Judge’s Report From The First Hearing, Judge Claudia Matteini

PERUGIA, Italy – An American student has accused a Congolese pub owner of knifing her British roommate to death, saying she covered her ears to drown out the screams, according to a judge’s ruling Friday ordering the woman, her Italian boyfriend and the pub owner kept in jail.

The judge said Amanda Marie Knox of Seattle was hazy about the events from smoking hashish before the slaying and that the murder weapon was a knife that belonged to Knox’s boyfriend.

Knox, 20, Raffaele Sollecito, 23, and Diya “Patrick” Lumumba, 38, have been detained since Tuesday as suspects in the sexual assault and killing of Meredith Kercher, 21, who was found dead Nov. 2. All three deny involvement in the death, their lawyers say.

No charges have been filed, but Judge Claudia Matteini ruled there were “serious indications of guilt” that warranted keeping the three in jail for up to a year while the investigation continues.

The 19-page ruling said that Knox, in her meetings with prosecutors, accused Lumumba of killing Kercher.

Knox has “confused memories, since she had taken hashish in the afternoon,” the ruling read. But it said she told prosecutors Lumumba “had a crush” on her roommate and he and the victim had gone into a bedroom to have sex.

“She added that she could not remember if (Meredith) had been previously threatened but that it was Patrick who killed her,” the ruling read. “She made clear that in those moments … she heard Meredith scream so much that she, being scared, covered her ears.”…

…Under Italian law, suspects can be held without charge if a judge rules there is enough evidence to jail them and there is a chance they might flee, repeat the crime or tamper with evidence. Prosecutors may later seek to indict the suspects and put them on trial.

The judge said in her ruling that the suspects might try to flee Italy if released.

“They could easily leave the territory of the state to escape the investigation,” the judge wrote, noting that Lumumba is from Congo, Knox is American and Sollecito could enlist his girlfriend’s help to flee…

…The judge said it was not yet clear who inflicted the fatal wound, but her ruling said Sollecito’s footprints were found in Kercher’s room and identified the murder weapon as a knife with a 3.3-inch-long blade that the Italian usually had with him.

In her reconstruction of the incident, the judge said Knox, who worked for Lumumba at his Perugia bar, let the two men into the apartment with her keys.

“Then something went wrong,” Matteini wrote. “The two (men) demanded some kind of sexual act, which (Kercher) refused to do. She was then threatened with a knife, which Sollecito always carried with him, and with which Meredith was stabbed in the neck.”

Another of Sollecito’s attorneys, Luca Maori, said he planned to appeal the decision. “We didn’t expect it,” he said.

Perugia, a city of 150,000 people about 105 miles north of Rome, is home to two major universities. The University of Perugia has an enrollment of 20,000 and the University for Foreigners has a few thousand students.

Knox, who was studying Italian while in Perugia, is described by people who knew her in Seattle as a bright, amiable student. She made the dean’s list last spring at the University of Washington.

Knox’s mother and father, who are divorced, have traveled to Perugia, but they were not expected to be able to speak with their daughter until Saturday, said Mike James, head of the Seattle-Perugia Sister City Association.

“Events that have unfolded in Perugia, Italy, over the last few days regarding our daughter, Amanda, have shocked and devastated our family,” the family said in a statement. “We love our daughter very much and certainly stand by her through this ordeal. We know she is probably frightened and upset about what has happened, and needs all the support her family can give her.”…

Source: Associated Press/AP Online

REDORBIT

The Daily Telegraph wrote:
Extracts from the official judge’s report on the murder of Meredith Kercher, obtained by the Telegraph

“On 2 November 2007 at 12.35pm persons from the Postal Police of Perugia went to Via della Pergola 7 in order to track down Romanelli Filomena, since in the same morning Mrs Lana Elisabetta had found on the lawn of the garden attached to her house, in Perugia, Via Sperandio 5b, two mobile phones of which one had the sim card of Vodafone 348 467 3711, belonging to the same Romanelli.

Upon reaching the destination the agents found outside the building on Via Della Pergola 7 two youths, identified as KNOX Amanda Marie, who lived at that address, and SOLLECITO Raffaele, who said they were waiting for the Carabinieri military police, called because on that morning they became aware of a window with the glass broken and had suspected a theft.

In the meantime, at 1pm, arrived Romanellli, the housemate of Knox who verified that nothing had been taken from the apartment.

In the course of the search it was ascertained that the door of the room which was used by Meredith Kercher, the other girl living in the apartment, was closed and locked and it was decided therefore to break down the door because Romanelli said it was strange that her friend Kercher could have both her telephones switched off, having lately used also the phone with the sim card stated [of Romanelli], and that the door should be closed.

With the door opened there was a chilling scene in so far as the room was found in disorder with blood stains everywhere, on the ground and on the walls, and also under the duvet of the bed a foot could be seen.

The agents, in order to avoid any pollution of the crime scene, stopped everyone from entering the room.

The girl, found dead with a blow to her neck with a sharp weapon, was identified as Meredith Kercher, an English student in Italy from September and enrolled on the Erasmus scheme and at the University of Perugia.

From the first medical examination of the corpse by the pathologist, Dr Luca Lalli, it has been established that the death occurred at 11pm at the earliest and at the latest one hour after with the scope of a time frame between 10pm and midnight on the day 1 November 2007.

To this conclusion it can be added the supposition of a dinner eaten at 9pm, in reality the events show that the hour could certainly be predicted, according to what PURTON Sophie said on 2 November 2007, that at 9pm the dinner was already finished and that Meredith was already on her way home.

As for the cause of death, the verdict reached is that was caused by a haemorrhage from a neck wound after the blow of a sharp and pointed weapon.

From reading the first summary of Dr Lalli’s report, deposited at the court on November 8 2007, after the autopsy on the corpse of Meredith Kercher, it emerges that the wound had not hit the carotide artery so the death was preceded by a relatively slow agony, circumstances which allow use to date back the time of the criminal act to between 21.30pm and 11.30pm on the day of November 1 2007, a timetable which tallies with the consumption of dinner in an hour before 9pm.

In the course of the investigation many youths were questioned which Meredith had the opportunity of knowing and spending time with in her time in Perugia and nothing in particular emerged about her private life except that for around three weeks she had had a sentimental attachment with SILENZI Giacomo, one of the four boys who lived in the apartment on the ground floor of the building at Via della Pergola 7, the others being Marzan Marco, Bonassi Stefano and Luciani Riccardo.

These boys, when interviewed, said they had all left Perugia between Saturday and Monday to return to their respective places of residence. Marzan Marco, Bonassi Stefano and Silenzi Giacomo at Porto San Giorgio and Luciani Riccardo to Bologna. Romanelli Filomena, when first interviewed, on November 2 2007, said she was living in the apartment on the second floor of the building in via Pergola 7 with Laura Mezzetti, Knox Amanda and Meredith Kercher.

Romanelli had above all ties with Laura Mezzetti also because of shared interests, while the two foreign girls were close and had similar daily habits in that both were students who usually went together to the university and had the same circle of friends.

She pointed out in successive interviews, on November 7 2007, that Meredith had never let any man into her bedroom except for Silenzi Giacomo, her boyfriend.

The attention of the investigators centred, however, on Knox Amanda and her boyfriend, Sollecito Raffaele.

