Aida Colantone's Testimony (English)

From The Murder of Meredith Kercher
Jump to: navigation, search


This is an English language translation of the testimony. See Aida Colantone's Testimony for the original Italian transcript.

Contents

Summary of Aida Colantone's Testimony

  • A police interpreter for 22 years Aida Colantone was away from Perugia for the holiday when she found out about the murder of an English girl. Knowing that her services would be needed she rushed back.
  • Colantone testified about the trip to the cottage on November 4th. The three roommates were asked to come to the cottage to identify if any of the knives were missing and there was an incident with Amanda Knox. Amanda Knox started to cry. She was attended to by the two medical examiners that were also at the cottage.
  • Colantone also testified that before leaving for the cottage she had been instructed to put Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito in a room that had been prepared so that the police could listen to what they talked about. Colantone was not allowed to discuss the specific content. Colantone was allowed to say that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were talking in low tones so that they would not be heard and that Amanda Knox was worried.
  • Colantone also discussed that she participated in roughly 25 intercepted jail house conversations between Amanda Knox and her family. Colantone was not allowed to go into details about the content but explained that on days when Amanda Knox was allowed visitation Colantone would go to the prison and sit in a room with headphones on. She would listen and if anything interesting was said she would translate it.
  • Colantone was restricted on what she could state about the contents of the prison intercepts but she was allowed to say that on both November 10th and November 13th Amanda Knox expressed regret for falsely accusing Patrick Lumumba. At that point Patrick Lumumba was still a suspect and in custody. Eventually a foreign professor who was in the Perugia the night of the murder verified Lumumba's was at Le Chic all night.
  • Colantone also participated in the translation of the roughly 600 letters Amanda Knox wrote.
  • The E-mail Amanda Knox wrote to a group of people early in the morning of November 4th was also discussed. The E-mail was obtained after a former employer of Amanda Knox who was a recipient of the e-mail contacted Seattle police. Seattle police contacted the Perugia police and the e-mail was forwarded. Colantone did not translate the e-mail but she typed up the translation as Anna Donnino translated. Colantone testified that it was strange that Amanda Knox would go home on November 4th and write an e-mail at 3:25am. The murder had been discovered November 2nd and most of Meredith's friends were at the police station until dawn of November 3rd. On November 3rd Amanda Knox was at the police station until late as well. Colantone commented that Knox must have been exhausted so that she went home and wrote an e-mail at 3am was weird.
  • The defense focused on Aida Colantone using discretion on what to translate. This is a line of questioning that was advanced against all the interpreters. The defense implication that since the interpreters were using their own judgement on what was relevant to the police that they were not fulfilling their role as interpreters and translators. Colantone explained that the volume of material made translating everything impossible and used the example of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito ordering a pizza at the police station as an example of material that had no relevance to the investigation.
  • The judge asked Aida Colantone if the injury to Amanda Knox's neck was present on November 4th and she confirms that it was. Here is a preliminary extract from the translation of her testimony with regard to the scratch: I realized that this girl was really worn out, exhausted, she was tired because I found her leaning on the chair with her head tilted towards the wall, white-faced with eyes closed, white, and I was greatly affected by the pallor of her face, and I realized that this girl was not feeling well. Precisely at that moment, besides the pallor of the face and neck, I noticed a red mark on her neck that has stayed printed in my mind and to which I did not attach any importance because obviously I was struck by her pallor, by this red mark, I realized that the girl was not feeling well, I approached her and asked: "Amanda how are you? Are you OK?" At that point she recovered and recomposed herself and replied to me: ”Yes, I haven’t slept, I haven’t eaten, this morning my period started and I’m exhausted."


Aida Colantone's Testimony

Key to abbreviations
GM Giuliano Mignini Prosecutor Pubblico Ministero
AC Aida Colantone Witness being questioned Interpreter/translator
GCM Giancarlo Massei Judge Presidente
GB Giulia Bongiorno Sollecito defense lawyer Avvocato
CDV Carlo Dalla Vedova Knox defense lawyer Avvocato
LG Luciano Ghirga Knox defense lawyer Avvocato
CP Carlo Pacelli Lumumba civil lawyer Avvocato
MC Manuela Comodi Prosecutor Pubblico Ministero


N.B.: This translation of witness testimony into English from Italian is subject to revision during subsequent phases of proofreading, and thus should be considered as an intermediate rather than a final version. It is a free translation of the Italian original on which it is based and is being provided at this time for the convenience of interested parties who do not read Italian. Although every effort has been made to ensure its accuracy, in the event of a discrepancy between it and the Italian original, the latter shall be considered as accurate and the English‐language translation as erroneous.


DEPOSITION OF THE WITNESS AIDA COLANTONE

The witness, admonished pursuant to Article 497 of the Criminal Procedure Code, reads the oath.

General information: Colantone Aida Giustina, born February 27, 1956 at Pontecorvo (Frosinone). I have been working as a proofreader /translator/ interpreter at the Perugia police station since 1987. Before that I was working in Siena and then my service at the Ministry of the Interior as an interpreter - translator started 22 years ago. I live in Magione at Piazza Simoncini 19.

GCM:
Please go ahead, Mr Mignini.

