the last time you see Guede?
Knox: I think that the last one is that of which I have already spoken and that is a party at my neighbours’ house on the floor below
[20] Interpreter: The last time she thinks that it was at the party at the neighbours’ house below
PM Mignini: Which had taken place when?
Lawyer: More or less
PM Mignini: More or less, if you don’t recall”¦
Knox: Towards the end of October”¦
Interpreter: Towards the end of October
PM Mignini: The end of October, so close to the 31st? Eh the end of October”¦ the end of October”¦ in any case you don’t remember. Listen, did Rudy know Patrick? Had he visited his pub?
Knox: Yes I’d seen him at the pub but I’d seen him only once”¦
Interpreter: She had seen him in the pub but she’d seen him only one time
PM Mignini: But do you know whether those two knew each other?
Knox: I don’t think so but actually I don’t know, I didn’t get the impression that they knew each other”¦
Interpreter: She doesn’t think that they knew each other, she doesn’t know
PM Mignini: You know or you don’t know?
Interpreter: She’s not sure about it but what it looked like to her is that they weren’t acquainted”¦
PP Mignini: What’s the basis of this conviction?
Knox: Because everybody that knows Patrick go straight to him to talk with him and Rudy didn’t do that”¦
Interpreter: Because everyone who knows Patrick goes straight to him to talk to him and Rudy didn’t do that
PM Mignini: But did they greet each other, did you see them”¦
[21] Knox: Patrick greeted everybody who was coming in”¦
Interpreter: Patrick greeted everybody who was coming in
PM Mignini: Listen, were you getting on OK with Lumumba?
Interpreter: Yes
PM Mignini: There were no problems between you?
Lawyer: Of what nature?
PM Mignini: Problems of any sort I don’t know “¦
Lawyer: Money ones, personal ones, right”¦
PM Mignini: Problems I mean in general eh “¦
Knox: No we were getting on OK”¦
Interpreter: No, they were going OK
PM Mignini: Listen, Lumumba was irascible?
Interpreter: Was?
PM Mignini: Irascible [=bad-tempered], that is easily annoyed, was he irritable?
Knox: No he’s a relaxed young man, calm”¦
Interpreter: No he’s a calm young man.
PM Mignini: Listen and who had the keys to the house at Via della Pergola?
Knox: Me, Meredith, Filomena and Laura”¦
Interpreter: All four of the girls
PM Mignini: All four of the girls
Interpreter: Yes
PM Mignini: No one else had keys?
[22] Knox: No
Interpreter: No
PM Mignini: One other thing, your rooms”¦ inside the flat there were your rooms, did you use to lock your rooms or leave them open?
Knox: When we were going out? “¦ I never used to close my door, it was always open, Laura and Filomena used to close their doors but I don’t believe that they would lock them, even when they were going out they would close their doors but not lock them”¦ but I had never tried to open their doors. Meredith sometimes used to lock her door, for example if she was inside and was getting changed, and mine was always open”¦
Interpreter: Now then, only Meredith was locking her door when she was getting changed, she said in substance, otherwise no one used to lock their rooms
PM Mignini: But on the occasion of”¦ when the police arrived and they found themselves in front of Meredith’s door isn’t that? What did you say? Did you by chance say that Meredith never used to lock her door, or that instead she did?
Knox: I said that it was strange that it was locked and she wasn’t answering while usually if the door was locked it meant that she was inside and the fact that she wasn’t answering was strange”¦
Interpreter: It was strange that it was closed without Meredith responding, because normally when it was closed”¦
PM Mignini: To us it results that she didn’t use to lock her door. So then I’ll put this to you [contestare= (leg.) to formally point out a contradiction]. That is, that it was only during one absence of hers for a few days that she locked her room
Knox: She doesn’t do it that often, it isn’t a frequent thing I would say that there were times in which I had tried to open her door to say hello to her and it was locked [23] and she was inside”¦ and when instead she was out I had never tried to open her door. So I don’t know if it’s locked”¦
Interpreter: It happened that, when Meredith wasn’t home she had never tried to open the door, Amanda had never tried to open the door, only it happened that she wanted to say hello opening [it] and had said, “It’s locked”
PM Mignini: I haven’t understood this, that is “¦ that is she used to lock the door or not? According to what you’re saying”¦ she used to lock the room or not?
Interpreter: Only when she was”¦
PM Mignini: Only when she was getting changed you say
Interpreter: Yes, yes
Lawyer: No also when she went away
PM Mignini: And when she went away”¦
Interpreter: Also once when she had gone away for a few days
PM Mignini: Sure, sure”¦ oh, did you get on well with Meredith?
Knox: Yes
Interpreter: Yes
PM Mignini: There was never any ups and downs in your relationship?
Knox: No
Interpreter: No
PM Mignini: Oh, did Meredith ever go with you to Sollecito’s? To Sollecito’s house
Interpreter: Whether she had gone”¦
PM Mignini: No, whether Meredith had gone with you to Sollecito’s house?
Knox: No
[24] Interpreter: No
PM Mignini: She had never gone there?
Knox: No
Interpreter: No
PM Mignini: So she had never been for lunch at Sollecito’s house?
Interpreter: No
PM Mignini: You had noticed prior to 2 November eh? I mean, you had noticed”¦ I mean the 2nd, had you noticed traces of blood in the bathroom prior, in the days prior? “¦ on the mat, in the bathroom next to Meredith’s room
Knox: No
Interpreter: No
PM Mignini: Oh, so”¦ then let’s go back to this day later. Now I want to go back a step. Where did you spend the night of Halloween between the 31st of October and the 1st of November?
Knox: I had been at Le Chic for a bit, then I left and went out to the Merlin because I wanted to meet a friend and then around two in the morning I had met up with Raffaele outside the cathedral and we had decided to go to his place”¦
Interpreter: On the 31st of October she had been at the Le Chic pub
PM Mignini: Yes, up until what time? And with who?
Knox: I was there I knew more or less everybody but I was there on my own account”¦ I wasn’t there working
Interpreter: She wasn’t working but she was there
[25] PM Mignini: You were there like that
Interpreter: Yes with her friends
PM Mignini: With her friends”¦ who were these friends?
Knox: I had arrived alone, I know Lumumba, I know other people, other classmates, I know that there were people who go there exactly to have fun at the pub
Interpreter: There’s this young man who works for Patrick, Patrick there were classmates, at the Chic
PM Mignini: Of yours?
Interpreter: Yes, yes
PP Mignini: And who were these girls?
Knox: They were girls from Kazakstan who used to always be together”¦
Interpreter: They were girls who stayed in a group, these girls from Kazakstan and who came to find her a few times
PM Mignini: And you don’t remember their names? Was Raffaele there?
Interpreter: No
Knox: No
PM Mignini: He wasn’t there and where was he, Raffaele?
Interpreter: She said that after”¦
PM Mignini: Now then up until what time”¦ up until what time were you at Le Chic?
Knox: I think around one”¦
Interpreter: Around one
PM Mignini: Till one and then?
[26] Interpreter: Then she had gone to meet a friend in front of the Merlin pub
PM Mignini: Who is this friend? The friend who was waiting at the Merlin, in front of the Merlin?
Knox: He’s a boy who works at Coffee break it’s an internet café with coffee “¦ Spiros
PM Mignini: A Greek?
Knox: Yes
Interpreter: Yes
PM Mignini: And then where did you go?
Knox: Together with Spiros and some of his friends,
Interpreter: Now then she had said before that she had met the Greek (change of tape) she had gone to some other pub
PM Mignini: Where?