In the first place, when it comes to these two, it has been shown that despite their affirmations to the Postal Police, it is not true that they had called 112 for the intervention of the Carabinieri military police, thinking that they had suffered a blow.

In fact, from our investigation it emerged that the Postal Police arrived at 12.35 while the call to 112 came at 12.51 and 12.54, circumstances that suggest a conduct that they wished it to be thought they had been surprised outside the building where the homicide was carried out.

They wanted to justify their presence outside, considering the conditions in which they found the apartment, above all because of the state of the blood stains on the floor and the wall.”

Knox Amanda was heard for the first time on 2 November 2007 and on that occasion said she had seen Meredith at 1pm at the apartment that the aforementioned occupied, where she found her together with her boyfriend Sollecito Raffaele, and that she saw her leave at around 1500 to 1600 but did not know where she was going, and that she stayed with Sollecito until 1700, and that they went to his apartment, where they spent the whole night.

And that she returned to the apartment in Via della Pergola 7 at 1100 on the successive morning and had found the door open, that she tried to call the housemates but had no response, and that she was in one of the two bathrooms when she found traces of blood which she did not worry about cleaning, and to have noticed that in the other bathroom the water was full of faeces, and that she was astonished by did not try to clean it, and that she left the apartment at 11.30, closing the front door and locking it, and that she went back to Sollecito’s apartment […]

And that she had tried to contact Meredith but without any result, and that she went back to the apartment in Via della Pergola in the company of Sollecito and that she noticed that the glass of a window was broken, and that she discovered the door of the room occupied by Meredith was locked and that she decided to call the Carabinieri after Sollecito called his sister to ask what they should do.

On the same date, Sollecito Raffaele was interview, who completely confirmed Knox’s statement with the only difference being that he found the water in the toilet clean, instead of what the girl had said.

However, when the Carabinieri arrived the water was found to be still dirty with faeces.

On November 5 2007, at 22.40, Sollecito Raffaele was interviewed again, and he changed his version of events, saying that on the evening of November 1, after Meredith left the house, he was with Knox Amanda until 1800 when they had both left the apartment to go into the centre, around 2030 to 2100.

Knox left him, saying to him that she would go to the pub Le Chic to meet friends while he returned to his house, where he received a phone call from his father on his fixed line at 2300, and that he was using his computer for two hours while smoking a joint, and that the girl returned around 1am and that they both work up at 1000 when Amanda left the house to return to Via della Pergola.

He retracted his previous statement and justified his conduct by say that it was Knox who convinced him to give a false version of events.

From her testimony Knox Amanda, on 6 November 2007, first at 01.45 and then at 05.45 told the investigating magistrate that on Thursday 1 November, at 20.30, while she found herself at the home of Sollecito Raffaele, received a message from her own mobile phone sent from Patrick, the owner of the Le Chic pub, where she was working, in which the aforementioned told her that on that night the pub would be closed and therefore she should not come to work, the aforementioned responded See You Later.

Then left the house telling Sollecito that she was going to work, while, on the contrary, she was at the basketball court of Piazza Grimana.

There she met Patrick with whom she went to the apartment at Via Pergola where she does not remember if Meredith was already there or whether she joined them slightly later, adding, however, that despite her confused recollection because she had smoked hashish, Patrick went off with Meredith, about which she was vague, into the bedroom where they had sex and that she does not remember if Meredith was threatened first but said it was Patrick that killed her, saying that in that moment she did not know how to put into words that she heard Meredith scream out loudly and that, disturbed, she put her fingers in her ears, imagining what could have happened.

She also said that she was not sure whether Sollecito Raffaele was present but the following morning she found herself in his house in his bed.

She later confirmed the statements she gave about her activity from 1000 in the morning, the moment when she woke up, until the arrival of the Postal Police.

It was in this moment that Knox Amanda and Sollecito Raffaele lost the appearance that they were persons informed about the facts and became suspects themselves.

And it should be noted that on November 6 a pair of Nike size 42 ½ gymnastic shoes and a black flick knife 8.5cm long and 2cm wide were seized from the ownership of Sollecito Raffaele.

The results of a first check on the place of the murder found the trace of a footprint, verification of which shows a clear compatibility with the imprint of the shoes of Sollecito.

In fact, the checks by the forensic police, under the duvet that covered the body of Meredith show three footprints of which one, the only one which it was possible to analyze because of the others where indefinite, shows itself to be compatible in shape and dimensions with the sole of the shoe taken from Sollecito Raffaele.

Clearly it is possible to contest that Sollecito Raffaele, in the audience with judge, affirmed that he passed the entire night between November 1 and 2 with Knox Amanda.[…]

The presence of Sollecito in Meredith’s room can be confirmed by the footprint found underneath the duvet which her body was covered with. […]

This objective fact cannot but represent a grave indication of guilt on the part of Sollecito Raffaele which is deepened further if combined with the removal from his person of a flick knife with an 8.5cm blade, defined by the pathologist as compatible with the possible murder weapon.

The suspect affirmed in the audience with the judge to convalidate the arrest that he had carried a knife with him by habit since he was 13-years-old, and in fact the knife had become an accessory to his clothing to the point that he would carry one as soon as he put his clothes on.

As far as the presence of Knox Amanda is concerned in the place of the murder, there are the statements from Sollecito who has lately confirmed that he was always together with her and in the objective circumstances that only the aforementioned had access to the keys of the apartment in via della Pergola and had therefore the ability to open the front door without leaving any signs of breakage. […]

Referring to the position of Diya Lumumba, the statements on 6 November of Knox Amanda are of extreme relevance, considering that his presence in the inside of Meredith’s bedroom at the moment of the murder while Meredith screamed.

Such statements find confirmation, even if indirectly, with the facts concerning the official opening hours of the pub Le Chic.

In fact, while Lumumba was in the court hearing he confirmed that he had opened the pub in the afternoon of November 1 at around 1700 to 1800. The first receipts are shown to start from 22.29 and the suspect was not able to give any logical explanation for these circumstances, and was not able to furnish precise indications of the eventual clients who could attest to his presence in the pub before 22.29, and was not able to provide precise and therefore useful indications for the meeting with a person known only as Usi who would have come into the bar at 2000, or was able to give a telephone number or other identifying elements, despite calling him a friend.

It must be further added that in the moment when this judge put the contestation to the suspect, he remained in silence for a few minutes seeking to justify the “gap” by saying the receipts started not from the moment of order but when the client left the pub.

However, this justification does not hold up in as far as it does not explain how from 1800 to 2229 there were no receipts and these only started from 22.29 to closing time. More discrepancies about the closing time of the pub before its stated closing time came in the statements of one of its habitual clients, Vulcano Gerardo Pasquale, who was heard for the first time on November 7 2007, who said on the evening of the 1 November, towards 1900 that the pub was closed.

THE DAILY TELEGRAPH

Malcolm Moore in Perugia and Richard Alleyne wrote:
Exchange student Meredith Kercher may have been killed when she refused to take part in an “extreme” sexual game instigated by her room-mate, an official report has suggested.

How the sex game went wrong: Judge’s report
The 19-page court document detailed the horrific last moments of the 21-year-old’s life and revealed the hypothesis her throat was slit after she was subjected to a prolonged sex assault.