Public Prosecutor

GM:
You have undertaken interpreting activities in the investigation into the death of Meredith Kercher?
AC:
Yes.
GM:
Please begin by describing us the moment you were called for the first time, tell us what you did and what you saw.
AC:
Precisely where I was during the Feast of the Dead weekend is that I had gone to my hometown, of course to visit my family, and on Friday I heard on the television that this terrible thing had happened in Perugia, and I figured then that I should probably rush back because of it. However, on the Friday evening I couldn't do so, but on the morning of the 3rd I arrived in Perugia by car, and in the early afternoon I was already at the police station where my colleagues immediately informed me of some interrogations that had taken place, they described the situation briefly to me. I remember that on that Saturday afternoon of the 3rd I immediately translated a press release into English on the orders of the chief of police and then after that, during the evening, I took part in the witness interview (sommarie informazioni) of Sophie Purton, I believe she was a close friend of Meredith Kercher. Then the second time I participated was on Sunday, November 4, at about three in the afternoon when Amanda Knox was interviewed.
GM:
Please describe us Amanda's behavior on that occasion.
AC:
When she was heard in an office, in a room of the Flying Squad, she was interrogated about frequent male visitors to the house in Via Della Pergola. I was sitting next to her, I was here and she was here, I saw her... her behavior was certainly of a person weary, she was tired, however she responded to all questions and I thought that she was absolutely calm.
GM:
On the fourth?
AC:
We are talking about the Sunday when ... Amanda was heard on November 4th at about three o'clock in the afternoon at the police station.
GM:
Were you ever taken to Via Della Pergola?
AC:
Yes, yes.
GM:
On which occasion?
AC:
On that same day. I remember that after the questioning with Amanda was finished we both exited the room, and Amanda was taken into a room near the offices of the Flying Squad. Then after a little while I was asked to go into a particular room because it was suitably prepared for surveillance, into another place at the police station, where they had taken Amanda and Raffaele. So that around four, four thirty, at 16.00 - 16.30 hrs., I was listening in with the headphones on what the two youngsters were saying in this room arranged for them. Then there was an interruption, around 18.00 hrs. [6 pm] the surveillance was interrupted because Amanda had to be taken together with Laura Mezzetti and Filomena Romanelli, they all had to be taken again into the house for the identification of the knives in the presence of the public prosecutor. And so I accompanied - together with a Flying Squad policeman - Amanda in the car when we drove over to via della Pergola. Shall I tell you about the visit?
GM:
Yes.
AC:
So it was evening, of course. I remember that we arrived; there were so many cars and so many journalists. We didn’t go in immediately. On our way inside we were asked to put on overshoes and gloves before entering the house, after which we entered the house and there was the public prosecutor, there were the chiefs of the Flying Squad, there were two forensic physicians, a man and a woman, and Amanda was asked to ...
GM:
Before going any further, I would like to know this: did everyone have overshoes and gloves on or not? Or was there someone who did not have them on?
AC:
Well, I think that if they made us wear them they made the others wear them too.
GM:
Do you remember this?
AC:
I didn't pay any attention to that because of the impact of entering a house where a terrible crime had been committed. However, if they made us wear them I assume that the others also had to put them on.
GCM:
Please talk about only the circumstances that you noticed.
AC:
Amanda was immediately asked to go to the kitchen sink to check that the cutlery drainer contained all the knives, that none were missing. Then she was asked to open a drawer or two drawers near the sink to check that everything was all right, that no knives were missing and she said: "Nothing is missing". Afterwards, however, after this request was made to the girl, one thing that struck me was that the girl was greatly upset on that occasion. I was behind her...
INT:
What do you mean upset?!
GCM:
Excuse me, please, counsel. Please continue.
AC:
She was greatly upset, she began to shake and presumably, to cry also as it’s true that the two forensic physicians...
GCM:
Presumably, so did she cry or not?
AC:
I was behind her, but I did see that ... then I saw that she was crying because at some point the two forensic physicians immediately went over to her for a moment to calm her, to ask her: "Are you alright? How are you feeling", and so on. They made her sit on a nearby couch; I don't know if they also tried her pulse, however, at that point I saw that she was crying, so she was visibly upset. After the forensic physicians and the prosecutor found out that the girl had recovered, her visit at the house was finished, at which point someone in the Flying Squad was protecting her, he put something on her head, a jacket or something because there were so many journalists outside. So the girl was protected and covered over, and she was taken out of the house and back to the police station. After that, I resumed the famous surveillance we talked about earlier.
GM:
I would like to know this: do you recall any other behaviors by Amanda on that occasion?
AC:
A behavior, let us say something in Amanda that struck me on that occasion was immediately after the interrogation, when she was interviewed around three pm in the offices of the Flying Squad. Then we finished and she was made to sit down in a waiting room. At some point, I don't know if I had moved away for a moment to talk with someone from the Flying Squad or whether I was passing by this room or returning to this small room where I remember very well she was alone. She was all by herself in that room, actually I was very ... I realized that this girl was really drained, exhausted, she was tired because I actually found her resting on a chair with her head tilted toward the wall, white in the face, with her eyes closed, white. I was greatly affected by her pallor, and I realized that this girl was not feeling very well at all. Precisely, in addition to the paleness of the face and neck, I noticed a red mark on the neck, which became imprinted in my mind, and to which I didn't attribute any importance because, obviously, I was impressed by the paleness of her skin, by this red mark. I realized that the girl was feeling ill, and I approached her and asked: "Amanda, how are you? Are you all right? ", she recovered at that point, recomposed also her position, her posture and said to me: "Yes. I haven't slept, I haven't eaten, my period started this morning and I am exhausted".
GM:
What day was that? The third?
AC:
It was Sunday, November 4, the interview had just been finished, it was probably around half three or four pm, I don't know. After that I said to her: "Listen, the police station cafeteria is closed at this hour, but would you like to go downstairs, there is a vending machine and you could have something to eat if you want to? Shall we go?
GM:
What time was this?
AC:
Mr Mignini, since the surveillance began at four thirty pm, at 16.30 hrs., it must have been shortly before, so at 16.00 - 16.30 hrs. I asked her: "So do you want to go downstairs to have something?", "yes", so then we took the elevator and went down to the ground floor, to the vending machine. I asked her: "What do you want to have? A coffee? ", "A cappuccino". If I remember correctly, I believe that I said to Amanda then: “Do you want to have a brioche or something else", "No, no, thank you". I had some coffee, stretched my legs a bit, and then we returned to the third floor, to the Flying Squad offices. She sat down again and immediately someone arrived telling me: "Look, you have to go into this room because you have to listen, and so on, and so on," and then the interception activity, which I mentioned earlier, started.
GM:
I would like to know that when Amanda was in the house on via della Pergola, other than cry, tremble, did she make any other gestures that you remember? Did she touch her head?
AC:
No, no, it seemed as if she wanted to huddle up inside herself, in this sense.
GM:
Did you stay there at via della Pergola or ...
AC:
No, immediately after the girl left with something on the head to hide her from the eyes of the press, I myself, I don't remember with whom, I returned to the police station where around 19.00 hrs. [7 pm] I resumed the surveillance with respect to Amanda and Raffaele.
GM:
Is this the one on fourth of November?
AC:
We are still taking about November 4.
GM:
Do you remember if ...Amanda and Raffaele were talking?
AC:
Yes, yes.
GM:
Do you remember the tone of voice they used? Was the tone the same throughout or did they at some point lower the tone of their voices?
AC:
Mr Mignini, I remember this, so we are talking about the second part of the surveillance, not the first, when there was the interruption of going to via della Pergola.
GM:
Yes.
AC:
So, we can say that the contents of the interceptions are a little bit varied.
GM:
Yes, both before and after.
AC:
In the first part, before going to via della Pergola the youngsters talked about this and that, a little bit in Italian, that is, Amanda talked in Italian a little bit, Raffaele talked in English a little bit, but they chatted about this and that. Then Amanda received a phone call I don't know from whom, definitely an English speaker because she was talking in English. After the phone call she told Raffaele who it was, then they asked if they could have a...
GB:
She is recounting the interception!
GCM:
No, she is describing what was happening, not the content of the conversations.
CDV:
She also talked about the content, she said that it was a foreign person and that Amanda reported the contents to Raffaele, this is precisely talking about the content.
GCM:
Excuse me, the content of the interception may not be reported or mentioned. It does not seem to me that you were reporting the content; you talked only about the way in which these conversations took place. About these particular interceptions the prosecutor was particularly inquiring about the tone, if it was a continuously even tone, high or low or lowered, and then you were introducing the elements which may be reported and mentioned, the received telephone call and this.
AC:
Let's say that in this first part of the intercept, which was then interrupted to go to Via Della Pergola, Amanda and Raffaele were chatting with each other, Amanda received a phone call, they ordered a pizza.
GCM:
This may not be reported or mentioned. The tone only.
AC:
In the second part of the intercept, when we had returned from via della Pergola, at some point, evidently Amanda was preoccupied and quiet, and Raffaele asked her: "What is it? How are you?".