Interpreter: In the centre, she doesn’t remember
PM Mignini: In which area in the centre?
Knox: In the area of Le Chic and of the Merlin”¦
Interpreter: Around near the Merlin pub and the Le Chic pub”¦ in that zone there”¦ around there
PM Mignini: She doesn’t know how to point it out?
Knox: I have never been before to the other pubs
Interpreter: She hadn’t gone to visit other pubs before
PM Mignini: Listen, do you know where and with who she spent that night of Halloween, Meredith?
[27] Interpreter: She’s said that after the fountain she had met Raffaele, after going around a bit with him she had gone to Raffaele’s house
PM Mignini: At what time did you meet Raffaele?
Interpreter: At two
PM Mignini: In the morning and then you returned home with Raffaele. And do you know and with who she had spent that night of the 31st October, Meredith?
Knox: She went out with her English friends
Interpreter: She went out with her English friends
PM Mignini: Did you have, the English friends are you able to give me their names?
Knox: Sophie, Amy I don’t remember all their names but I know that Sophie and Amy were there
Interpreter: Amy, Sophie”¦
PM Mignini: And where did they go?
Knox: I think they went to the Merlin it’s what she had said
Interpreter: She said that they had gone to the Merlin pub
PM Mignini: Merlin”¦
Lawyer: Why does she know? Let’s ask her that, excuse me, eh?
Interpreter: Because Meredith had told her so
PM Mignini: That is Meredith had told you that they had gone there because you had asked Meredith to go out with you that night?
Knox: In the afternoon I asked her if she had plans and she had told me that she would have been with her friends at the Merlin pub and I had said to her “maybe we’ll see each other there””¦ but we hadn’t set a time”¦
[28] Interpreter: In the afternoon she had”¦ Amanda had asked Meredith if she had some plans for the evening and Meredith had answered that she was going with her friends to the Merlin pub
PM Mignini: Listen, do you have”¦ do you know any Spanish boys or Spanish girls?
Knox: Spanish?
Interpreter: Spanish eh [male gender]?
PM Mignini: Yes, girls as well
Knox: I might know some but usually I don’t ask where they come from
Interpreter: It’s possible but she doesn’t ask where they’re from specifically.
Continued in Part #2 at this address.
Tuesday, October 07, 2014
Translation Of The Nencini Sentencing Report Explaining The Failure Of The RS & AK Appeal
Posted by Our Main Posters
This is the report by Judge Nencini now in English which the Italian Supreme Court will be ruling upon next March.
The 355-page report was kindly emailed to us by Skeptical Bystander for the translation team on PMF-dot-Org which did all the work. Translation of the legal concepts and references was tough work but precise.
The translators were Ald, Jools, Kristeva, Olleosnep, Maundy, Catnip, Tiziano, Katsgalore (our ZiaK), Thoughtful, Sallyoo, The 411, Tom, and Popper, and the proofreaders were Tom, Thoughtful, Popper and Skeptical Bystander.
While the report can stand alone for the meticulous detail it includes, for a full confident understanding it should be read in conjunction with the following posts:
- The four-part short version of the Massei trial report done in 2011 by the same PMF Dot Org team
- Our posts on RS and AK’s Florence appeal. reflecting great reporting by Andrea Vogt, Barbie Nadeau, and Machiavelli from the court.
In April last year the Supreme Court reinforced the definition of how narrow first appeals and their sentencing reports should be, which the Hellmann court had wildly exceded.
See the top posts here. Our Italian lawyers reckon Judge Nencini has now followed that guideline to a tee.
That makes overturning this legally impeccable report really tough for the defense teams of Bongiono, Maori, Dalla Vedova and Ghirga, none of whom have ever won a case before the Supreme Court.
Among the many factors making it worse for the perps, the Prime Minister of Italy Mr Renzi is from Florence. For years he has worked closely with the highly respected Florence court.
Attempts at a political endrun around Nencini and the Supreme Court will be dead at the gate.
Sunday, October 05, 2014
Knox Interrogation Hoax #14: Third Opportunity Knox Flunked: Requested Interrogation By Dr Mignini
Posted by Machiavelli, Catnip, Kristeva
1. Our Translation Of Knox’s Key Interview
At her request Dr Mignini interrogated Amanda Knox, her first true interrogation under Italian law, on 17 Dec 2007.
This was about six weeks after her arrest. If Knox had explained away the charges against her, she could have been on her way home.
Read our translations for how it finally emerged. There is some context in Part 2 below.
Knox, Tied In Knots By Her Own Tongue: Translation Of The 17 Dec 2007 Interview With Dr Mignini #1
Knox, Tied In Knots By Her Own Tongue: Translation Of The 17 Dec 2007 Interview With Dr Mignini #2
Knox, Tied In Knots By Her Own Tongue: Translation Of The 17 Dec 2007 Interview With Dr Mignini #3
Knox, Tied In Knots By Her Own Tongue: Translation Of The 17 Dec 2007 Interview With Dr Mignini #4
Part 2: Context Of The Interview
Dozens of people have very aggressively gone to bat for Knox over her “interrogation” and still do. They trust that one or other of her versions of the 5-6 November 2007 police-station session finally stands up.
This interview was sought-after by Knox, seeing this as her last best chance to get herself off the hook before trial and to avoid remaining locked up. This lasted about three hours, until Knox’s lawyers interrupted to got her to clam up.
All of the trial judges and appeal judges and lay judges had clearly studied this document hard. Also prosecutors and the Knox and Sollecito defense counsel periodically refer to it.
As you will have seen in previous posts, Knox’s team pussyfooted about without conviction in the few brief instances when the 5-6 November session was discussed.
In this Mignini hearing of 17 December 2007 they eventually in effect advised her it would be in her best interests to shut up.
Saturday, October 04, 2014
Negative Drumbeat Continues: Two New Developments Mitigating Against Breaks for Knox Or Sollecito
Posted by Our Main Posters
1. Overview
Tick tick tick. The growth of factors negative to Sollecito and Knox is relentless.
We already count several dozen, the most recent of which are the legally impeccable sentencing report by Judge Necini the lead Florence appeal judge, the expected hard line on Sollecito’s and Knox’s further appeal by a hard-line Supreme Court justice, the legal focus on the world-record blood money and two books riddled with felonies (more to come), the surfacing in the US media of Knox’s daily liaison with a drug kingpin (more to come), and the Sollecito camp’s ongoing moves to put Knox squarely between the fire and Sollecito (more to come).
In the last couple of days these two stories hit the headlines with further implications negative to the foolishly uncomprehending pair.
2. The Further Promotion Of Arturo De Felice
The official title of the prime minister of Italy is President of the Council of Ministers, which is the counterpart body to the President’s cabinet in the United States and the Prime Minister’s cabinet in the United Kingdom
Our main poster Jools has picked up reports by the Italian media that the Council of Ministers has appointed Dr Arturo de Felice (image above) to be Prefect of the Republic.
As we understand it, the Prefect is a top post of unusual powers in the central government filled in times of generational change of the bodies of government, in which the Prefect is a sort of czar representing the agencies of the central government toward the regions, special cities and provinces (the province level is expected to be phased out).
Perhaps the nearest equivalent in the American government is the Secretary of Homeland security, the czar who coordinates the CIA, FBI, and dozens of other security agencies.
Why is this significant in ensuring justice for Meredith?