A possible reconstruction suggested that high on drugs, Miss Kercher’s American flatmate Amanda Knox and her Italian boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito had wanted to try an “extreme experience” along with Congolese immigrant Patrick Diya Lumumba.

But when Miss Kercher refused to take part in having sex, Sollecito pulled out the 8.5cm flick knife he carried with him. They allegedly put a knife to her throat and forced her into having sex against her will, according to the report.

Then one of them slit her throat but the cut failed to hit the main artery and Miss Kercher died a slow agonising death.

The revelations from the report by Judge Claudia Matteini emerged as she remanded the three suspects in jail saying there were “serious indications of guilt.”

Knox, 20, from Seattle, Sollecito, 23, and Lumumba, 37, from the Congo, will be kept in prison until a trial date can be set, at which point they will be formally charged with murder and sexual assault of Miss Kercher, who was found semi-naked in her bed with her throat cut last Friday.

Judge Matteini wrote: “It is possible to reconstruct what happened on the evening of November 1.

“Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox spent the entire afternoon smoking hashish,” she said, before Lumumba texted her mobile phone in order to arrange a meeting.

The judge said Knox had previously agreed to help Lumumba “have an encounter with Meredith”.

The three suspects returned to the house that Knox shared with Miss Kercher just after 9pm, at around the hour that Miss Kercher, of Coulsdon, Surrey, was returning, having eaten a pizza at the house of her best friend, Sophie Purton, the report said.

At the house, Sollecito “bored of the same old evening, and wanting to try an ‘extreme experience’” allegedly took part with Lumumba and Knox in a sexual assault.

“[Meredith] went into her room with Patrick, after which something went badly, in the sense that, in all probability, Sollecito came in and the two started to try a swap, to which the girl refused,” the report said.

“She was then menaced with a knife, a knife which Sollecito usually had with him, and with which Meredith was struck in the throat,” wrote the judge.

“There was the initial desire of the three youths to try some new sensation. Above all for the boyfriend and girlfriend, while Lumumba had the desire to join carnally with a girl that he fancied and who refused him,” she added.

She said the killer had probably put a knife to Miss Kercher’s throat, perhaps as a threat, but that this had turned “into something much more serious”.

The blade had “penetrated deeply” but had not severed the Carotid artery, resulting in a “slow death”.

The three suspects then tried to simulate a theft, wrecking the inside of the house and spraying the floor and sink in the bathroom with blood, according to the judge.

Police have accused Knox of helping to hold Miss Kercher down during the sexual assault claiming that her finger prints had been found on the British student’s face.

All three have protested their innocence, although Knox has confessed that she was in the house at the time that Miss Kercher was killed.

But the judge said their testimonies were full of contradictions and lacked “logical explanations” for the discrepancies between their diverse accounts.

Lumumba said he had been in his bar, Le Chic, but the judge said that a regular passed it at 7pm to find it closed.

Sollecito’s alibi was countered by the fact that a footprint in blood matching his shoe was found underneath the duvet covering Miss Kercher’s corpse.

In addition, his three-inch flick knife, which he said he carried with him everywhere “as a habit since he was 13-years-old” has been taken in by police for forensic analysis.

Meanwhile, Giuliano Mignini, the chief public prosecutor, confirmed that there may be a fourth person connected to the crime, after finding an unknown fingerprint in blood on a cushion.

Police also claimed that a man had reported receiving a text message by mistake which read “For me, tomorrow or tonight Meredith dies” which was sent two days before Miss Kercher was killed.

THE DAILY TELEGRAPH

The Daily Telegraph wrote:
The following are extracts from the official judge’s report on the murder of Meredith Kercher, obtained by the Telegraph

They “tried to force the will of the girl”
“As far as the juridical aspect of the case, there are no doubts at this moment in presuming this to be correct: that there was an initial wish of the three youths to try a new sensation, above all for the boyfriend and girlfriend, while for Diya the desire to have carnal relations with a girl he liked and who was refusing him, and in the face of a denial from the victim, they did not have the presence of mind to desist, but tried to forced the will of the girl using a knife that Sollecito always carried with him.

They succeeded in having some approaches but given the reaction of Meredith they were very hurried and not completed and to this violence it is possible to add homicide since the knife, having wounded the victim’s neck on two occasions, penetrated it deeply the third time, leaving the fatal wound”.

“Bored of the same old evening”
“It is possible to reconstruct what happened on the evening of November 1. Sollecito Raffaele and Knox Amanda spent the entire afternoon smoking hashish.

On the evening around 8.30pm, while Knox found herself at the house of Sollecito, she received the message from Diya Lumumba who, rather than simply warning her to not come to work, instead confirmed the appointment that evening, having obviously agreed beforehand that the girl would provide him with help in having an encounter with her friend Meredith;

Sollecito Raffaele, bored of the same old evening and wanting to try “extreme experiences” as can be found on his blog with the date 13 October 2007 and as he confirmed in the audience chamber (experiences that can include also an intense sexual relation which breaks up the monotony of everyday life) went out with Amanda.

The two met Diya Lumumba in piazza Grimana around 9pm and went together to the apartment on via della Pergola 7, of which only Amanda had the key.

It was more or less at this time that either Sollecito or Knox turned off their mobile phones, which became active again the following morning.

A little after, Meredith returned or she might have been already there. She went into her room with Patrick, after which something went badly, in the sense that in all probability Sollecito came in and the two started to try a swap, to which the girl refused.

She was then menaced with a knife, a knife which Sollecito usually had with him, and with which Meredith was struck in the throat

“With the door opened there was a chilling scene”
In the meantime, at 1pm, arrived Romanellli, the housemate of Knox who verified that nothing had been taken from the apartment.

The agents, in order to avoid any pollution of the crime scene, stopped everyone from entering the room.

As for the cause of death, the verdict reached is that was caused by a haemorrhage from a neck wound after the blow of a sharp and pointed weapon.

“Meredith had never let any man into her bedroom except for Silenzi Giacomo, her boyfriend.”
In the course of the investigation many youths were questioned which Meredith had the opportunity of knowing and spending time with in her time in Perugia and nothing in particular emerged about her private life except that for around three weeks she had had a sentimental attachment with SILENZI Giacomo, one of the four boys who lived in the apartment on the ground floor of the building at Via della Pergola 7, the others being Marzan Marco, Bonassi Stefano and Luciani Riccardo.

She pointed out in successive interviews, on November 7 2007, that Meredith had never let any man into her bedroom except for Silenzi Giacomo, her boyfriend.

The attention of the investigators centred, however, on Knox Amanda and her boyfriend, Sollecito Raffaele.

They wanted to justify their presence outside, considering the conditions in which they found the apartment, above all because of the state of the blood stains on the floor and the wall.”

“She found traces of blood which she did not worry about cleaning”
Knox Amanda was heard for the first time on 2 November 2007 and on that occasion said she had seen Meredith at 1pm at the apartment that the aforementioned occupied, where she found her together with her boyfriend Sollecito Raffaele, and that she saw her leave at around 1500 to 1600 but did not know where she was going, and that she stayed with Sollecito until 1700, and that they went to his apartment, where they spent the whole night.