GCM:
But is this from the interceptions?
AC:
Yes, yes.
GCM:
You cannot report on the content of those conversations. Only about the tone, if the tone...
AC:
The tone was that at some point the two of them were practically whispering between themselves, and then obviously we understood that they were close to each other, they were whispering together and Raffaele asks Amanda about someone...
GCM:
You cannot report or mention these because perhaps these elements were acquired through the intercepts.
AC:
A certain (Shaky/Sceic) was mentioned several times, but...
CDV:
You may not talk about that, I am sorry but I have to insist, you also mentioned the name!
GCM:
Only about the tone, if there were interruptions, what they were saying before...
AC:
There were interruptions, every so often one of the police officers would enter to take something from the desk.
GCM:
Did she receive a phone call?
AC:
She received a phone call from someone, then briefed Raffaele on the content of the call...
GM:
I asked this question before and it was also made by the defense, without telling about the content, but did the referral to these people take place or not?
AC:
I have told this before, the owner of Le Chic was mentioned and then a certain (Shaky/Sceic) multiple times.
GM:
By whom?
GCM:
But you were only listening; you may refer to this if it has been established...
AC:
I have also myself transcribed this interception.
GCM:
And this is fine if it was brought about to understand further investigative activities. As far as you know...
AC:
Yes, it's in the transcript of the interception.
GCM:
Do you know whether as a result of listening these conversations any investigative activities were immediately carried out and if so, what?
AC:
I know that the police conducted investigations on this (Shaky/ Sceic), who was mentioned several times.
GM:
You also mentioned earlier that they talked about Patrick?
AC:
Come again?
GM:
The proprietor of Le Chic.
AC:
Yes.
GM:
Was this done by Amanda or Raffaele?
LG:
Things are being asked that you can't reply to.
GM:
But on the basis of the investigations...
GCM:
You said that because of this surveillance investigations were done with respect to that name.
AC:
About this (Shaky/Sceic).
GCM:
Were investigations done in relation to, in order to reveal other scenarios that opened up other investigative hypotheses?
AC:
I'm not able to say, it is not up to me to say.
GM:
You said you were listening the conversation. When these two names were mentioned, was the tone of voice the same during the entire conversation or was it raised or lowered at some point?
AC:
No, they lowered their voices, so if I can't report the contents...
GM:
No.
AC:
The tone of their voices was lowered as if the youngsters were, at least Amanda made it clear that there was a man she was worried about.
GCM:
And at this point the tone was lowered?
AC:
Yes. And they were definitely close to each other.
GB:
Your honor, I would like to say one thing, I believe we can, if you think it necessary, if there are presuppositions, that is, a type of evaluation of this sort in my opinion is up to you (pl.), and certainly not up to an expert witness.
GCM:
We can also hear them.
GB:
If there are presuppositions they can be heard, but I would not want to filter this evaluation through a subject, in other words, you (pl.) will evaluate, I believe.
GM:
We can do it.
GCM:
But the kind of behavior that could be perceived from listening.
AC:
Your honor, the conduct or the words? Or at least a summary of the content?
GCM:
Not the content no, not even as a summary. But you were saying that at certain moments, at certain times the tone was lowered.
AC:
Yes, the tone was lowered.
GM:
Was it lowered in relation to...?
AC:
I understood that they were talking about something that was worrying them.
GM:
Have you also translated other records?
AC:
Several. I took care of listening and transcribing of 25 interceptions that took place in prison during November and December 2007, and then in March, April and May 2008. Then I translated the various statements [memoriales] Amanda wrote. I translated as many as 600 letters that were acquired from the prison. The letters that Amanda wrote from prison were acquired, photocopied and brought to the attention of the Flying Squad, so I read and translated also those. Then an e-mail that Amanda wrote during the night between November 3rd and 4th, at 3.25 am during the night, this is one thing that struck me because on the 2nd had happened what had happened, in all its tragedy, all the youngsters were at the police station the whole day of November 2nd. November 3rd was again spent at the police station, and then on the night between Saturday the 3rd and Sunday, November the 4th at 3.25 in the morning Amanda sent a five-page long e-mail to friends, relatives and acquaintances in America telling with extreme rigor and precision everything that had happened virtually from the first day of November to the 2nd, 3th, what had happened when ... practically everything that you (pl.) knew because it is clear from the documents, but in a manner that was extremely lucid and rigorous. And how did we become aware of this email? Because among the various recipients Amanda had also sent it to an employer, her former employer in Seattle, the owner of a bar. On November 15, this gentleman, after he had been delivered the email during the night of November 4th, at some point he thought, he deemed it appropriate to bring this e-mail that he had received, knowing already what had happened in Perugia, he took this e-mail to Seattle police, which police department through an Italian- American policewoman, who spoke Italian, who had then phoned the Perugia police station and reported this thing, and the Flying Squad then asked them to send this text to Perugia police, so the Flying Squad came in possession of this e-mail and its contents and everything. What is little strange is that Amanda must have been exhausted after two days of...
LG:
You continue to comment about what you have translated, please just stop it!
AC:
How she managed to write five pages...
LG:
But you are not allowed to comment!
CDV:
President, all the times that this defense has mentioned the word "strange" I have been interrupted, so I absolutely must take action because this is unacceptable! If it is not allowed for me then it is also not allowed for the witness!
LG:
Let's find this e-mail for her!
GCM:
Please do. The witness is reminded that she must absolutely avoid any evaluations, when she introduces expressions such as "it appeared" and so on, obviously not to be revealed, it is not usable, if the element remains in the transcripts in some mode, it is not usable, might as well not be...
GM:
I would ask that this document is shown to the witness, and whether she recognizes it and then I would like to ask about its production.
GCM:
Are the parties aware what this is about?
LG:
Yes, we know it very well.
AC:
Yes, this is the translated e-mail, there is also the original.
GCM:
Is it this one?
AC:
Yes, right.
GCM:
We already have it, however we can...
LG:
This secret was already on the record! You (pl.) filed it in June 2008 and you (pl.) have had it in your possession from November!
GCM:
Excuse me please, Counsel, please let's avoid these kinds of remarks. Please proceed, Public Prosecutor.
GM:
I don't want to be interrupted in this manner.
LG:
No, I didn't interrupt you!
GM:
Please continue with the controversial issues.... In these interceptions, which you translated, do you remember those that gave us particular investigative details of which you have memories?
AC:
Yes.
GM:
Do you remember?
AC:
Sure.
GM:
Which of these?
AC:
Obviously at that moment that they were organized, these prison intercepts were to ascertain, they were obviously done in the hope that useful elements would emerge and the Flying Squad, in fact, questioned me about them. They questioned us; I speak in the plural because I worked with my colleagues who have the same qualifications as I do. They inquired us continuously "Is there anything interesting there?" I have to say that almost immediately, from the first intercepts on, those of November 10 and November 13, they were quite interesting in the sense that Amanda expressed great regret in having brought up Patrick.
CDV:
Your honor, the witness is here as an interpreter but she keeps returning to the investigative activities directly carried out by herself so I would like to understand her role first of all because it seems to me that she has been summoned in relation to her activities as a translator but instead she is making personal evaluations!
AC:
No, no, no...
CDV:
You also reported the outcome of requests from your colleagues about the investigations! So I would like to know if you acted as an investigator or interpreter.
AC:
I shall explain to you immediately, Counsel...
GCM:
Excuse me, but please don’t interrupt the objections.
LG:
Just to remind on my behalf, the transcriptions made in the preliminary hearings of November 10--17 are on file with full translations.
GCM:
Yes, we have already acquired them.
LG:
No, I said this on my behalf.
AC:
I would like to clarify this, your honor.
GCM:
Before you clarify it, it is pointed out to you that you cannot report the content of those conversations...
AC:
But the Public Prosecutor asked me...
GCM:
Excuse me. The Public Prosecutor asked you if there had emerged from the listening of these conversations...
AC:
Yes indeed, as it is true that the Flying Squad...
GCM:
Just a moment, you can talk about such elements that allowed immediate or immediately afterwards investigative activities, these you can refer to, of which you know about, if such activities were determined. So you will disregard what it was about, say what came out of it, what investigative activities were carried out based on the interceptions, and then disregard the content of the conversations, say only what they were like.
AC:
How should I then formulate this ... so if facts useful for the investigations emerged, should I then stop without specifying what actually emerged?
GCM:
And what investigative activities were agreed upon, if you know that.
AC:
Since ... in fact Patrick Lumumba, who had been accused of having been an accomplice in the Kercher murder, was detained in prison. And at the time he was still in prison when Amanda spoke about Patrick, that she was terribly sorry for having dragged him into this, that is, she let understand that Patrick didn't in fact have anything to do with this, which was an extremely useful fact that was reported to Flying Squad.
GM:
So the relevant facts of these interceptions that were carried out in English. Who brought them to the attention of the Judicial Police?
AC:
We did.
GM:
You yourself?
AC:
Sure. That means that the Flying Squad of course were keen to know if there was anything of interest regarding the investigations and so we didn't only translate the words in a sterile manner, we were extremely careful to notice if there were any elements that would be useful for police investigations.
GM:
I have no further questions.