Well, Dr Felice was the head of the Perugia police when Guede, Knox and Sollecito were arrested and he oversaw the investigations which began in November 2007 and were essentially concluded in summer 2008
Dr Felice was at that point promoted to more senior regional and central posts. Then in 2012 he was appointed as head of the national anti-mafia department.
At any one time Italian and American justice agencies are pursuing dozens and perhaps hundreds of matters of common interest and nobody in Italian justice oversees more dealings with the Federal Department of Justice or the FBI than the head of Italy’s anti-mafia department
We see no signs that the Federal government will buck the Italian government as a favor to the convicted felon and admitted drug user Amanda Knox, but Dr Felice’s past and future roles will help greatly to keep things politically on the straight and narrow.
3. Extradition To Mexico Of American
We have had 18 posts on how extradition law, politics and statistics are stacked against Knox (see category link in right column) with this post by James Raper and this post by TomM as must-reads.
Johnny Yen has picked up on the reports of the US Government extraditing an American to Mexico to face murder charges.
For his role Dylan Ryan Johnson has now been sentenced to 13 years in a Mexican prison.
Prosecutors allege that early on the morning of Sept. 7, 2003, when Johnson was 20, he drove his pickup truck into the small community of Empalme Escobedo in Guanajuato state and checked into a hotel with Hilario Garcia Rosales, who had worked for the American man. Johnson was intoxicated, according to witnesses.
Johnson departed about an hour later, but told the hotel staff that his friend would be staying longer. The boy’s body was discovered the next day by a maid. Garcia was strangled shortly after someone had anal sex with him, according to forensic reports. Authorities originally accused Johnson of rape and premeditated murder, but he was convicted only of the latter….
Johnson was on the Guanajuato prosecutor’s most wanted list for years until he was picked up on an international arrest warrant in 2012. A U.S. judge reviewed a summary of evidence against him before approving Mexico’s extradition request, and agreed that probable cause existed for the prosecution, applying American legal standards. In re Extradition of Dylan Ryan Johnson, No. 12-1832, U.S. Dist. Ct., W.D. Penn. (Opinion and Order Dismissing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Mar. 11, 2013).
This was one of the few extraditions of American nationals to make headlines but numerous other cases are handled quietly. It is almost unheard-of for governments with firm bilateral extradition treaties to fail to respect them.
Thursday, September 25, 2014
Analysis #2 Of Testimony Of Dr Chiacchiera, Organized Crime Section: Discounting Any Lone Wolf
Posted by Cardiol MD
Dr Chiacchiera (talking) with his team explaining reason for charges in another case
Overview Of This Series
In 2007 Dr Chiacchiera was the Director of the Organized Crime Section and the Deputy Director of the Flying Squad.
He was one of the most senior and experienced law enforcement officers to testify at the trial. His testimony and his cross examination by the defenses occupied a lot of time of the court late in February 2009. He covered the following ground.
- (1) He found Knox and Sollecito uncooperative when he asked them questions.
(2) Saw evidence contradicting any lone burglar theory and indicating that the “break-In” to Romanelli’s room was faked.
(3) Phone records and the police investigation into the accused phone activity the night of the murder.
(4) Discovery of pornographic magazines at Sollecito’s house.
(5) Details of how the large knife, Exhibit 36, was collected from Sollecito’s and the evidence that it is the murder knife.
All the translation is by the ever-dedicated main poster ZiaK. This series is highlighting some key portions. Here is the full 50-page transcript which will be posted in the trial testimony area of McCall’s great Wiki.
This post continues analysis of the evidence that the lone burglar/lone wolf theory was not credible to those that were first on the crime scene and that the “break-In” to Filomena Romanelli’s room was to them obviously faked.
(GCM=Giancarlo Massei; MC=Manuela Comodi; MaCh=Marco Chiacchiera; GB=Giulia Bongiorno; DD=Donatella Donati; CP=Carlo Pacelli; LG=Luciano Ghirga; CDV=Carlo Dalla Vedova; FM=Francesco Maresca)
Public Prosecutor Comodi [MC] Leads Testimony
Judge Massei [GCM}: Excuse me a moment, just to give some guidelines, but of the evaluations that the witness is expressing, obviously it’s not that they can be taken account of, however we will acquire them [for the trial files] in order to understand the investigation activities, the appropriateness of the investigations that were carried out, directed in one way or in another, there you go. However, maybe, “¦ there you go, yes, maybe if we can manage to keep with the bare essentials this will help everybody.
{Court proceedings seem to have been diverted into a free-for-all colloquy, with multiple participants chiming-in, and creating confusion. Court-President, GCM, now politely intervenes, apparently trying to restore order, ruling that the professional evaluations made by the witness, testified-to by the witness, should be admitted for the trial files. The appropriateness of the witness's evaluations can be dealt with separately and later.}
Manuela Comodi [MC}: Well, in short, they were called “¦ they are the only ones who can describe the whole progression of the investigations - Dr Profazio and Dr Chiacciera ““ because they are directors, they are the only ones who will come to describe for me, thus, what was the progression of the investigations. Clearly, in order to pass from one investigative act to another rather than “¦ and the choice of the subsequent investigative acts. It’s clear that they have to describe, in order to make a complete reasoning, even the lines of thought that, as Dr Chiacchiera said, it sometimes happens that they make. However, one point: apart from the break-in, apart from the broken window, there are “¦ did you acquire further elements that corroborated the idea that there had been a burglary? Nothing from Romanelli’s room had been carried off? Valuable things had been taken?
{Examiner acknowledges Court's admonition, argues importance of her witness's testimony, and segués into triple-Q addressed to witness re elements corroborating idea of burglary.}
Dr Chiacchiera [MaCh]: This ... in fact, in the progress ...
{Witness begins to answer, but is interrupted by Examiner}
MC: Was a declaration/complaint of theft made then, with a list of the things taken?
{Examiner interrupts witness with new double-Q}
MaCh: In the logical progression, if I may in some way still, in summary, say what “¦.
{Witness begins narrative response but is interrupted by Court}
GCM: Say the objective facts, if you have “¦.
{Court interrupts witness, beginning to admonish him to respond by testifying to objective facts, but is itself interrupted by witness}
MaCh: Nothing disappeared, so a burglar would have had difficulty “¦
{Witness answers 3rd Q of Examiner's above triple Q, but then launches into a narrative beginning: "so…", but Court interrupts}
GCM: Excuse me, nothing had disappeared? Before all else, what thing .... you knew what things were in that room that did not disappear?
{Court interrupts, questioning basis for witness's statement that "Nothing disappeared"}
MaCh: Yes, because, shall we say, the investigation elements that then subsequently emerged, allowed us to deduce that from Romanelli’s room absolutely nothing disappeared. There was a complete mess/chaos, but nothing disappeared from Romanelli’s room. And this is another element to [lead us] to obviously deduce that the desired hypothesis of a burglar and of a theft was objectively “¦ But then the burglar does not [sic] close the door and throw away the key. The burglar does not cover the victim. The burglar “¦
{Witness answers Court's Q, with narrative explanation including reference to "the key", and Court interrupts}
GCM: Excuse me. They key. What is this detail about the key? What is it?
{Court asks Q simple Q re "the key" - with apparent transcriptional error: "They key"}
MaCh: There was no key.
{Witness answers Court's Q}
GCM: There was no key where?
{Court asks simple Q}
MaCh: Those who entered into the inside of the house first found the door closed. A closed door that then aroused the suspicions and that then gave concern and then it was decided to “¦ to break [it] down.
{Witness responds to Court's Q with narrative explanation}
GCM: Excuse me, on [sic] Romanelli’s room there was no key?