However, when the Carabinieri arrived the water was found to be still dirty with faeces.

He retracted his previous statement and justified his conduct by say that it was Knox who convinced him to give a false version of events.

“Disturbed, she put her fingers in her ears, imagining what could have happened”
From her testimony Knox Amanda, on 6 November 2007, first at 01.45 and then at 05.45 told the investigating magistrate that on Thursday 1 November, at 20.30, while she found herself at the home of Sollecito Raffaele, received a message from her own mobile phone sent from Patrick, the owner of the Le Chic pub, where she was working, in which the aforementioned told her that on that night the pub would be closed and therefore she should not come to work, the aforementioned responded See You Later.

Then left the house telling Sollecito that she was going to work, while, on the contrary, she was at the basketball court of Piazza Grimana.

She also said that she was not sure whether Sollecito Raffaele was present but the following morning she found herself in his house in his bed.

She later confirmed the statements she gave about her activity from 1000 in the morning, the moment when she woke up, until the arrival of the Postal Police.

“This objective fact cannot but represent a grave indication of guilt on the part of Sollecito Raffaele”
It was in this moment that Knox Amanda and Sollecito Raffaele lost the appearance that they were persons informed about the facts and became suspects themselves.

And it should be noted that on November 6 a pair of Nike size 42 ½ gymnastic shoes and a black flick knife 8.5cm long and 2cm wide were seized from the ownership of Sollecito Raffaele.

The results of a first check on the place of the murder found the trace of a footprint, verification of which shows a clear compatibility with the imprint of the shoes of Sollecito.

Clearly it is possible to contest that Sollecito Raffaele, in the audience with judge, affirmed that he passed the entire night between November 1 and 2 with Knox Amanda.[…]

The presence of Sollecito in Meredith’s room can be confirmed by the footprint found underneath the duvet which her body was covered with. […]

“The suspect was not able to give any logical explanation for these circumstances”
Referring to the position of Diya Lumumba, the statements on 6 November of Knox Amanda are of extreme relevance, considering that his presence in the inside of Meredith’s bedroom at the moment of the murder while Meredith screamed.

Such statements find confirmation, even if indirectly, with the facts concerning the official opening hours of the pub Le Chic.

THE DAILY TELEGRAPH

The Times wrote:
Meredith Kercher: Judge’s report

Extracts from report by Judge Claudia Matteini, of the Civil and Penal Tribunal of Perugia, on the Meredith Kercher case

“It is possible to reconstruct what happened on the evening of November 1. Sollecito, Raffaele, and Knox, Amanda, spent the entire afternoon smoking hashish. In the evening, around 8.30pm, while Knox found herself at the house of Sollecito, she received a message from Diya Lumumba who … confirmed the appointment that evening, having obviously agreed beforehand that the girl would provide him with help in having an encounter with her friend Meredith.

“Raffaele Sollecito, bored with the same old evenings, and wanting to experience extreme sensations, intense sexual relations which break up the monotony of everyday life, went out with Amanda and met Lumumba at Piazza Grimana at 9pm. They went together to the apartment on via della Pergola 7, to which only Amanda had the key. It was roughly at this time that both Sollecito and Knox switched off their mobile phones until the following morning.

“A short while later, Meredith returned, or she could have already been there. She went into her bedroom with Patrick, after which something went wrong, in the sense that Sollecito in all probability joined them and the two began to make advances, which the girl refused. She was then threatened with a knife, the knife which Sollecito generally carried with him and which was used to strike Meredith in the neck.

“The three, realising what had happened, quickly left the house, creating a mess with the intention of simulating a break-in, spreading blood everywhere, and in an attempt to clean up drops of blood in the bath, on the ground and in the sink.

“On November 2, 2007, at 12.35pm, persons from the Postal Police of Perugia went to Via della Pergola 7 in order to trace Filomena Romanelli, since the same morning Mrs Lana Elisabetta had found in the garden attached to her house, in Perugia, Via Sperandi 5b, two mobile phones, one of which one had a Vodaphone Sim card belonging to the same Romanelli.

“On reaching the destination, the agents found two youths outside the house identified as Knox, Amanda Marie, who lived at that address, and Sollecito, Raffaele. They said they were waiting for the Carabinieri military police, whom they had called that morning when they had become aware of a window with glass broken and suspected a theft.

“Meanwhile, Romanelli, the housemate of Knox, arrived and verified that nothing had been taken from the apartment. In the course of the search it was ascertained that the door of the room which was used by Meredith Kercher, the other girl living in the apartment, was closed and locked, and it was decided to break down the door, because Romanelli said it was strange that her friend Kercher could have both her telephones switched off, having lately used also the phone with Romanelli’s Sim card, and that the door was closed.

“When the door was opened there was a chilling scene, in that the room was found in disorder with blood stains everywhere, on the ground and on the walls. A foot could be seen under the duvet of the bed. The agents, in order to avoid polluting the scene of the crime, stopped everyone from entering the room.

“The girl, found dead with a blow to her neck with a sharp weapon, was identified as Meredith Kercher, an English student in Italy from September and enrolled on the Erasmus scheme and at the University of Perugia.

“From the first medical examination of the corpse by the pathologist, Dr Luca Lalli, it has been established that death occurred at 11pm at the earliest and at the latest one hour after, with a time frame between 10pm and midnight on November 1, 2007.

“The fact that Meredith was a victim of violence is evident from the state in which her body was found. In Dr Lalli’s report there is evidence of bruising on the lips, gums and chin.

“There are the bruises and the lesions on the neck, which suggest that Meredith was held by the neck, leaving bruising compatible with the pressure of fingers, and subsequently threatened with a knife held to her throat. Meredith was held down, and bruises indicate a sexual act carried out or attempted in a hurry or against the girl’s wishes.”

THE TIMES

Below is the complete copy of Judge Claudia Matteini’s official 19 page report, in the original Italian:

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Top Profile E-mail

Offline Michael

Site Admin

User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 15234

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 3:43 pm Post subject: FROM JUDGE CLAUDIA MATTEINI’S REPORT
FROM JUDGE CLAUDIA MATTEINI’S REPORT

Trans & Posting: ‘Catnip’

Likewise, in granting an application by the prosecution opposing bail, the GIP also made a reference to the romance of Italy; although (lawyers being lawyers), the love of long, sinuous phrases that spiral on forever without end may, for common folk, make that reference a trifle hard to find.