Judge Massei

GCM:
When did these conversations occur, if you remember this?
AC:
In November and December 2007, then there was the...
GCM:
The date.
AC:
They took place between November 5th and December, then in March, April and May there were 20 more, there were 25 of them in all.
GCM:
Do you remember the dates? When in November?
AC:
In November we have the 10th, 13th, 17th, 20th and on the 24th it was finished, then in December nothing.
GCM:
The civil parties?


Civil Party Counsel Carlo Pacelli

CP:
Lawyer Pacelli, counsel for Patrick Lumumba. Mrs Colantone, I understood that you translated all the statements [memorials] written by Amanda.
AC:
Yes, yes.
CP:
I am referring to November 6 in the afternoon; you were present that day, that afternoon when Amanda asked Inspector Ficarra for some blank sheets of paper?
AC:
Yes, but I believe it was not in the afternoon, it was late in the morning, but it doesn't matter. Anyway, yes, yes, absolutely.
CP:
Could you, Mrs Colantone, please report exactly what Amanda said in this circumstance?
AC:
In fact, I was called, I think it was Inspector Ficarra because in fact it was arranged that the arrest order by the public prosecutor had to be communicated and translated to Amanda. So then I went into the office where Amanda was sitting next to a desk, and I was given the ordinance of the public prosecutor and I was asked to translate it, and I translated it to her. I tried to make her understand what that official document meant and after an expression of astonishment, Amanda asked: "Can you give me some paper and a pen because I would like to tell how it went? I want to write down what happened".
CP:
On this occasion, in that circumstance, did Amanda ask for the paper spontaneously?
AC:
Yes, absolutely. She didn't have a reaction to...
CP:
Did Amanda ask spontaneously for these sheets of paper to be given to her?
AC:
Yes.
CP:
Did you also witness the delivery of such a statement [memorial] by Amanda to inspector Ficarra?
AC:
No, because we wanted a little time before Amanda ... in fact I left her when she was writing it, as obviously, I had other things to do, always in relation to the case. However, as soon as she had completed her statement [memoriale], it was passed to our office for translation.
CP:
So it was you who had to take care of the translation of this statement [memorial]?
AC:
No, no. A colleague, Anna Pennoni, took care of that translation. But because we work in a team, especially in an emergency situation such as this one was, in fact it often used to happen that one of us was dictating the translation and the other one was typing it up with the computer. Then one of the two revised and corrected the text, and so on. So I have taken care of the revision of the translation that was done by my colleague Pennoni, I checked and corrected it.
CP:
If your honor allows, I'd like to show you this statement [memoriale], accompanied by the translation, your honor, attached to the folder that has been presented to the defense, and which was admitted on the 16th of November, it's the document number 3 in the folder.
GCM:
To avoid having to search for it if you have it....
CP:
No, I don't have it physically with me.
GCM:
What was the question?
CP:
About whether she recognized it, whether it was the statement [memoriale], and whether she recognized it, it's the document number 3 in the Civil Party dossier.
LG:
It has already been identified.
CP:
I apologize, your honor, since I have finished I can calmly give the floor to the colleagues of the defense and return to this question ... here it is, it's document three, your honor, with the translation.
GCM:
Please go on.

It is recognized that the witness is shown the document number three of the civil party dossier.

LG:
What do you say?
CP:
It's the one in English, preceded by notes from Inspector Ficarra and followed by the translation. I on the other hand have extracted it from the records.
GCM:
Please, let's see if you remember it, it's a photocopy but ... is this the document?
AC:
This is the note of registration...
CP:
It's the text in English followed by the translation.
AC:
Yes, absolutely yes.
CP:
I have no further questions.
GCM:
The defense can now proceed.