{Court asks another simple Q}
MaCh: No, I’m talking of Meredith’s room, Mr President; Meredith’s room was locked by key.
This is another “¦ how to say, the investigative deductions that we drew from these details that emerged, also from the declarations that we gathered.
{Witness responds to Court's Q, and informatively amplifies A}
MC: Was it normal that Meredith closed herself [sic. i.e. her room] by key?
{Examiner asks witness a simple Q}
MaCh: No.
{Witness gives simple A}
MC: And did you find the key of Meredith’s room?
{Examiner asks witness a simple Q}
MaCh: No.
{Witness gives simple A}
MC: So it was closed by key, but there was no key inside?
{Examiner summarises witness's testimony re key and poses a simple Q}
MaCh: But there was no key inside, so that it was necessary to break down the door in order to enter. Also the almost inexplicable detail of the presence of two cellphones in a garden of a house, doesn’t tend to favour the thesis of someone who enters and who accidentally, so to speak, finds a person and then kills them, because [he] is forced to kill them because they have seen [his] face.
{Witness responds to Q in form of confirming-repetition and amplifies A in expanded narrative-form}
MC: But is via Sperandio far from via della Pergola?
{Examiner poses vague Q re proximity of 2 streets}
MaCh: No. And there we tried to deduce. And via Sperandio, as I said earlier, Doctoressa, is not far from the house. We discussed [this] to understand why these telephones went and ended up there “¦
{Witness answers simply, and respectfully, introducing " the house" on one of the streets, seguéing into subject of the mobile telephones and is interrupted by the Court}
GCM: Excuse me. When you say it is not far from the house, can you specify at what distance? How one reaches it?
{The Court's interruption is also vague, with double-Q, referring to an unspecified "it"}
MaCh: Not far from the house means that, by following a route that any Perugian knows, Mr President, one passes through a park and one arrives, let’s say, near the gateway of Porta Sant’Angelo. So for this reason, as the crow flies, how much would it be, but less [sic] “¦ three hundred, four hundred metres. But to reach it by foot from via della Pergola to via Sperandio I think that it doesn’t take more than 5, [or] 7 minutes.
{Witness responds to Court in explanatory narrative form
MC: But do you have to pass by via Garibaldi?
{Examiner asks simple Q}
MaCh: Yes. But you can also pass through the park ““ there’s a park that then comes out right in front.
{Witness answers Q, and amplifies his response}
MC: Of the villa?
{Examiner seeks clarification of witness's response}
MaCh: In front of the villa, at the entry to the villa. Looking from the street that crosses with the provincial [road], the one that, shall we say, borders the villa, whoever is looking at it, I repeat, I ““ who am 44 years old, am Perugian ““ I did not know that there was a garden behind there.
{Witness clarifies his response, amplifying further}
MC: And how far away is via Sperandio from via Garibaldi, corso Garibaldi?
{Examiner asks apparently simple Q}
MaCh: it’s parallel. It’s very close, very very close. It’s 200 metres away, as the crow flies. I think even much less, because they are almost parallel, let’s say. Even that is something that in some way made us understand that there was an interest in getting rid of those cellphones, clearly, by whoever did that thing there.
{Witness gives detailed response;
See: "Just seeing police could panic the killers into instant dumping of the telephones, without even needing to know why the police were where the police were (There is no need to invoke any awareness by the phone-dumper[s] of the reason the Police were near Mrs. Lana's place - the hoax-call.). So if the killers saw flashing police-lights, or any other sign of police near Mrs. Lana's place, that sign could be enough to explain panic phone-dumping - then and there (not considering whether the phones were switched-on or switched-off)." In TJMK: "Updating Our Scenarios And Timelines #2: An Integrated Comparison Of The Timing of the Phone-Events." 6/28/2013}
MC: When you arrived for the first time in via della Pergola, did you enter the room of the crime?
{Examiner asks simple Q}
MaCh: Immediately, no. I went in afterwards, when Dr Mignini also arrived; and later with Dr Lalli. Then I had, how to say, occasionally entered when the crime-scene inspection of the Forensic Police, of the colleagues arrived from Rome, was already begun, so late. I didn’t stop long inside the house, I say the truth, also because the measures/orders that I issued immediately were those, yes, of deducing, [of] drawing out all the investigative elements that might emerge in the immediate surroundings [and/or immediately after the facts] to seek to immediately direct the investigation activity, but also to “freeze” [sic. i.e. to solidify, or to make concrete] another aspect, which was that of hearing/questioning all the people who might tell us details on Meredith’s stay in Perugia, in general, but above all on her final hours, on her visits/visitors, everything about those who Meredith had known in some way and “¦ This was the thing that we considered logical to do precisely in relation to this, to these first investigative deductions that we drew from the [above]-described crime-scene.
{Witness gives detailed narrative reply}
MC: And so that same day you were present when they began to hear/question…
{Examiner begins preamble to presumed Q, but is interrupted}
MaCh: Yes.
{Witness interrupts Examiner with witness's answer to assumed Q}
MC: “¦ the people [who were] acquainted with the facts.
{Examiner completes interrupted Q-in-the-form-of-a-statement, which omits Q-mark}
MaCh: I was present. I did not participate personally in the examination [of witnesses], but I was present, in the sense that both with [my] colleague Profazio and with [my] other colleague from the central operative service”¦
{Witness responds with narrative description of circumstances, but is interrupted}
MC: from Rome.
{Examiner interrupts with her assumed next part of witness's response}
MaCh: from Rome. We began to put the pieces together, excuse my [use of] the expression; that is to say all the “¦ all the elements that emerged from the examination of witnesses, were checked, were gradually verified/cross-checked. Both with cross-checks that enlarged the group of witnesses, of the people to be heard/questioned, and with the checking of the alibis of many people, [as well as] with a technical activity that was carried out.
{Witness confirms Examiner's assumption, and completes his narrative description of circumstances}
MC: That is to say?
{Examiner enquires as to witness's reference to indefinite "technical activity"}
MaCh: A technical activity. A bugging activity was carried out. There was also an activity carried out also for the cross-checking of the phone [activity] printouts. There was an activity to understand also the cross-checking of the [phone] cells. There was a very wide-range activity carried out. Without excluding, I repeat, all also [sic] ... shall we say, the minor hypotheses. For example, the news arrived of a Maghrebi who had been in a rush to wash his own clothes in a launderette, not too far from the scene of the crime. This piece of information was excluded for a very simple reason, because from the first results of the investigative inquiries, he had arrived there in the early afternoon, but instead, in the early afternoon of the day before her death, Meredith was still alive [sic]. Because from the witness examinations we had determined that the last person who had seen her alive, saw her in the late afternoon. After which, we also did another series of checks relative to the one [sic] that there was a strange telephone call that the people who found the cellphones in the famous villa, the beautiful one on via Sperandio, had received in the evening. However, we had, how to say, understood that it was a case of a boy who had made a call from Terni and of a strange coincidence, but absolutely irrelevant for the investigation activity. Indeed, we made checks on all the hospitals in order to evaluate, to check, whether maybe there were [patients] who had presented blade/cutting wounds that in some way might have been compatible with a wound, let’s say, or at any rate with a reaction by the victim. Only one had presented, it was a [person] from Foligno who, [while] cutting salami, had cut their hand during the trip back from an away-game with Foligno ““ he was a football fan. Nothing else. So no investigative hypothesis was rejected. It was, obviously, because this is how it is done, and thus I believe that it is logic, we began to discuss/think in a certain way, because we had deduced from all this scen, another series of further elements, that is to say that the person “¦.