Civil and Criminal Tribunal of Perugia
Office of the Justice for Preliminary Investigations

Justice Dr Claudia Matteini

having examined the procedural documentation indicated in the epigraph, in the matter of:
– DIYA, Lumumba, called Patrick, born in Kindu (Zaire) on 5 May 1963, resident of Perugia
– KNOX, Amanda Marie, born in Washington (USA) on 9 July 1987, domiciled in Perugia
– SOLLECITO, Raffaele, born in Bari on 26 March 1984, resident of Giovinazzo, domiciled in Perugia

[all] investigated under writs for the crimes to which articles CPV 110-81, CP 609A, 575, 576(5) apply, [namely] for having in concert between themselves and with multiple executive actions arising from a shared criminal enterprise, with violence and menaces, constrained the British citizen Kercher, Meredith Susanna Cara, in generalised terms, to suffer sexual acts and for having killed her, by use of an instrument, sharp-pointed and bladed, upon the region of the neck, during the course of committing the felony of sexual violence,

– facts committed in Perugia during the course of the night of the 1st and 2nd November 2007,

having examined the petition submitted by the Prosecutor-in-Chief, Dr Giuliano Mignini, seeking affirmation of the arrests carried out in relation to the aforesaid by the Questura of Perugia, Mobile Squad Division, on 6 November 2007 in execution of the arrest warrant issued on 6 November 2007 by the same Prosecutor, Dr Giuliano Mignini,

[page 2] found that the arrest warrant was executed for the crimes it pertains to

that in fact there were specific elements conducive to holding that there was a potential flight risk

that the elements subsumed under article 384 of the CPP need not be such as to furnish direct evidence of planned flight, this last being in any case a future and uncertain occurrence (Cass. crim app I, 26 April 1994 n 1396),

that such danger in the instant case was real, effectible and non-imaginary, not being necessary on the other hand that it be a case of particularly intense danger, rather sustaining a level of probability confirming of flight (Cass. crim app I, 29 April 1991, Matina)

that the instant case involves an American ragazza (“young woman”) and a ragazzo (“young man”) from Zaire, the [both of] which would have had the means to distance themselves from the territory of the State for the purpose of removing themselves from the investigations,

that, as regards the Italian ragazzo, the same together with the aid of Knox, by means of a romantic bond, would have had the means to depart from Italy rendering
the ascertainment of facts more difficult,

that there are grave indices of culpability, hereinafter specified,

that the terms of the law were respected,

FOR THESE REASONS

Affirms the arrest executed in the matter of DIYA, Lumumba, called Patrick, KNOX, Amanda Marie, and SOLLECITO, Raffaele, as above summarised, by the Questura of Perugia, Mobile Squad Division, on 6 November 2007.

Having examined the petition submitted by the Public Prosecutor for an application for precautionary custody in prison regarding DIYA Lumumba, called Patrick, KNOX Amanda Marie and SOLLECITO Raffaele, it is necessary in the first place to note that the essential requirements for the purposes of an application for a precautionary order are grave indices of culpability and precautionary exigencies, and it is exactly the [page 3] extremities of these two requirements that must be bolstered by the evidence-in-chief of the investigations for the purpose of legitimatizing its adoption.

Regarding grave indices of culpability, it is opportune to draw attention to the provisions to which article 273(1) of the CPP applies, which expressly provides that “no one shall be placed under a precautionary order if on their behalf there exist no sustainable grave indices of culpability”, inclusive in the latter are indices that, taken together, are such as to allow the drawing of a conclusion that, without reaching the level of certainty as required by a verdict, there be yet a high probability of sustaining the crime and of its attribution to the suspect, and such, in terms of quantum of gravity, as to withstand alternative interpretations (Cass. crim app III, 3-Dec-2003 n 306; Cass. crim 6-Nov-2002 n 37159).

Such a general principle is of the utmost importance in drawing a demarcation line between,

on the one side,

those indices that in any case allow the prosecution of investigations for the purposes of ascertaining and discovering confirmation of an investigatory hypothesis (which can be described as connoting the characteristic of sufficiency), and grave indices allowing an intervention, in such weighty a matter as the removal or limitation of personal liberty, imposed upon a particular subject [under the law], which are distinguishable from the former, both qualitatively and quantitatively, in postulating an objective precision in each individual index element, so as to build upon them towards a conclusion of high probability in the existence of a crime and of its attribution to that particular subject,

[and] on the other [side],

between said indices and those uncovering indicatory evidence that, instead of allowing the reaching of a conclusion with certainty, in addition to a requirement of gravity, must also satisfy the requirements of precision and concordance.

From which it can be seen that having a picture of grave indices, necessary and sufficient to apply a precautionary custodial measure against a particular subject, requires one or more elements that however are pivotal for basing a conclusion of qualified probability on the suspect’s responsibility (Cass. crim app IV, 4 July 2003 n 36610; Cass. crim app IV, 21 June 2005, n 30328).

[page 4] It must be specified, further, that, to verify that such a conclusion is effectively based on a picture of grave indices, it is necessary to ascertain whether said conclusion is capable of standing up to, according to the yardstick of common experience, any alternative explanations (Cass. crim app III, 3-Dec-2006, n 306).

Note that these general principles necessitate verifying the sustainability of the actual case by referring to the elements acquired up until this moment on the basis of investigations undertaken, and doing so requires stepping through all the developments [in the case] from the first event.

On the 2nd November 2007, at 12.35, personnel of the Polizia Postale of Perugia presented themselves in via della Pergola, number 7, for the purposes of contacting one Romanelli, Filomena, as regards that same morning Signora Lana, Elisabetta, having found on the grass of her garden facing her house situated in via Sperandio, number 5A, two cell phones of which one had the SIM card of the carrier, Vodaphone, relating to the number 348xxxxxxx, subscribed to by the said Romanelli; [upon] arrival at the place, the two field agents found, outside the edifice of via della Pergola number 7, two giovani (“young persons”, US: “kids”), identified as Knox, Amanda Marie, domiciled at that address, and Sollecito, Raffaele, the which [persons] made reference to being in expectation of the Carabinieri’s arrival, called by them themselves, whereby upon returning home that morning, they had become aware of a window with a broken pane and had suspicion of a burglary; in the meantime, they were joined at 13.00 by the aforementioned Romanelli, co-housemate of the said Knox, who verified that nothing had been transported out of the apartment.

During the course of an inspection, it was ascertained that the door to the room used by Meredith Kercher, another ragazza living in the apartment in question, had been locked with a key and it was decided in the end to break down the door, insofar as the said Romanelli considered it strange, both that it had been possible to remove both phones from her friend Kercher (the latter also having usage of the SIM card of the aforementioned subscriber), and also the fact that the door to her room was chiusa [here, “locked”]; the door, once opened, revealed an astonishing scene, insofar as the room was found in total disarray, …
etc etc

And so on.
The rest we know. This is a quarter of the way through. I’ll do the rest in another post.

The legal wording spirals along in long, slow, ever-constricting sentences, like a silken python.

Technical note:
In legal parlance, “residence” means your home or abode, and “domicile” means where you happen to be living at that moment (not necessarily your home); or, more technically, “domicile” is where you spent the night sleeping (for normal people) or dancing (for university students, as in clubs with names like Domus Delirii, “the House of Deliriums”). Though, when it comes to claiming you were domiciled at your boyfriend’s, sleeping there the whole night through, and yet there are physical signs at your rented apartment that you must have been up and awake there instead the whole time, and you are constrained to have to reluctantly admit that you smoked “a joint or two” and thereby forgot “heaps”, a different kind of delirium starts to creep into the picture, one that cannot be lovingly cleared by the dawn of a new day and the smile of a friend.

Psychological note for the budding scriptwriter (and/or novelist):
There is an inkling here in the legal reasoning to take notice of, an almost Shakespearean one, regarding the unfathomable subconscious in a behind-the-scenes wordplay, between one stregua (= “yardstick”, “measure”), as in “the stregua of common experience”, and one strega (=”witch”, “shrew”, “hag”, “old crone”, “bewitching sorceress”, etc), as in “the strega of an uncommon Halloween murder case”.