Defence Counsel Carlo Dalla Vedova

CDV:
First, Mrs Colantone, I would like to better understand your competence within this office where you said you have served for several years. You deal with translations and?
AC:
It seems to me that my qualifications themselves tell what I deal with at work, I am a proofreader/ translator/ interpreter of the Ministry of the Interior.
CDV:
Do you also do simultaneous interpreting?
AC:
No, hasn’t happened to me, each of us has our own ... for the simultaneous interpretation we would need...
CDV:
Can you explain the difference between normal interpretation and simultaneous interpretation?
AC:
There are two types of normal interpretation, there is the whispered one where there is basically a person who speaks and the interpreter goes behind this person and translates, whispering. She almost whispers in the ear of the foreign person who is speaking. The interpreter practically whispers the questions that are addressed in the source language, in his/her language and then translates vice versa. The same interpreter translates both the questions to and answers given by the foreign person. Specifically trained simultaneous interpreters perform simultaneous interpretation, which is carried out in a booth with headphones on, in large-scale congresses. There are usually several booths with headphones, and the participants of the congress themselves have a headset with which they can listen to the simultaneous interpretation in their own native language. This is because there are congresses where sometimes the audience is composed of people from different countries of the world, and there are interpreters that translate the various languages and each participant has a headset so that they can listen to the translation of what is being said in their own language.
CDV:
Which activities in particular did you carry out during these investigations? Consecutive or simultaneous interpretation?
AC:
There was no need to do simultaneous interpretation because the Public Prosecutor, the Flying Squad staff was interrogating only a person, and I acted as a translator. So, usually in these cases translation is carried out so that the police or the prosecutor asks a question and I translate it into the language known by the person next to me. Then the person next to me answers in his or her own language and I translate what he or she said into Italian, at the police station, that is.
CDV:
Is this the procedure used by you all in connection with the statements?
AC:
Excuse me?
CDV:
When you do a transcription of a statement, does the original question appear in the English translation?
AC:
During...
CDV:
Excuse me, does the question appear in Italian, the translation of the question in English, the response of the person interrogated? In the statements for your practice, seen as has been exactly explained, how does the translation process work, how are these translations of yours transcribed? In other words, I repeat the question in Italian and it is then translated into English and the answer is collected in English and you then translate the answer into Italian?
AC:
Yes, that’s right.
CDV:
But is this shown in the statements?
AC:
Yes.
CDV:
I'm sorry but I have to dispute this...
AC:
But let me answer first!
CDV:
But you said yes!
GCM:
Counsel, have you finished with presenting the question?
CDV:
Yes.
AC:
Because I am an auxiliary of the judicial police, in other words, we support them, let's say we are skilled specialists. Then at times when our assistance is requested and as we are auxiliaries of the public safety, we support the police in the various needs in which you have to deal with people who do not know the Italian language. So when these individuals are questioned, our work is this: we are told to ask a person a certain thing, so right, we will translate the question into the language understood by the person concerned, we report the response and so on, we do not write the records down because that is an activity that is performed by the officer of the judicial police.
CDV:
So, the question that I asked, all these exchanges, are they shown in the statements, yes or no?
AC:
It doesn’t concern me, therefore I don't know. In the statements that are drawn up by the Judicial Police I ... if you give me something to translate, I translate it, but it is not my concern to write down the statements.
CDV:
Walk me through.
AC:
It is obvious that when a statement based on a questioning has been prepared, in the end I, when the statement has been prepared, I reread it again to the person concerned, I translate it, I reread it and so on, because it is also in my interests to ascertain, since I have to sign the record too, my interest is to ascertain that it was all written down properly, to the extent that no important things are missing, that nothing is distorted, that there is no doubt about it. Because I have to sign it, I read it and translate it to the concerned person because I am asked by the officer of the judicial police to "translate this to the witness concerned ", because even the individual concerned, in turn, must sign the document.
CDV:
But I need to have a clarification on what I believe is a procedural matter because the records never contain any questions in English, not those placed in the occasion of taking the statements of Amanda Knox or those which I have in relation to the English witnesses in which the interpreter participated. Then I would like to ask, your honor, if I can be shown, for example, an extract of Butterworth's statement in which there is a question and there is an answer, but there are no questions in English, so we can't know how they were translated. This is only for the purposes of documentation.
AC:
It does not however concern me, because my tasks were limited.
GCM:
You already responded, so the question on this...
MC:
(Incomprehensible - Outside microphone range).
CDV:
Exactly why I'm also inquiring about this, thank you, Mrs Comodi. So the response of the examined person does not appear in the records either.
GCM:
The language of the documents is edited, but we can be shown them anyway.
CDV:
Do you know if there are any protocols that are of issue in translation and simultaneous interpretation, with the distinction that we made before, with respect to the documents? Protocols established by international associations, for example, by organizations such as the United Nations?
AC:
With respect to what issue in this present case?
CDV:
How should the questions and answers be reported when translation is involved?
AC:
When I translate a text from Italian into English or from English into Italian, I have a series of pages to be translated and it is my duty to translate them fully and correctly. Here we are talking about an oral translation performed by the interpreter during an activity to assist public safety so...
CDV:
Can we say that you at that moment were more like an assistant in an investigative phase rather than an interpreter?
AC:
Fine by me, an interpreter, an assistant interpreter.
GCM:
Please, let's try to avoid these kind of questions. Perhaps it will be the subject of assessment by the parties. It still invokes Article 109.
CDV:
Another issue, still in relation to the protocols in his matter. You wrote, in relation to the surveillance of November 4, which was mentioned before, and which started at 16.30 hrs. [4.30 pm] and was stopped at 18.00 hrs. [6 pm], then resumed again at 19.00 hrs. [7 pm] and finished at 20.00 hrs. [8 pm], at least it appears so, that you gave an account of this. The question is this: based on what...
AC:
Which account? Excuse me, Counsel.
CDV:
This one. How do you determine what is important and what is not important enough to put in your account?
GCM:
We do not know the contents of the report.
CDV:
It is in the records.
GCM:
Counsel, was the report drawn up by the witness?
CDV:
Yes, it is a record that is in the art. 415 bis [The term “bis” means twice in Latin, it is used in various legal systems when a new section is added to a code so as to avoid the necessity of renumbering all the code sections that follow.] dossier.
GCM:
And regarding what matter?
CDV:
And with respect to the report done by the interpreter on the interceptions.
GCM:
The Court does not have it, but it is the content of the interceptions.
CDV:
No, I asked her if there are protocols for assessing...
GCM:
What is it, the rough draft of the interceptions?
CDV:
No, it's the report.
GM:
No I would like to know what these protocols are, here is the code of criminal procedure.
GCM:
But what is the question about this?
CDV:
I would like to know the criteria by which the interpreter decides that some circumstances are to be omitted because she has written in the report as follows: "Conversation not interesting" and fails to translate it. So, my question is the following: as she is a professional what is the criterion by which she determined what information was to be translated and what not?
GCM:
So with reference to this expression "not interesting" you are asking the witness this question?
CDV:
That’s right.
AC:
I respond calmly because basically we were, in other words we were continually told by the Flying Squad staff who in fact had to seize and immediately report the aspects that could be of interest to the investigation, we were told to omit, to summarize, even immediately dismiss things that we considered to be of no investigative interest. I already mentioned the pizza, I was able to omit it because it was not a fact the police were interested in.
CDV:
So you did the assessment for the purposes of identifying possible leads in the investigation?
AC:
I translated, then I also reported them...
CDV:
No, you said that you decided what was to be translated!
AC:
No, I didn't decide...
GCM:
No, sorry, let's consider only the answers which are given.
CDV:
The question is this: since you listened the intercept of the fourth.
AC:
I was taking notes and then...
CDV:
Then you decided that some of the information that you had received through the witness in English was important for the purposes of the investigation and those you reported in Italian.
AC:
That is because the police told me to do so.
GCM:
Wait until he finishes.
CDV:
My question is this: was the evaluation of important aspects done by you or did you refer to a colleague of yours who then decided if that aspect was better to be put into Italian, or as you have said the pizza was not.
AC:
Perhaps it is better that I recount this. That day I put the headphones on to listen in to this interception, and I repeat that that conversation was not easy to listen to at some points because the youngsters were sitting in silence, whispering or something like that, so for me it was… so I got there anyway trying to slowly slowly report what they said. Then I have to say that, I should report that this was the first audio surveillance and the first time notes were taken in which someone would keep coming in and inquiring me: "Is there anything? Is there anything?" and I was able to say yes or no, however I also said to them: "Let’s be careful, they are sometimes whispering, sometimes I don’t understand that well what they are saying". I am meticulous in my work. Then after I had done all this, I listened again, and then at a later time I was in fact asked to listen to this tape again and at that point I could fill in some gaps, reprocess and put down this translation, this version.
GCM:
This is clear, however, counsel asked you, since in this report there are parentheses with the expression "not interesting", so the counsel asks on what basis this "not interesting" remark was put there?
AC:
If it is about this, I would like to say...
GCM:
Did you do this evaluation or it was done to you ...
AC:
I did it, I had to listen to the tape again and I would possibly say that Amanda asked Raffaele "why do you have this hair on the jacket". In other words not ... if I mentioned...
GCM:
Did you know what it was that they were investigating?
AC:
Yes, certainly I did.
CDV:
The same case is repeated in the documents that you yourself have translated. You participated in the translation of some of the statements [memoriales], then explained that you had a team working together with other colleagues and that you had done a revision. Also, for example, in the translation of the complete diary, the famous prison diary, there are observations where in fact it is said that the "circumstance is not relevant", even there you decided that it was not necessary ... On what basis did you decide that information that came from Amanda Knox was not relevant enough to be put into Italian?
AC:
Counsel, there are different ways to do our work. Basically, if those who ask us to do a particular job ask for a full translation and allocate us all the time that we need to be able to do a full translation, then we will proceed to do a full translation. On the other hand, if those who ask us to do something say that "Look, we have an immediate need to understand what is written in this journal, which is up to 80 pages long, in other words, we want to know if there is anything that is of investigative interest to us", and it is logical since it's a lot of work, because I remember very well that work assignment, at that point one will read and translate and extrapolate in full what one thinks might be of interest, and the other, less relevant parts are summarized because otherwise it would take a month to complete the translation work, and the police needed to get the information immediately.
CDV:
At this point, however, I have to contest this because, Mrs Colantone appears in several statements, and I quote Butterworth on February 8 in Bergamo, still as the interpreter of the English. On the other hand, it seems to me, from what you say, that your activities were also the ones to assess any investigative leads that you came to know, so it is investigative activity.
AC:
No, I didn't say that.
LG:
Yes you did, of course you did.
CDV:
But seeing that it is necessary, when there is a foreigner, the presence of an interpreter who is a third party, your honor, that it is a third party and has of course all the qualifications that we do not contest, but it must be a third party from the formal point of view in the exercise of the question - answer pair, instead it seems to me that Mrs Colantone, who is always referred to, and I repeat this, with the following words: "the English language interpreter is present", and then it is recognized that she is an employee of the Ministry of the Interior, she has in fact exercised investigative activities because she assessed the documents, establishing what was interesting and thus not acting as a mere interpreter. So I'm contesting in this sense...
AC:
No, no, no...
GCM:
No, please.
MC:
Who are you contesting it for? The police commissioner?
GCM:
Is the challenge in a legal sense, as a question to the witness?
CDV:
I am doing it by way of a question, I am asking why, when it comes to a foreigner, you never act in the role of the interpreter? I am asking you, for example, did you go to Bergamo?
AC:
Yes, of course.
CDV:
Together with whom?
AC:
Together with deputy commissioner Napoleoni.
CDV:
What were your duties on this occasion, and what did you do?
AC:
My duties were the same ones that I had already carried out several times at the police station.
CDV:
With the ‘same’ do you mean the interpreting service or the service for police investigations?
AC:
Still working as an assistant of the judicial police. The Flying Squad officers do not speak English, there is an official interpreter at the police station and they brought this person with them.
CDV:
Were you not able to find an interpreter in Bergamo?
AC:
No.
CDV:
This isn't normal, is it?
AC:
No...
GCM:
But let's ask the witness...
AC:
The Ministry of the Interior has agreed on these procedures to support the police.
GCM:
Let's ask the witness questions she can respond to.
CDV:
But I do not understand the relevance...
GCM:
This is an evaluation of course, all arguments are good, but we cannot ask the witness: "Why couldn't you find” which to me seems ...
CDV:
Can you tell us what you did in Bergamo? Who were being heard?
AC:
We did things that we had already done, normal routine.
GCM:
So what did you do?
AC:
Public Prosecutor needed to hear again some of the English girls.
GCM:
What were you doing there?
AC:
What I always do. Deputy Commissioner Napoleoni asked the questions in Italian, I translated them into English to the girl whose turn it was, because there were four or five of them, the girl in turn responded to the question that was made to her in English, I translated the response into Italian to the Flying Squad officers, and then there were those who wrote down the questions and the answers and the translations.
CDV:
They were not recorded?
AC:
Yes, I believe they were recorded for a limited period of time.
CDV:
Then there was a verbalization in writing and a verbalization with recording?
AC:
I think the verbalization ... these are technical things but I believe that there was...
GCM:
Counsel asks, we have all understood that it was in connection with this document that you participated in carrying out the activities described. Counsel asked you: was there also a recording of the activity that you were carrying out?
AC:
Yes, yes. Rather than prepare a written report of what was being said, which would have required an enormous amount of time, everything was recorded.
GCM:
Then there were no minutes or were there also the minutes?
AC:
I do this if there are minutes to do ... these are things that concern the police.
CDV:
There are however verbatim reports of Butterworth's statements of 28 January and these were transcribed.
GCM:
So there are.
CDV:
But I would like to know if this is a new transcription from the coil or if there was someone who took notes, seeing that this was a witness who reported that there was a person who verbalized. I had understood that there was someone writing down the statements, so I asked for a clarification, this is normal. With regard to the e-mail that you translated, which Knox sent to 25 family members and acquaintances, did you raise the problem of how she sent that e-mail?
AC:
Through the computer, I guess.
CDV:
Did you (pl.) do investigations on which computer?
AC:
I was given a document to be translated...
MC:
Mrs Colantone is an interpreter and not an official of the Judicial Police!
CDV:
When it’s convenient she's an interpreter, but when she's doing the assessments she is...
GCM:
Please! You are (or: she is) a witness, it is true that you were asked to report on some aspects, but since you have spoken of this e-mail the counsel is asking if you know how...
AC:
If I know how...
GCM:
The e-mail was sent and the next question...
AC:
From Amanda to the United States?
GCM:
You have already said that it was transmitted by computer, the counsel is asking you: were you doing the investigations or what is your understanding?
AC:
It is not for me to do any investigations, the Flying Squad gave me the witness testimony to translate and I translated it as well as I could and that was it.
GCM:
There is no problem, the counsel is only asking all the questions that he deems necessary, of course, within the limits of the relevance and cross-examination, but he asks them and you should just respond calmly.
CDV:
Because of the comment by the prosecutor, I am not provoking since I am here to defend Ms Knox and sometimes...
GCM:
We have a position, let’s say, of privilege and we do not hear (clearly), so we invite everyone to be quiet. We are concentrating on this important part, unless there are further disturbances, but I don’t believe so, so we can proceed.
CDV:
In relation to the translation of the documents that came from the Capanne prison...
AC:
Do you mean the letters?
CDV:
Well, I will just ask you about this. What were they about? What kind of documents they were? Letters and that was it?
AC:
They were letters sent by Amanda to her friends and relatives in the United States and vice versa, letters, responses that Amanda received to her letters.
CDV:
How many did you say there were?
AC:
About 600 according to our calculations.
CDV:
Can you tell us the about the time frame - when did you receive this translation assignment?
AC:
I believe it was immediately after the arrest and it continued until late spring.
CDV:
These documents were then evaluated by your colleagues for the purposes of investigations?
AC:
I have to answer in fact in the same manner as before: we are limited to examining and translating this material, highlighting, because that is what we were asked to do: "If there's something useful for us, put it in the evidence in summarized format or leave it out". Because there was always an immediate need, an urgency to have news as soon as possible and so we did what we were asked to do, we highlighted the important matters and brought them to the attention of the Flying Squad.
CDV:
The question is appropriate, perhaps I repeat it to you because it is in relation to what I said previously. However, because these 600 letters are not the in the records, it doesn't look like it to me, I am going to ask you, because you made an assessment on what was important or wasn't important, according to which criteria you emphasized the importance of these letters, and these were arguments of cultural nature, of sexual nature, of personal nature, of emotional nature ...
AC:
I have to include these topics...
GCM:
Mrs Colantone, please wait, you should always let the counsel finish the question first and then you respond.
CDV:
So in relation to these assessments I would like to know which were the criteria that you used in choosing which parts to emphasize, which parts seemed relevant in addition to translating the document.
AC:
Well, in principle, none for investigative purposes interesting leads emerged through these letters written by Amanda, also because we understand that she was informed that the letters could be intercepted and she mentioned it herself in the letters. So the aspects of interest which arose, could emerge from those intercepts concerning...
GCM:
The letters.
AC:
The handwritten letters of Amanda, the aspects that could be of interest were those of the personality of this girl and her interests, her way of being, her way of presenting herself, even via the written form, her way of writing, the topics she addressed and this we emphasized because of the fact that not much was revealed.
CDV:
Mrs Colantone, do you have particular competence to identify the elements of a person's character? Do you have psychological competence in this sense?
AC:
I have a degree in foreign languages and literature from the Rome Sapienza University, so apart from knowledge of languages we could say that my passions are the humanities, so literature, history, philosophy, psychology in which I have also taken exams, I'm speaking of psychology. I am a person who likes to understand who it is that stands in front of me, what type of a person s/he is, that's how I am, and then I think that I could ... but then I want to say I have presented my assessments, our assessments, I and my colleagues, on the personality of Amanda, we have submitted them to the proper authorities, it's up to them how they are going to use them.
CDV:
So you did assessments of Amanda's personality?
AC:
I am not an unquestioning reader or an uncritical translator, I mean that a text hits you always in some way.
GCM:
We are not only talking about the translation activities with the omissions you told us about.
CDV:
You have said that with respect to the 600 letters, you emphasized aspects that you believed were important.
GCM:
She has already explained us everything we acquired.
CDV:
However, I wanted to understand that when you make an assessment of behavior through the documents, you need first of all to have the competence, both in psychiatry (…) in order to understand the competence you have.
AC:
It was not an assessment by an expert.
CDV:
Then I would like to understand what type of subsequent activities were done in relation to these assessments of these elements.
GCM:
We are asking you if there were any subsequent activities. Do you know if as a result of this translation activity of yours there were any such?
AC:
My job was only to inform them.
GCM:
Do you know if any investigative activities were done later as a result of these elements that you offered by reading and translating this correspondence?
AC:
I don't know, we communicated, as we were asked to do "what do you think about this?" What do you (pl.) think ? What do you (pl.) say? ", then what they did with the information was not our concern.
GCM:
So you don't know what investigative activities were completed?
AC:
No, no, but there were no important investigative elements.
CDV:
The next question is still in relation to the intercepts made in November - December, and then subsequently, up until end of May, I think. I would like to know if you participated in the translation of these interceptions?
AC:
Do you mean simultaneously when they were recorded?
GCM:
No, no, only if you participated in the translating work, then let's see if there is a subsequent question.
CDV:
First, if you were involved, then I will ask you...
AC:
Yes, yes, with many of them.
CDV:
How did you participate in the translation of these conversations in the Capanne prison between Knox and her parents or other relatives? I would like to know if you were physically present or if a recording was done of the conversation, which was then brought to you and you then did a transcript of the English text into Italian.
AC:
Yes. This is already clear from the statement made by the police about these various interceptions. However, how these intercepts were done was that from time to time, usually twice a week, during visiting hours scheduled for the relatives of Amanda, me and a Flying Squad officer would go to the prison. We went to the prison where a small room had been made ready for us, an adjacent room to another room prepared for the visits where a bugging device was obviously placed. I and the operator of the Flying Squad in the adjoining room basically had a video, there was a video, so we had contextually a way of seeing what was going on and listening and at the same time, at the same time, the conversation was from time to time recorded. I was immediately asked: "Did they say anything of interest? Did anything interesting emerge? ", "yes, no". Then I came back to the office and listened to the recording again, but still... that is, I watched it, I had both the video on my computer and the oral conversation that I could listen through the oral disc, and proceeded to the transcription of all of the content that emerged from the surveillance. I have to say that this is a job that required a long time, 25 interceptions are 25 hours of work that then became 50 hours for playback, transcription, perhaps even 75 hours and so on.
CDV:
Can you tell me of the period of time during which these 25 audio surveillances took place?
AC:
I mentioned that a while ago, in November ... 10th of November, 13th of November, 17th of November, 20th of November and 24th of November, so there were 5 interceptions in November. Then there was an interruption, we started again in March, March - April - May and during these three months there were 20 other interceptions, I frankly don't remember the exact dates.
CDV:
Mrs Colantone, did you also perform this same activity for the other accused in this process? Did you participate in that as well?
AC:
No, my services were not needed because he was not a foreigner.
GCM:
What other accused, Counsel?
CDV:
I was wondering whether she had participated in the other interceptions.
AC:
Which interceptions?
CDV:
The interceptions that were made in respect of the other accused who obviously speaks Italian, did you participate in those?
AC:
Absolutely not, I had no reason to!
CDV:
What about the correspondence, which was also mentioned earlier, between the two defendants, Knox and Sollecito?
AC:
I am not sure about that, perhaps there was a letter that Raffaele wrote to Amanda, but I am not absolutely sure about it.
CDV:
Do you remember any correspondence between Knox and Patrick Lumumba?
AC:
Absolutely not, no.
CDV:
And do you remember any correspondence between Knox and Rudy Guede?
AC:
No, no. We are talking about the correspondence in prison, no.
CDV:
About these 600 letters.
AC:
No, no, no.
CDV:
Was there any correspondence with the lawyers?
AC:
No.
CDV:
You told us about the e-mail Knox sent to several individuals. Do you remember who these individuals were?
AC:
Look, I don't know, at that time I basically didn't even know the names of Amanda's father and mother, the sisters or any others. Of course as one proceeded with the interceptions and the letters, we had the opportunity to also learn the names of the various members of Amanda's family. However, judging by the person who then sent the email back to us, that is, took it to the Seattle police, who then sent us this email, I believe that Amanda Knox had sent it to other acquaintances and so on as well. However, at the time we didn't know any of them, certainly not, only later we were able to identify that this is the father, this is the mother, this is the grandmother, this is the cousin, but not all of them.
CDV:
I would like you to review this email so that you can read the first line and confirm to me that this is indeed the English translation of the email.
AC:
Sure.
CDV:
In reality, the first paragraph is a line and a half.
AC:
This is the translation, this is the original text ... what do you want me to do, Counsel?
CDV:
The first paragraph ...
AC:
Do you want me to translate it from the English?
CDV:
If you also want to revise your translation ...
GCM:
What is the question?
CDV:
I wanted to know if you recognize the translation as the one that you did of the original text in English. If you can read it.