{Witness responds with prolonged narrative re "technical activity" and seems to pause}
MC: Speak. Don’t be afraid to say it.
{Examiner urges witness to continue}
MaCh: No, no. I’m not afraid.
{Witness argues with Examiner}
MC: That is, let’s say, when was it that the investigations turned to, [started] to focus on today’s defendants?
{Examiner asks simple Q}
MaCh: When on the evening of “¦ they did not focus on today’s defendants, that is to say, progressively the analysis of the investigative elements made us “¦ made us start, even us, to suspect. Because going into a house, finding a [sic] door of Meredith’s room closed, a [sic] door of the apartment opened, faeces in the toilet [bowl], while I take a shower, a series of bloody prints”¦
{Witness responds in narrative form and is interrupted}
MC: However the faeces were in which of the two bathrooms?
{Examiner interrupts witness with clarifying Q}
MaCh: Of the bathrooms. Me, if I take a shower in a bathroom where there are faeces, instinctively I flush the toilet, in short.
{Witness makes non-responsive subjective statement and is interrupted}
MC: Yes, but the faeces were in the other bathroom.
{Examiner engages witness in argument}
MaCh: Yes, yes, I understood. However, in short, in some way it comes instinctively, no?, to flush the toilet? The fact is that “¦.
{Witness joins argument and is interrupted}
GCM: Excuse me, do you know how many bathrooms there were in the house?
{Court interrupts argument with simple Q}
MaCh: Two.
{Witness ignores actual Q and responds with answer to assumed follow-up Q}
GCM: Two bathrooms. Excuse me, please. Do you know that a shower was taken?
{Court asks another simple Q, using vernacular ref. to whether a person used the shower, rather than that the the shower device was taken away.}
MaCh: Yes.
{Witness answers Court's actual Q}
GCM: How do you know?
{Court asks simple follow-on Q}
MaCh: I know because it is a thing that I cannot, I believe, report because it was “¦.
{Witness seems to answer in non-responsive, subjective narrative form, and is interrupted}
GCM: But you checked”¦?
{Court seeks objective answer to his simple Q}
MaCh: I am trying to be very very careful.
{Witness hints that he has reasons for apparent evasion}
Giulia Bongiorno [GB]: Mr President, we are talking of nothing.
{Sollecito's lawyer chimes in with distracting comment}
GCM: Excuse me, Attorney.
{Court appears to admonish GCM not to chime-in without specified legal-objection}
MaCh: Well, the main point [is] that very slowly we began to understand that there were strong inconsistencies in the revelations that were made. And there were behaviours that on the part of above all, indeed exclusively, of Sollecito and Knox, appeared to us as [being], at the very least, particular. Behaviours both immediately after the event ““ a sort of impatience/irritability shown [with regard to] the investigation activity that we were carrying out, and obviously we could not but ask [NdT: i.e. “we had to ask”] those who were close to Meredith [about] elements that we considered useful, even necessary, in order to continue the investigation activity.
{Witness launches into apparent justification for his evasiveness}
MC: Excuse me if I interrupt you. I’ll just make a few precise questions, thus: you checked, let’s say, let’s call them alibis, even if it’s a term that’s very so [sic] from American TV films, but in any case [it’s] understandable”¦ Did you check the alibis of the people closest, let’s say, to Meredith?
{Examiner, after preamble, asks relatively simple Q}
MaCh: Yes.
{Witness answers Q as phrased}
MC: In particular, did you check the alibis of the young men from the [apartment on] the floor below?
{Examiner asks simple Q}
MaCh: Yes.
{Witness answers Q as phrased}
MC: Results?
{Examiner poses Q in casual form}
MaCh: Positive for them, in the sense that they were at home, in their own home, that is to say their respective houses, because they were here for reasons of study, so they were not present in Perugia during the days when “¦
{Witness responds with allusive casual A, begins to amplify, but is interrupted}
MC: Because they had left for “¦
{Examiner interrupts with suggestion for next part of witness's response}
MaCh: Yes, for the All Souls’ Day long-weekend, let’s call it that.
{Withess reacts to Examiner's suggestion by stating reason for upcoming week-end absence, but not stating week-end destination}
MC: Did you check the alibi of Mezzetti and of Romanelli?
{Examiner asks double Q}
MaCh: Yes.
{Witness answers for both Qs}
MC: Results?
{Examiner poses Q in casual form}
MaCh: The result in this case also [is that] Mezzetti and Romanelli were not there, so “¦
{Witness gives clear Answer, apparently begins explanation, but is interrupted}
GCM: Excuse me, can you say what checks you did?
{Court interrupts witness's testimony to ask Q re witness's method}
MaCh: We carried out a whole series of checks that brought us to evaluate, establish, that these persons were not present in the premises that evening.
{Witness ignores Court's Q as phrased and answers anticipated next Q}
MC: Let’s say, I imagine that you heard/questioned them.
{Examiner makes statement-in-form-of-Q with ?-mark omitted}
MaCh: Yes.
{Witness answers presumed Q}
MC: Did they tell you where they were that evening, what they did that evening”¦?
{Examiner seems to interrupt and asks double-Q}
MaCh: And in effect, we assessed/considered that “¦
{Witness ignores Q-as-phrased and is apparently interrupted}
MC: And you ascertained that in effect “¦
{Examiner apparently interrupts A and continues his interrupted multiple Q}
MaCh: That it was true what they had told us. I can report on the circumstance.
{Witness seems to continue his interrupted answer and offers to expand his narrative.
Q &A cycle is confused and confusing because of repeated multiple Qs, instead of orderly single Q & A}
MC: Did you check the alibi of Amanda Knox and of Raffaele Sollecito? Was there a comparison between the declarations of Amanda Knox and of Raffaele Sollecito with regard to the night of the murder, and what you were able to compare, shall we say, objectively, through the other declarations, through the phone records?
{Examiner asks multiple Qs}
MaCh: Through the phone records and through the checks [that were], shall we say, objective, it was found that what Sollecito had declared was not truthful because there was a phone call that was never received [i.e. answered] by Sollecito at 23:00 hours. Because it turned out that there was no interaction with the computer, but I believe that this “¦ as declared [sic]. But above all there was an absolute incongruity of the “¦.
{Witness summarizing findings wrt phone records, is interrupted}
GCM: There now. Excuse me. Maybe we will not ask the question in these terms: following the declarations, on which you cannot report, that you got from and that were given by Amanda Knox and Sollecito Raffaele, what type of investigations you carried out”¦
{Court interrupts to restrict Qs but is interrupted}
MaCh: We carried out ...
{Witness interrupts Court's interruption and is interrupted}
GCM: ... and the outcome of these investigations. There now. This is where we’re at.
{Court completes it's interruption, seeming to believe he has made himself clear, but confusion still reigns}
MaCh: Well, in summary ...
{Witness begins a summary, but is interrupted}
GCM: Following the declarations given by them, you had “¦ With regard to Sollecito Raffaele, what did you do and what [information] emerged?
{Court interrupts witness with double-Q}
MaCh: It emerged that, unlike “¦
{Witness begins to answer Court's 2nd Q, but Court interrupts}
GCM: What did you do, first?
{Court repeats1st Q}
MaCh: We did an analysis of the telephone traffic, and from the analysis of the telephone traffic it emerged that Sollecito had absolutely not received/answered the 23:00 hours phone call as he had declared. From the analysis of the telephone traffic, there then emerged a very strange detail, in the sense that the cellphones “¦
{Witness answers 1st Q, begins answering 2nd Q, and is interrupted by Sollecito's lawyer}
GB: (overlapping voices) “¦ continue with the opinions/judgements, with all the opinions/judgements.