New York criminologist Pat Brown’s cold-case re-analysis of Cleopatra’s last moments (shown here on TV last night), concluded that it was unlikely Cleopatra’s death was suicide (as traditionally taught) but more likely to have been wilful murder. There’s a good précis of the 2004 documentary [ here ] and [ here ].

Pat Brown mentioned, amongst other things, that a murderer does not change their behaviour, that is, people do what seems to be logical to them at the time in the circumstances.

I’m beginning to think that psychology could be playing a deeper and more significant role in this case than I first thought. There is a common linking thread throughout, to paraphrase Fine, of people not being as adept as they think they are. Ironically, a bit like the Italian archery team at the Olympics missing out on the gold by the hair’s breadth of just one arrow, only not so emotionally extreme.

More to follow.

http://perugiamurderfile.net/viewtopic. … 872#p19872

Oh, and this part of GIP Matteini’s reasoning mentions that Meredith was enrolled at the Università degli studi di Perugia

[bottom of page 4] … the door, once opened, revealed an astonishing scene, insofar as the room was found in total disarray, with blood stains everywhere, on the floor and on the walls, and furthermore from underneath the eiderdown of the bed, a foot was visible.

[page 5] The officers, for the purpose of preventing any contamination of the evidence, barred anyone from accessing the room.

The ragazza, found dead with a neck wound from a bladed weapon, came to be identified as Meredith Kerker [i.e., Kercher], an English student in Italy since September as part of project ERASMUS and enrolled at the Università degli studi di Perugia [“the University of Perugia”].

From the initial examinations made of the body by the Public Prosecutor’s expert, Dr Luca Lalli, it was revealed that death may have been at 23.00 plus or minus 1 hour, with the consequence that the time period to take into consideration ranges from 22.00 to 24.00 on the 1st November 2007; such a conclusion being reached on the assumption of an evening meal consumed at 21.00, in reality, from the court documents, said timing can be more confidently established as, according to references made by Purton, Sophie, on the 2nd November 2007, by 21.00 the meal was already finished such that the same [=Sophie], in company with Meredith, was already on the road on the way back to their respective abodes.

Such a datum is of no small consequence, insofar as it winds back the time of death to well before 22.00, with the result, therefore, of a time period comprising from 21.00 to 23.00.

As regards the cause of death, the aforesaid [i.e., Lalli] specified that it was caused by meta-haemorrhagic shock [=blood loss] from a vascular wound on the neck caused by a sharp bladed weapon [da punta e taglio].

From reading Dr Lalli’s initial written report deposited at the Prosecution Office on 8th November 2007 and assigned for the purpose of post-mortem examination of the body of Kercher Meredith, it appears that the wound did not cut the carotid [artery], so that death was preceded by a substantively drawn-out agony, this circumstance allowing a revision backwards in time for the criminal acts, with the consequence that these may have taken place between 21.30 and 23.30 on the day of 1 November 2007, with the clock stopping between 20.30 and 22.30 taking into account the consumption of the meal at a time preceding 21.00.

During the course of investigations, many ragazzi were interviewed who, during Meredith’s stay in Perugia, had had the means of knowing her and visiting her, and nothing specific came out regarding the [page 6, incorrectly printed as page 7] condition in which she was found, above all as pertaining to the discovery of bloodstains scattered and spread on the floor and on the wall.

Knox, Amanda, was interviewed a sommarie informazioni [=”briefly” ?] for the first time on the date of 2 November 2007, and on this occasion declaring having seen Meredith around 13.00 in the apartment occupied by the same, where she found herself in company with her boyfriend Sollecito, Raffaele, of having seen her leave between 15.00 and 16.00 but not knowing where she was headed, of herself remaining until 17.00 with Sollecito, of therefore having gone with the latter to his apartment, of having spent the entire night [there], of having returned to the via della Pergola apartment around 11.00 on the following morning, of having found the front door open, of having called the roommates but without receiving any reply, of having gone into one of the two bathrooms and having found traces of blood which however she was not concerned to clean up, of having noticed that the toilet in the other bathroom was unflushed with faeces, of having wondered at it but of not taking steps to flush it, of having left the apartment around 11.30 locking the front door, of having returned to Sollecito’s apartment telling him about what she had noticed, of having tried to contact Meredith but without any result, of having gone once again to the via della Pergola apartment in company with Sollecito, of being surprised that the glass of a window had been broken, of having confirmed that the door of the room used by Meredith was locked, of having decided to call the carabinieri after the same Sollecito had phoned his sister seeking advice on what to do.

On the same date, Sollecito Raffaele was interviewed a sommarie informazioni confirming Knox’ s declarations totally, with the single exception regarding the second bathroom’s toilet, which he affirms having found clean, in contrast to what the ragazza had said.

This circumstance, however, came to be contradicted by verifications [subsequently] carried out, from which it resulted that at the moment that the carabinieri arrived the toilet was still dirty with faeces.

On the date 5 November 2007, at 22.40, Sollecito, Raffaele, was again interviewed, modifying his version of the facts, affirming that on the evening of 1 November, after [page 7] Meredith had left the house, he lingered on with Knox, Amanda, up until 18.00 when the pair of them left the apartment to go into the [town] centre, around 20.30 – 21.00 Knox distancing herself saying she was going to go to the Le Chic pub to meet up with friends while he himself went back to his house, that at 23.00 he had received a phone call from his father on the fixed line, that he occupied himself on the computer for another two hours rolling a joint, that the ragazza had come back probably around 1 [am], that then both of them woke up at 10.00 when Amanda had gone out of the house to go back to via della Pergola, rebutting therefore what he had previously declared and justifying such conduct on the premise that it had been Knox to convince him to refer to untrue circumstances.

On her side, Knox, Amanda, on 6 November 2007, first at 1.45, then at 5.45, declared to the Public Prosecutor that on Thursday 1 November 2007, at 20.30, while she was at the house of Sollecito, Raffaele, she had received a message on her cell phone sent by a Patrick, manager of Le Chic pub, where she herself was working, by which the aforesaid [=Patrick] advised her that that night the local was going to stay shut and that therefore she did not need to go, the same [=Amanda] responding to him that they would meet up later, therefore left the house telling Sollecito that she was going to work while, on the contrary, she took herself to the basketball courts in Piazza Grimana; here she met Patrick, with whom she went back to the via della Pergola apartment, where she could not remember whether Meredith was already there or if the same [=Meredith] had joined them a short while later, adding however that, notwithstanding the confused memories arising from the hashish afternoon, Patrick took Meredith aside, with whom he had taken a fancy to, into her bedroom where they were having sex, that she could not remember whether the latter [=Meredith] had been menaced first but that it had been Patrick to kill her; specifying that in those moments she could not attest to hearing Meredith scream insofar as she was so frightened she blocked her ears, imagining what could have been happening.

She referred, further, to not being sure whether Sollecito, Raffaele, was also present but the morning after she found herself once again asleep in her boyfriend’s house on his bed; she then confirmed the declaration already made [page 8] pertaining to the unfolding of events from 10.00 in the morning, when she woke up, up until the arrival of the Polizia Postale.