It is recognized that the witness proceeds to read in English with translation into Italian of the first paragraph of the referred letter.

AC:
"This is an email to everyone, for everyone, because I'd like to get it all out and not have to repeat myself a hundred times...".
GCM:
Do you recognize it as your translation?
AC:
Yes.
CDV:
I would ask you to read the entire first paragraph, in Italian, if you recognize the text.
AC:
"This is an email for everyone, because I'd like to get it all out and not have to repeat myself a hundred times like I've been having to do at the police station. Some of you already know some things, some of you know nothing. What I'm about to say I cant say to journalists or newspapers, and I require that of anyone receiving this information as well. This is my account of how I found my roommate murdered etc. etc.".
GCM:
So you recognize the translation as the one you did?
AC:
Yes.
CDV:
What date was this?
AC:
We must take the original though ... here we have November 15 and that’s the date Amanda’s former employer in Seattle turned to the police.
CDV:
There is just the English text with the above date.
AC:
So on November 15 this guy in America sent this text, this e-mail to an officer of the Seattle police. Thereafter we have all the various recipients of the e-mail, and there are many ... Counsel, what should I do?
CDV:
Why did you say earlier that the date of the e-mail was the 2nd, I would just like to confirm what date it was?
MC:
The night between the 3rd and the 4th.
CDV:
No, for the purposes of transcription you said before...
GCM:
However, there is the registration.
CDV:
There is a transcript, prosecutor, we can see that, I just wanted a confirmation of the date this e-mail was sent and if there is a time, for example.
AC:
No, I can tell you immediately that a sheet of paper is missing, it seems to me that something is missing ... I have my briefcase over there ... can I take it?
CDV:
Yes. If I can see the document, it seems strange to me that it lacks...
GCM:
You may take your briefcase so that you can see at what time this email was sent. In the meanwhile, while we are getting the briefcase to the witness, Counsel, do you have any other questions?
CDV:
I want to show, your honor, that on page 2 there is a time reference to November 4, 2007, 3.24.19 am and this is the first e-mail and so this is the e-mail that Amanda sent. I just wanted to confirm if according to you this is the date, because then there are also the emails of those they sent from Seattle.
AC:
This is the one that the Counsel gave me, the time should be ... the date this was sent would be Sunday November 4, 2007, 3.24.19 am., i.e. in the morning. This is the exact point that identifies the point of time this email was sent.
CDV:
This, your honor, is a document that has already been filed and it is the same date that was reported, so I just wanted to confirm the date. One last question in relation to the fact that the contents of some of the documents ... a clarification, if you are able to help us, the contents of the memoriales and the diary have been used by the media on several occasions. I would like to know if you are aware of or have had dealings with the media and if ... you ever talked about this topic to the media?
AC:
Absolutely not! Counsel, this was something that...
GCM:
Excuse me, it is sufficient with "absolutely not".
AC:
That we mustn't have discussions with the press, we wouldn't dream of it.
CDV:
I have no further questions.

Defence Counsel Luciano Ghirga

LG:
A question, if Mrs Colantone, you know this, still about the e-mail of the 4th. Do you know when the American policewoman and if I mention the name Nadia Florini ... was it her?
AC:
Yes.
LG:
..sent the email, which the gentleman had given her, to the Perugia police station, do you know the approximate date?
AC:
I don't remember exactly...
LG:
When did the American policewoman send the email to the Perugia police station?
AC:
I do not remember exactly, but it is certainly somewhere in the Flying Squad documents, certainly based on the date of the dispatch of November 15 from Seattle Police to Perugia police I believe that we took note of this thing, and we were instructed to do the translation on 16th, 17th of November, not later.
LG:
I remember that Richard (Welk) on 17th of November refers to...
AC:
Then it will have been on the 18th or 19th, I don't know what to say about it to you.
LG:
On the 17th, I can say it to you.
AC:
But I know very well when she sent the e-mail.
LG:
When did the Perugia police station send this email to the Public Prosecutor's office?
AC:
It is not for me to know, I don't know.
LG:
Thank you.