{Sollecito's lawyer seems to demand comprehensive testimony}
GCM: That which emerged.
{Court makes seemingly cryptic statement which is probably a Q relating to witness's interrupted A to Court's 2nd Q above: "It emerged that, unlike "¦" }
MaCh: A detail/particular emerged ... unlike what “¦. (overlapped voices).
{Witness resumes testimony but is interrupted, multiple voices are heard}
GCM: Excuse me. What emerged?
{Court asks witness to clarify what witness was saying}
_____________________________________________
Here ends the Analysis of the Evidence #2, discussing that the lone burglar theory is not credible, and that “Break-In” to Romanelli’s room was faked.
The next Post: Analysis of the Evidence #3, will Analyse the Phone records and the police investigation into the accused phone activity the night of the murder.
Monday, September 15, 2014
Analysis #1 Of Testimony Of Marco Chiacchiera, Director, Organized Crime Section, Flying Squad
Posted by Cardiol MD
Dr Chiacchiera with Dr Comodi explaining reason for charges in another case
Overview Of This Series
Yet another vital translation which will be posted in the trial testimony areaof McCall’s great Wiki. This again is translated by the ever-dedicated main posterr ZiaK.
Although I graduated as a medical doctor I also graduated as a lawyer, and was often in courtrooms. For this post and the rest of the Chiacchiera series I am wearing my lawyer’s hat to point out what strikes me in Prosecutor Comodi’s questions, Marco Chiacchiera’s testimony, and the cross-examinations by defense lawyers.
Prior Preparations And Procedures
Under the Italian Code, before the beginning of the trial phase in Italy, the parties file a brief, detailing all evidence they want to present ““ the parties have to indicate by name every witness and precisely what these will be asked. The aims include creation of a Record of Admissible Facts.
Also under the Italian Code, both the defendant and the prosecutor can cross-examine each other’s witnesses. The Judge may choose not to admit any testimony that appears patently superfluous, reject irrelevant or improper or irregular questions ““ such as leading questions, and Inadmissible Hearsay ““ and also ask questions to the witnesses and experts.
Ground Covered In Dr Chiacchiera’s Testimony
- (1) He found Knox and Sollecito uncooperative when he asked them questions.
(2) Saw evidence contradicting any lone burglar theory and indicating that the “break-In” to Romanelli’s room was faked.
(3) Phone records and the police investigation into the accused phone activity the night of the murder.
(4) Discovery of pornographic magazines at Sollecito’s house.
(5) Details of how the large knife, Exhibit 36, was collected from Sollecito’s and the evidence that it is the murder knife.
My Assessment Of This Court Exchange
It is immediately obvious to me that this witness is a skilled witness; as such, and given his deep hands-on involvement in the immediate investigation this witness’s testimony is credible. My assessment therefore is that this was a very good and unflinching witness and that Dr Comodi shows no signs of leading the witness or seeking other than a truthful record.
I have seen prosecutors examine witnesses differently but dont believe the resultant record would have been superior. This would have stood up well in any American court.
(GCM=Giancarlo Massei; MC=Manuela Comodi; MaCh=Marco Chiacchiera; GB=Giulia Bongiorno; DD=Donatella Donati; CP=Carlo Pacelli; LG=Luciano Ghirga; CDV=Carlo Dalla Vedova; FM=Francesco Maresca)
Public Prosecutor Comodi [MC]
MC: Dr Chiacchiera, you carried out your duties where, when, at what moment of the events?
MaCh: I was and am the director of the Organized Crime Section of the Flying Squad and I am the vice-director of the Flying Squad. The Organized Crime Section is a branch of the Flying Squad that deals with “¦ the term, I think that in this place [i.e. the court] it is enough to say that it deals with organized crime. However, I am also the vice-director of the Flying Squad, for which [reason] I deal with, in the case of need, everything that is necessary [for] the various aspects.
{Witness supplies 5 items of relevant information that Examiner should elicit at beginning of examination.}
MC: Can you tell the Court how you became aware of events, who called you, when you became involved?
{Examiner asks another triple-question}
MaCh: Yes.
{Witness simply answers question as worded by Examiner}
MC: For now, start to tell us, then maybe I will intervene [NdT: i.e. interrupt with further questions] if necessary.
{Examiner, asking no Q, instructs witness, suggesting provisional forbearance if witness does not make interruptions necessary.}
MaCh: On the fateful day, at around 12:33, I had gone to the cemetery with my mother. The operations room called me immediately after the discovery of the body.
{Witness begins appropriate narrative response, but Examiner interrupts}
MC: So the 113? [NdT: 113 is the Italian State Police emergency number]
{Examiner interrupts witness with a Q, suggesting witness's receipt of call from an emergency number, but suggests wrong source-number}
MaCh: 110. The operations room of the Questura called me, and informed me of the happenings in an initially obviously very summarized manner. They said to me that there was a suspicious death, a young woman who lived in via della Pergola. I rushed to the place directly in my mother’s car. I didn’t stop by at the Questura, I didn’t go to get the service [i.e. police] car. I got myself taken to via della Pergola. We took about 15 minutes from the cemetery to there, ten fifteen minutes. In the meantime, I phoned the deputy Commissioner Napoleoni, in the temporary absence of the director, Dr Profazio, who arrived later, who was “¦ he was enjoying a period of leave, and with deputy Commissioner Napoleoni we arrived almost at the same time. We arrived almost simultaneously at the premises. Forensics, too, arrived almost at the same time at the premises.
{Witness supplies correct source-number and resumes interrupted narrative response}
MC: The Perugia Forensics?
{Examiner questions witness's correction, as if to verify and to ensure accuracy of court's record}
MaCh: The Perugia Forensics, I highlight, yes.
{Witness emphatically agrees with Examiner's question}
MC:”‹[They were] alerted by you, or ...?
{Examiner pauses mid-Q, inviting witness to guess complete Q, or is interrupted}
MaCh:”‹Alerted by the operations room, and also alerted by me.
,
{Witness responds to invitation, or interrupts with A to assumed complete Q}
MC:”‹So you arrive, and who do you find?
{Examiner's 1st simple Q.}
MaCh: “‹I found there ... there was already deputy Commissioner Napoleoni, there were also a few of Meredith’s co-tenants. There was Amanda Knox, there was Raffaele Sollecito. There were two young men who were, I believe, the friend of the boyfriend of one of the co-tenants. In short, there were a few people who had already been inside the house. There was the Postal Police.
{Witness answers Q in reasonable detail}
MC:”‹In the person of”¦?
{Examiner seeks more detail re specific Postal Police Personnel}
MaCh: “‹Battistelli and another of Battistelli’s colleagues. Inspector Battistelli, with whom there was immediately a discussion in order to understand what were the reasons for his intervention there, because it is not normal to find the Postal [police] in a crime of this sort. And he explained to me immediately what was the reason for his intervention. The origin of the, shall we way of his intervention, was due to the discovery of a pair of cellphones in a period of time, I believe, of an hour, [or] two, I don’t recall clearly, that were one in the name of one of Meredith’s co-tenants and one in the name of, later it [sic] “¦ I mean the SIM [card], obviously, the cellphones’ SIMs, the cards, they were in the name of a co-tenant and the other in Meredith’s [name]. The co-tenant, however, then told us, we then ascertained that both of the cellphones in fact were used by Meredith. And already that was, how shall we say, a first detail on which we began to reflect because, in fact, that was an element than in some way made us [become] immediately occupied/involved from an investigative point of view.