It was at this moment that Knox Amanda and Sollecito Raffaele lost their status as “persons informed of the facts” to themselves becoming suspects; it must be noted on this point that …

With the judge then going on to discuss legal matters in depth relating to the usage of statements as evidence, I’ll pause it here.

To be continued.

http://perugiamurderfile.net/viewtopic. … 062#p20062

Now I understand a bit better about Raffaele’s strategy of not saying anything anymore: he’s a sitting duck to start with (e.g., his fashion-accessory flick-knife addiction), irrespective of any concrete or testimonial evidence against him regarding murder or whereabouts. Anything he says will be taken down and used against him. (In a parallel way, Amanda attracts a slander charge each time she opens her mouth.)

And there is also a brief mention of Amanda’s missing top.

Rather than use “suspect”, “person of interest”, or “person helping the police with their enquiries” – all of which have slightly different shades of (negative) meaning –, I’ve coined a new word, “investigatee”, in order to de-emphasise the adversarial overtones that a common-law information-gathering investigative phase usually carries in the general population’s mind when the aforementioned terms are used.

The entire GIP reasoning is, grammatically and rhetorically, one long, giant sentence, ending with (if I can use this traditional formulaic-language paraphrase):
“For these reasons, the court remands the accused into custody in prison for a period of no more than one year as a precautionary measure while investigations are being carried out”.

I’ve added a healthy dose of commas to make the judge’s reasoning easier to read, as well as explanatory glosses where “the same”, “the which”, “the aforementioned”, “the aforesaid”, and so on, are used – otherwise it is too easy to become tangled up in trying to follow the thread of thought. There are also a few typing errors here and there, which I have retained.

We continue at the point where Amanda’s and Raffaele’s versions of events have become so contradictory vis à vie each other, and Amanda has also just “pulled Patrick into the dance” (as the metaphor has it), that the investigators had no choice but to inform the Perugia Prosecutor’s Office. Remember, also, that 9 November 2007 was well before any test results relating to Luminol or DNA had come back from the labs (or had even started, for some pieces of evidence).

It was at this moment that Knox Amanda and Sollecito Raffaele lost their status as “persons informed of the facts” to themselves becoming suspects; it must be noted on this point that it was on the 6 November [that] the seizure occurred of a pair of gymnastic shoes, Nike brand size 42 and a half, and of a black-coloured flick-knife with a blade-length of 8.5cm and width 2cm, the property of Sollecito Raffaele, as seen from the respective transcript in the tendered documents, notwithstanding the result of an initial verification carried out at the crime scene in reference to the shoeprints therein discovered, a verification from which there emerges a clear compatibility between said prints and those relating to the shoes of said Sollecito.

In fact, at the base of the finds made by the Polizia Scientifica, underneath the doona/duvet that was covering Meredith’s body, three shoe prints were found, of which one, as marked in the technical report of 6 November 2007 with the letter “A”, the only one that it was possible to analyse insofar as the others were characterised by an absolute indefiniteness in their characteristics, resulted as compatible in shape and size with the soles of the shoes seized at Sollecito Raffaele’s, insomuch as in those reports one reads, “the shoes seized at Sollecito Raffaele’s could have produced the shoe print (letter A) discovered on the occasion of the [crime scene] inspection”.

It is evident in light of this new situation that the declarations made by Sollecito Raffaele and Knox Amanda cannot be used in the confrontations with the same, in the senses covered by article CPP 63(2), but may be continued to be used in reference insomuch as each of them referred to the other and to third parties, insomuch as it is a matter of declarations otherwise made at a time in which the aforesaid [=Amanda and Raffaele] were solely persons informed of the facts and not persons subject to investigation, for which the altered situation of the declarant cannot void the validity of the documents previously examined, also applying the principle of the preservation of procedural documentation and of the general rule of tempus regit actum (Cass. pen. sen. III, 1 April 2004, n 15476; Cass. pen. sen. VI, 4 June 2003 n 24180).

[page 9] From which it follows that the declarations made in the period by Knox Amanda, as a person informed of the facts, may be used both to confront Sollecito Raffaele and to confront Diya Lumunda [=Lumumba], and in their turn the declarations of Sollecito Raffaele can be used to confront Knox Amanda.

This aspect being clarified, it is [now] possible to take cognizance that Sollecito Raffaele, at the review hearing, affirmed having spent the entire night of the 1st and 2nd November with Knox Amanda having made a return to his house around the time 20.00 – 20.30, of having dined with the ragazza, of having become aware of the arrival of messages on the ragazza’s cell phone, of having known from the same [=Amanda] that that night she was not required to go to work at the Le Chic pub, as had been communicated by means of an SMS sent to her cell phone, and of having therefore gone to sleep together to wake the morning after around 10.00 when Amanda was going out to go back to via della Pergola to take a shower; during the course of the same declarations, he added, on the contrary, that he could not remember whether Knox had left or not but re-asserted, however, not having left the house, having remained in front of the computer, as well as having received a phone call from his father at the time of 23.00, a telephone call that shortly afterwards he specified he could not remember whether he had in actuality received or whether he had referred to having received it, to corroborate the circumstances surrounding his permanence in the house.

Just as it is possible to take cognizance that Sollecito furnished yet another version with respect to that given earlier, as relating to the conduct carried out by Knox on the night of 1st and 2nd November, attributing the cause of such behaviour to the influence exercised on the same [=Raffaele] by the ragazza in the wake of the declarations by her rendered in the immediate [presence] of the Polizia Postale, declarations that, contrariwise, the aforesaid [=Amanda] had never made to the Polizia Postale agents arriving on the spot, due to her difficulty in speaking and understanding Italian, as, on the other side, was likewise specified by the same Sollecito.

Knox Amanda for her part, on the date 6 November, during the course of the preceding declarations, referred to Sollecito having spent the entire night with her, affirming to not remembering whether Sollecito [page 10] was present the night of 1st and 2nd November at the via della Pergola apartment together with Patrick, having consumed hashish in the afternoon and having therefore confused memories owing to not usually making use of such substances, but positively confirming that Sollecito was with her that morning after 10.00 having woken up on his bed.

The presence of Sollecito in Meredith’s room comes from an objective datum, as represented by the shoe print found directly under the bed-cover which covered the body of the same [=Meredith]; such datum arising from both the initial findings per the technical report of the 6 November 2007, and the further findings per the report of the 7 November 2007 by the Polizia Scientifica Service of Rome, in which is attested the full compatibility between the said prints and the shoes of Sollecito.

This objective datum can not but represent a grave indication of culpability on the part of Sollecito Raffaele in light of the facts per the instant case, the more so when, in addition to such datum, there is added the discovery on the person of the same [=Raffaele] one flick-knife, with length 8.5cm, said by the Public Prosecutor’s technical consultant as compatible with the possible murder weapon.

In this much, it must be noted that for the investigatee [=Raffaele], as he himself affirmed at the review hearing, the carrying of a knife upon his person being a habit of his from the age of 13 years, soon the knife had become almost a fashion accessory item in his wardrobe, to the extent of his changing it according to what he was wearing.

Confirming this, it must be noted that during the course of the search at his house, another knife, also a flick-knife, was found.

As regards Knox Amanda, her presence on the murder scene finds confirmation in the affirmations of Sollecito who from the first affirmed to always having been together with her, and in objective circumstances that only the aforesaid [=Amanda] had usage of the keys to the apartment in via della Pergola and had, therefore, the possibility [=means] of opening the front door without there being any sign of breakage left behind.