Defence Counsel Giulia Bongiorno

GB:
I wanted to ask you this, the lawyer who preceded me, made reference to this famous surveillance account under which, as has been said, there are these statements of some obviously relevant discussions and there was this need to write things at once and so some things were obviously omitted.
AC:
Which account, Counsel?
GB:
Account of an interception that took place during a surveillance on Sunday, November 4.
AC:
Yes.
GB:
The lawyer made you some questions and he asked you: "Because every so often the word ‘irrelevant’ is written here” and you already responded that they were your assessments. My question is really behind all of this and so I'm asking you, you said before: "Obviously seeing that there was a hurry I could not stay to transcribe, I had to do a sort of summary of the relevant points." My question is this: which components of the investigations had been transferred to you to do this type of evaluation? Did you know which elements needed to be analysed in order to express a judgement of relevance?
AC:
So what had been said to me was this, namely: "Listen, if they say something about what happened in the house, about what happened that day," they were saying things such as these to me.
GB:
Can you specify to me if you had been transferred, what were the things that at that moment - we are on the fourth - had emerged and, therefore, deemed relevant to the investigations?
AC:
Absolutely not, I have to say that the police have always maintained secrecy even with us who have cooperated with them for many years, but of course their investigations and their findings have always had to be kept secret.
GB:
So you were able to express this judgement of relevance or non-relevance based on this one fact that had been given to you...
AC:
Well counsel...
GB:
Can I finish the question and then you can respond?! Because there are the words "relevant and non-relevant", you know that a number of things are written here, it is clear that once the Court assesses these, we will understand what you considered relevant or less relevant; at this time I have to ask you some questions so listen to them.
AC:
Yes.
GB:
If the police had only said to you: "What we consider important is what they say would have happened in the house", so you would have had to transcribe only if it was of things which happened in the house, whereas it’s not so here because there are a number of notes.
AC:
Even if the content is irrelevant, I'm in the habit of giving an account of the work I carried out because if I have been sitting an hour or two hours listening with the headset on, I cannot simply say: "There is nothing". I will show you that there is nothing by writing down what they have been talking about, albeit in a summary format if it is really irrelevant.
GB:
So are you saying that what you wrote down were sometimes also things that you wanted to transcribe as irrelevant because they did not refer to the picture that you had been given by the police?
AC:
Which picture?
GB:
Those indications, which the police had given to you, namely: "Tell me if they say something about what happened in Meredith's house".
AC:
They asked me that ... excuse me, I had the headphones on in order to listen in to the conversation, and obviously, when one listens and takes notes at the same time it is not easy to take down absolutely everything, so you basically focus on things, just in case something important comes out, based on what you have been pointed out. So I took notes while I was concentrating on the listening to detect any items of interest, then at a later time I proceeded to replay the tape to examine the interception in depth to better be able to check if there was actually any useful information or not.
GB:
On what basis then, since some things are written down and in other cases it says "not relevant", what was the fine line between relevant and not relevant?
AC:
It would be irrelevant perhaps if they said "I'm tired, I would like to eat something, I haven't eaten anything for four hours", things like that, I don't know.
GCM:
Mrs Colantone, excuse me, in responding to the counsel you first stated that "based on what I had been pointed out", so if you could perhaps tell us, and maybe that is was is being asked by the defense at the moment, what was pointed out to you and on what basis ....
AC:
A girl had been killed and the police was questioning all possible witnesses to this event for...
GCM:
The things that had been pointed out to you. So a girl had been killed and then what was the thing pointed out to you?
AC:
It is not as if I needed to be pointed out: "Look, a girl has been killed", I already knew it.
GB:
We would like to know if there was a list "was killed with a knife or without a knife"...
AC:
No, no.
GB:
Will you let me finish?!
AC:
Yes.
GB:
If you just listen to me and answer my questions, we will be finished in a second. You were made a list of circumstances in order to be able to assess the importance, given that you were also entrusted with the task of evaluation, if you have to evaluate three hours of conversation, you have to understand what is relevant I can tell you: "See, the roommates were these, Raffaele and Amanda are boyfriend and girl friend, she was killed with a knife, evaluate the relevance, evaluate only ... ", i.e. were you given some circumstances that allowed you to narrow down the field of relevance or were you only told: "A young girl has been killed in a house"?
AC:
I wasn't told: "A young girl has been killed in a house" because all Perugia was aware of it, and I knew it very well, too. I wasn't told anything precise, they just told me: "just listen if something relevant emerges" but, counsel, I think that they told me that because I have worked 22 years with the police and I now know how it works at the police and what is of interest to the police.
GB:
But I am asking you about the judgement of relevance having to have been based on a certain area of things that may be relevant, what instructions were you given in order to be able to be entrusted with this judgement?
AC:
They told me that: "There is a surveillance” - it was not the first time in my professional working life that such a thing happened – “listen if something useful for the investigation emerges".
GB:
Thank you, your honor.
MC:
A preliminary question, your honor, if you allow, but was this report among the documents of the court dossier?
GB:
If it is wasn’t provided, we are asking the acquisition...
GCM:
This does not appear to be so, at least I seem to recall that it was not...
GB:
We will provide it.
GCM:
There is a request to produce it and we are hearing the parties consent.
MC:
So there will be a request for an integral transcription, your honor, for the appointment of an expert witness?
GCM:
But if there is consent to the acquisition we can acquire it.
MC:
Yes, sure.

It is recognized that the verbatim report, to which reference has been made several times, is acquired with the consensus of all parties.

Public Prosecutor Manuela Comodi

MC:
When you are requested to attend an interview as an interpreter are you on the side of the one who is being interviewed or are you on the side of the person taking down the minutes?
AC:
Absolutely always on the side of those who need to be heard.
MC:
You said that you are in the habit of reading the statements again at the end of an interview?
AC:
Yes.
MC:
To the person concerned, of course, to the one that was being interviewed?
AC:
Yes.
MC:
As the minutes are, of course, in Italian, is the rereading done by translating the text orally?
AC:
Yes of course.
MC:
Did Amanda Knox make any comments with regard to the verbalization of the documents that you translated?
AC:
Absolutely not.
MC:
Let's say upon completion of your various examinations.
AC:
No, if I may say so, during my 22 years of interpreting work at the police, I have learned to talk depending on the English language skills of the person sitting in front of me. If it is a person whose mother tongue is English, there are no problems. If it is a person from a third country who knows only a little bit of English, I assess how much English they know. If I realize that this person knows very little English then I just make him understand me, to be certain that he has understood what I was told to translate by the police, I talk him half in Italian, half in English, of what he knows, with the gestures, we write it down. So I'm absolutely sure that Amanda would have understood what was said because she is a native English speaker.
MC:
Not only that she understood, did you also ask her whether she disputed the contents of the verbalization?
AC:
No, no.
MC:
Did you ask the questions and answers to be recorded in her mother tongue, in English, in the minutes?
AC:
No.
MC:
Thank you.

Judge Massei

GCM:
I would only like to ask about a circumstance to which you referred. You said that when you entered the house on Via Della Pergola, Amanda Knox was there...
AC:
No, we entered together.
GCM:
And also others, but I am interested in this point, this aspect, and you described her attitude, in particular, if she was occupied, in particular among other things you also mentioned a red mark present in the neck. If you could be more precise about this, give a description, whether it was red, red, whether it was a boil that had turned red. What was this red mark?
AC:
Your honor, I noticed that detail earlier, not in the house on via Della Pergola.
GCM:
When did you notice it?
AC:
It was earlier, still on the same Sunday, November 4, after Amanda had been heard by the Flying Squad, around three in the afternoon in question. This interrogation by various police officers was finished and they were made to sit in a small room where the public is usually ushered to. Then I wandered away, we had finished the questioning, and I went to smoke a cigarette, I don't remember. When I returned to the room, there was basically only Amanda there, at that moment, and the image of this girl struck me particularly because I remember it very well as if I saw her here at this moment, as if my brain had photographed this image, this exhausted girl, tired and resting the back of her head on the wall. Since she was wearing an overall with the zip in front, her neck was exposed and I was struck, my mind again repeating, by the extreme pallor of this girl amidst which pallor stood out a red mark, but I did not focus on it that much because I was interested to know at that point: "Are you alright? Do you need anything", this.
GCM:
So you didn’t focus that much on this red mark?
AC:
I had no reason to do so.
GCM:
Can you say if it was a boil, which had turned red?
AC:
It was a red mark on a white neck. At that time I had no reason to...
GCM:
But was it a mark that was more roundish or was it more elongated?
AC:
No, I don't know about that.
GCM:
Did you talk about this red mark with anyone?
AC:
No, because there was then a succession of other events, things to translate, I frankly did not think about it anymore.
GCM:
OK.
CDV:
I would like to request the acquisition of another document, there is another statement, still from the 20th, a document that has the same characteristics, it's a report of the interception of November 20, 2007.
GCM:
If all parties agree, we can acquire it. The witness is dismissed.

The hearing is suspended.