{Witness responds to Q and includes relevant amplifying narrative, anticipating probable future Qs re cellphones}
MC: “‹So, excuse me, also if the Court already, shall we say, knows this, because others have reported it, on this point however, where were the cellphones found?
{Examiner seems to interrupt with simple Q to clarify specific relevant fact not yet reached}
MaCh:”‹Inside the garden of a villa that is in via Sperandio.
{Witness responds appropriately}
MC:”‹In via Sperandio.
{Probably a Q, but implicitly inviting more specificity}
MaCh: “‹A villa that ... I am Perugian, [and] honestly, I didn’t even know there was a villa there. I’m Perugian, and I swear that I would have sworn [sic] that behind there was a wood.
{Witness flounders, seems unable to be more specific}
MC:”‹A field
{Probably a Q, but implicitly inviting more specificity}
MaCh: “‹It [was] the first time that I went in behind there. Instead, I see a marvelous old mansion with an enormous garden that gives ... that is almost adjacent to the street ““ the street that leads towards Ponte Rio. Anyone from Perugia understands me maybe.
{Witness seems to be in informal conversational mode}
MC: “‹From the structure of the fencing/enclosure, could you tell, shall we say, whether it was possible to throw these cellphones from the street, or whether it was necessary to enter the garden itself?
{Examiner engages witness, and asks Q to clarify how cellphones got into that garden}
MaCh: “‹Yes, obviously, we checked that. In fact, immediately, in short, the detail that seemed, how shall we say, of great investigative interest was that [very point], besides other details that I will go [into] a bit [sic], so to speak, also to give the impression of what the immediate impact was that we saw in the moment when we found ourselves in a situation of this type. So, deputy Napoleoni immediately entered inside the house in order to check it for herself. I did it [entered] shortly afterwards, also because [as] you will imagine that in that moment whoever was there had to notify all those who [sic], amongst whom Dr Mignini who was the Public Prosecutor on duty, and immediately give orders so that the correct checks are carried out. Because it was not just a crime scene that had to be analysed immediately: there also had to be, how shall we say, correlated with the information that we had got from via Sperandio ““ because the entry of the Postal [police in the case] originated with via Sperandio. And so we immediately asked ourselves: “Ah, what are these cellphones belonging to poor Meredith doing inside the garden of a villa?” And then And then immediately after, we asked ourselves, obviously, what might be the profile of the possible, or probable, murderer, and we discussed/talked about the crime scene. The crime scene immediately seemed fairly strange to us, if you wish [NdT: literally “if we wish” in Italian, but meaning the same as “shall we say”, “if you wish”, “so to speak” etc.]
{Witness responds to Q with detailed narrative}
MC:”‹Why?
{Examiner asks ambiguous Q, probably wrt crime scene seeming "fairly strange "}
MaCh:”‹Because the door did not show”¦ the entry door to the villa did not show signs of break-in. The we checked “¦
{Witness seems to decipher ambiguity correctly, begins narrative response, but is interrupted by Examiner}
MC:”‹We are not talking about the villa on via Sperandio obviously?
{Examiner interrupts with Q, apparently not comprehending Witness's narratives}
MaCh: “‹For the love of god! It was called a “villa” “¦ (overlap of voices), let’s say the house, of the house on via della Pergola there was no forcing/break-in. We found a forcing on the window. The window is this one, on the side of the house. I don’t know if you’ve seen the house? Anyhow, it is this one on the side of the house that can be seen immediately when you come down the slope from the gate. Logically reconstructing the thing, a hypothetical prowler [NdT: literally “ill-intentioned person”] who entered the house, breaking the glass with a rock - because inside the room, which was Romanelli’s room, which was the, shall we say, hypothetical arena of the entry, was completely in utter chaos. For that reason, what should we have hypothesized? That the hypothetical prowler took a rock, managed to throw the rock; the shutters, the external ones, the external shutters were not “¦
{Witness is exasperated at Examiner's apparent incomprehension, is repeating his previous testimony, but is interrupted by Examiner}
MC:”‹The dark-green wooden ones?
{Examiner interrupts with Leading Q re colour of external shutters. Now begins a confused and confusing colloquy. The arrangement of Filomena Romanelli's window, with Outside, and Inside Shutters, the Broken-Glass-Frame in-between, and the glass-splinters on the window-sill is complicated and needs a picture-exhibit that the witness can refer-to; this is apparently not provided, leading to the confusions}
MaCh:”‹The dark-green wooden ones were half shut, for which reason [he] must have had an aim like “Pecos Bill” [NdT: a cartoon Wild West cowboy], takes aim and throws that rock, smashes the window. After, he climbs up and does a turn on the little slope, and has to clamber up towards the window on the smooth surface, it seems to me, that from the ground up to the window there are two and a half metres-three [metres]. And then would have said: “bah, in short” [sic]. Yeah, well, the thing seemed to us…. in short, the first hypothesis that the investigator normally does, finds a level of unlikelihood of this kind of happening. After which, we looked at the house and we saw that an entry of a potential prowler [ill-intentioned person], still reasoning on the hypothesis”¦
{Witness amplifies narrative response but is interrupted by Examiner}
MC:”‹Of theft.
{Examiner inappropriately interrupts, incorrectly guessing what witness was about to say}
MaCh: “‹Of theft ending badly. Of theft that then degenerates because the burglar in some way thinks that he will find no-one in the house and instead finds a person, and then it degenerates “¦ We saw that there were easier means of entry, without wishing to bore you, but behind the house there was the possibility of climbing in a much easier way, without being seen by people that might have passed in the road. Let’s remember that, in short, it was not very late; quite the contrary. Normally people passed there, for which reason, if [he] had done it, the thing would probably have been seen. That thing there, as an hypothesis, we didn’t immediately discount it, that’s clear, because it’s a good rule to never discount any hypothesis. But we immediately considered that it was not a priority.
{Witness corrects Examiner's wrong guess, amplifies and seems to end narrative response}
MC:”‹Dr Chiacchiera, I interrupt you. (The witness is shown an exhibit.)
{Examiner, seems to acknowledge her habit of interruptions without actually interrupting, while introducing an unspecified exhibit. This introduction seems very informal, because Exhibits are normally identified by an assigned title.}
MaCh:”‹Ah! I didn’t remember it as being so big.
{Witness recognizes unspecified exhibit}
MC:”‹Precisely! You saw it? This is the rock that ...
{Examiner engages witness, stating it is "the rock".}
MaCh:”‹Yes, but it has been some time I have not, how shall we say, yes, I saw it. Absolutely.
However, it’s big, it’s huge.
{Witness engages Examiner, commenting on how large the rock exhibit is}
MC:”‹Do you consider that it could be this?
{Examiner ambiguously (what are "it" & "this "?) asks witness's opinion}
MaCh:”‹I believe so.
{Witness seems to overlook ambiguity of Q with vague A)
MC:"‹I try "¦
{Examiner begins to speak but is interrupted}
Judge Massei [GCM]:”‹How?
{Court interrupts as if to ask Q how Examiner 'tries'}
MC:”‹It is this. Yes, it is this one that was collected, yes, that was found.
{Witness seems to confirm that exhibited rock is the rock found in Filomena's room}
GCM:”‹So the rock is shown. [NdT: an “aside” for the court records?]