[page 11] On the other hand, there is nothing leading to a conclusion that Sollecito had ever had the keys in question or that maybe they were entrusted to him by the ragazza; but, moreover, the two giovani never denied the fact of finding themselves together the morning after at Sollecito’s house, a circumstance that bolsters the reconstruction of events that has them together throughout the night.

In reference, lastly, to the position of Diya Lumumba, the declarations of the 6 November 2007 by Knox Amanda are of the utmost relevance, from the moment that they attest to his presence inside Meredith’s bedroom, to the moment of her killing when the same [=Meredith] was screaming.

Such declarations finding confirmation, albeit indirectly, in various objective data relating to the opening of the Le Chic pub; in fact, while Lumumba at the review hearing affirmed to having opened the club in the [late] afternoon of the 1st November more or less around 17.00 – 18.00, the first receipts were issued from 22.29 onwards, nor was the investigatee [=Patrick] able to provide any logical explanation for such circumstance, not being in a position to supply precise indications of any actual clientele who might have been able to attest to his presence at the locale prior to 10.29, not being able to clearly specify precise information thereby useful for the necessary confirmations, he identified only one name, Usi, as a person who might have entered the pub around 20.00, without adding either his contact number nor other identifying elements, notwithstanding his having described him as his friend.

It must be noted, furthermore, that when this court put to the investigatee [=Patrick] said contestation, the same [=Patrick] remained silent for several moments, seeking then to justify such a “void” [in receipts] on the presupposition that the receipts were issued, not upon ordering, but when the clientele left the locale.

Even this justification does not line up insomuch as it does not explain how, from 19.00 to 22.29, there are no receipts and that these started issuing at a constant rate from 22.29 until closure.

The last confirmation of the closure of the locale before said time is found in the declarations of a regular customer, one Vulcano Gerado Pasquale, the which interviewed at sommarie informazioni [page 12] on the date 7 November 2007, referred to the fact that, on the night of the 1st November, he noticed, around 19.00, that the locale was closed, as well having noticed said circumstance much later on his return from the pizzeria.

And as regards the relevance of the text of the message that the investigatee [=Patrick] had sent around 20.30 to Amanda, there are discordances between what was referred to by the ragazza and what was affirmed by the aforesaid [=Patrick]; in fact, while the ragazza spoke of a message by which she was advised that the locale would have remained shut and therefore she would not have needed to go to work, Patrick makes reference to having written to her that for that night there was no need of her attendance owing to so few customers.

This may appear to be a circumstance of little value when in reality it is not, being of itself a substantial difference between the two messages; it is probable that Patrick had had the intention, effectively, of not opening the locale thinking that he might be able to spend the night with Meredith, and then, seeing how events unfolded, considered it opportune to open the pub to create an apposite alibi for himself.

For what reason Amanda would have needed to lie about the why of her not having to go to work, the closure of the locale or the presence of few patrons, there is nothing known, nor are there logical reasons for it, while a motivation much more consistent is to be found as regards the investigatee [=Patrick], the which, with the opening of the locale, created for himself an alibi for the evening.

Such disgrasie [?] raise doubts about the actual text of the message even more when this is placed against the response that Amanda sent Patrick of the tenor “meet you soon”, a reply logically in reference to a closure of the locale in order to have a free night and a succeeding appointment.

Such affirmation finds, then, confirmation in the succeeding unfolding of facts, in which Patrick meets Amanda in Piazza Grimana, and it is the same investigatee [=Patrick] who mentions that it is a place which the same [=Patrick] usually gave to make appointments to meet people; for which relevance the time must coincide to more or less around 21.00 – 21.30, a time perfectly compatible with verified facts, as above indicated, to a range comprised from 21.30 and 23.30 and above all compatible with the return home that night of Meredith, on the basis of what was referred to by [page 13] Purton Sophie on the date 2 November 2007, the which [=Sophie] affirming that, after having eaten pizza at the house of some friends located in Perugia, via Bontempi, at 9.00 [=21.00] the same [=Sophie] and Meredith exited said habitation and Meredith made her way to her house in via della Pergola.

From which it follows that the aforementioned [=Meredith] found herself at home at a time compatible with which to join Amanda in the apartment, such that the latter [=Amanda] could not remember whether Meredith was already in the house or whether she arrived soon after.

The motive for why Patrick wanted to see Meredith on her own is explained by Amanda, who affirms that the aforementioned [=Patrick] was infatuated with her and wanted to make advances to the same [=Meredith], advances that however were not easy, a thing credible insofar as Mer[e]dith came to be described as a ragazza not inclined to have “easy” relationships with the opposite sex, so much so as to not bring her [male (implied) ] friends home, with the exception of her boyfriend, in contrast to what could happen with Amanda, as referred to by { two or three words have been liquid-papered out }

…
Quote:
[ Note:
There follows a brief paragraph about how Patrick changed phone numbers, and then a lengthy, pages-long, detailed reconstruction of events as they were then known (inclusive of what would later be shown to be confabulations on Amanda’s part), the reconstruction boiling down to, in summary, that there was evidence of strong aggression against Meredith by multiple persons, and that evidence placing Patrick, Raffaele and Amanda at the scene was not insubstantial.

The paragraphs describing the basis for concluding the depth and nature of the aggression have been blacked out on the fax (for understandable reasons).

Looking forwards in time, Patrick was later released, cleared of all charges and exonerated; the shoeprint thought to be compatible with Raffaele’s shoes and so linking him to the crime scene was later identified as from Rudy’s shoes; when the DNA results came out later, Raffaele would still remain linked to the crime scene, directly via the bra-strap, and indirectly via the double-DNA knife being in his house (not to mention Luminol footprints and yarn-spinning relating to computers and phone calls and what Amanda did that night).
]

…

[page 17]
A propos of the clothes worn by Amanda, it must be emphasised that Romanelli Filomena specified that the same [=Amanda] on the 1st November was wearing a sweatshirt that she never saw her wearing again and that did not seem to be part of the clothing that has been placed under sequestration.

…
In the case in point, precautionary exigencies are sought, being for the danger of probatory contamination and the danger of criminous reiteration.

[page 18; top left corner of fax is chopped off]
[As regar]ds the first aspect, it must be underlined that investigations are still ongoing and in the face […] it is evident the interest of the investigatees to sidetrack them perhaps by contacting persons who might [give?] them an alibi; in regard of which one recalls the change of cell phones that occurred on the part of Patrick […] dya [representing ”girono”, a typo for “giorno” (=day)] after the murder with the malfeasant intent to hide something resulted from actions of the same [=Patrick[] and the behaviour and manner of the couple immediately following the […]

[…] profile of the danger of criminous reiteration, …

[…] choice of precautionary measures at the moment, there are no doubts of retention in prison custody […as the measure?] most adequate to meet the exigencies above specified.

For These Reasons
APPLIES
in the confrontations of SOLLECITO Raffaele, KNOX Amanda and DIYA Lumumba, as above [ge]neralised, the precautionary measure of custody in prison for the duration of 1 year.

Perugia, 09 November 2007

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Related News

You may have missed