{Court formally announces admission of rock-exhibit, seemingly trying to reduce confusion caused by informal dialogue}
MaCh:”‹Inside the room where we then found the rock…
??:”‹But what was the question about the rock?
{Witness amplifies that rock had been found in a room, but enquires re rock Q, exposing confusion caused by informal dialogue}
GCM:”‹If this was the rock. And the witness said ...
{Court begins explanation to confused witness}
MaCh:”‹I said yes. Yes.
{Witness interrupts Court - confusion reigns}
GCM:”‹You saw it? You saw the rock?
{Court asks witness 2 Qs, trying to clarify that 'it' refers to 'the rock' that witness saw.}
MaCh:”‹Yes.
{Witness confirms that witness had previously seen the rock introduced into court as an unlisted exhibit.}
GCM:”‹When you saw it, where was it?
{Court proceeds to clarify confusion re where the rock was when witness originally saw the rock}
MaCh:”‹The rock [was] in the room of Romanelli.
{Witness specifically testifies, for witness's first time, that when witness originally saw the rock, the rock was in Filomena Romanelli's room}
GCM:”‹How far from the window? Can you say?
{Court continues to seek clarification using double-Q.}
MaCh: “‹A few centimetres [NdT: “un palmo” = “a hand’s width”] from the window sill, under the window, from the wall where the window is.
{Witness testifies clearly in answer to Court's 1st Q of above double-Q.}
GCM:”‹So from the internal perimeter wall, from where the window gives onto it, a “hand’s breadth”. So 20 centimetres…
{Court apparently begins to seek verification of witness's testimony, but is interrupted}
MaCh:”‹Mr President ....
{Witness begins to Interrupt Court}
GCM:”‹... away from it approximately.
{Court finishes his interrupted statement}
MaCh:”‹Yes.
{Witness agrees with Court's completed statement}
GCM:”‹And this is the rock. You remember it.
{Court states his understanding in form of Qs.}
MaCh:”‹Yes, yes, yes, yes. That is the rock.
{Witness impatiently agrees with Court's understanding}
MC:”‹At least as far as size and colour [are concerned], it corresponds thus to the one that was collected [as evidence].
{Examiner makes statements in form of Q, seeking verification of resemblance of exhibit-rock to original rock}
MaCh:”‹At least as far as size and colour [are concerned], it absolutely corresponds. If it was collected, I think that ...
{Witness begins narrative agreement with statements of Examiner, but is apparently interrupted by Examiner}
MC: “‹Very well. WITNESS [sic? Should be MaCh?] and Romanelli’s room was a complete shambles. The clothes were on the floor, the glass was strangely on top of the clothes, the [glass] shards were strangely on top of the “¦ on the windowsill, let’s put it that way.
{Apparent Transcriptional confusion attributing to interrupted witness narrative the interrupting .statement of Examiner}
MC:”‹The outside one.
{Examiner seems to amplify statement of Examiner wrt which window-shutter witness had been referring-to}
MaCh: “‹The outside one, precisely. The one that is between the shutters and the shutters [sic. NdT: “imposte” in Italian, but this can also mean shutters, or flap, as in the inner “scuri” shutters, or he may mean the window-frame itself, with the window-panes, given his following description], the green shutters and the shutters, the broken ones in short, where the glass is. The shutters ““ the wooden ones. The rock was a bit too close with regard to the wall if I [were to] throw it from least two metres. Unless it was lobbed [i.e. thrown in a high arc]. But in that case it’s rather unlikely that it would smash the glass. For that reason, I repeat, in the context of immediate likelihood, this one “¦
{Witness agrees with Examiner that he was referring to "The outside one", continuing with narrative of reasoning, but is interrupted by Examiner…}
MC:”‹Yes, it’s true. These are considerations. However they are considerations, shall we say, that refer [sic], because they are reasoning/lines of thought that are formed in the “immediacy” of the events [NdT: i.e. “in the immediate aftermath”. NOTE: throughout the text, a number of speakers use “immediatezza” (lit. “immediacy”) to convey a number of meanings, from “in the immediate aftermath”, or “in the immediate surroundings”, or “very soon after”, etc. I will translate them appropriately according to the context, without further explanation of the use of “immediatezza”], in order to proceed in one direction rather than another.
{Examiner, interrupting witness, apparently agreeing with witness's reasoning. While Examiner is apparently stating his own argumentative reservations re the possible evolution-in-time of witness's changing lines of reasoning, he is interrupted by Giulia Bongiorno, Sollecito defense lawyer:}
Giulia Bongiorno [GB]: “‹I never like to interrupt an examination [of a witness], however if one wanted, between the Public Prosecutor’s hypotheses, to do that [sic] of demonstrating that from a ballistic point of view it is not possible, then the ballistic expert should be called.
{GB interrupts Examiner to comment that Witness and Examiner are expressing opinions on Ballistics that require the testimony of a Ballistic Expert.}
MC:”‹But in fact, his considerations are not the considerations of an expert: they are the considerations of an investigator who made certain deductions in the immediacy of the events.
{Examiner argues that witness's testimony is that of an investigator's temporal train of thought.}
MaCh:”‹It happens to us too, at times, to reason/think rationally “¦
{Witness joins colloquy, amplifying Examiner's argument.}
GCM:”‹These reasonings/deductions, then determined your investigative activity in one direction rather than in an “¦?
{Court seems to invite further amplification by witness}
MaCh: “‹Yes, obviously, Mr President. I was trying to ... (overlap of voices) it is a premiss/basis to be able to then, how shall we say, reach ““ I won’t say conclusions ““ but in order to try to understand what our way of broaching the thing was, there and then. We had, I reassert, reasoned immediately also on via Sperandio. So the first thing, I may say, [was] the unlikelihood, or at any rate it was not the top priority hypothesis, the one of a prowler/ill-intentioned person entering. The open door without signs of break-in. But above all, a young woman who is [sic] probably killed in her own room, nude or almost nude, with a wound of that type, in a lake of blood, covered with a duvet. I repeat, the door was not smashed/wrecked, there’s a broken “¦ a window broken with a thrown rock, how can I say, it’s obvious that we immediately found this situation as “¦ (overlap of voices).
MaCh:”‹”¦ particular.
{Witness further amplifies narrative}
GCM:”‹You formed these considerations, and what did they lead you to?
{Court asks simple Q.}
MaCh: “‹That very probably the author or authors knew the person, or at any rate that the author or authors did not enter “¦ did not enter from the window-pane of that window.
{Witness responds with his conclusion that the authors of the faked break-in did not enter from the window-pane of that window.}
GCM: “‹Excuse me a moment, just to give some guidelines, but of the evaluations that the witness is expressing, obviously it’s not that they can be taken account of, however we will acquire them [for the trial files] in order to understand the investigation activities, the appropriateness of the investigations that were carried out, directed in one way or in another, there you go. However, maybe, “¦ there you go, yes, maybe if we can manage to keep with the bare essentials this will help everybody.
{Court proceedings seem to have been diverted into a free-for-all colloquy, with multiple participants chiming-in, and creating confusion. Court-President, GCM, now politely intervenes, apparently trying to restore order, ruling that the professional evaluations made by the witness, testified-to by the witness, should be admitted for the trial files. The appropriateness of the witness's evaluations can be dealt with separately and later.}
_________________________________________________
This segment of Chiacchiera’s Testimony re the Crime Scene, which he believed had been remodeled by the criminals to dupe Investigators into believing that there had been a burglary, committed by a single criminal, is paused here because it is so prolonged.
Analysis of Chiacchiera’s Testimony will continue in a future post.