Edgardo Giobbi's Testimony (English)

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

Contents

Summary of Edgardo Giobbi's Testimony

Edgardo Giobbi's Testimony (English)

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

Thank you to ZiaK/Katsgalore from the True Justice for Meredith Kercher and PerugiaMurderfile.org communities for this translation.

GCM Giancarlo Massei Judge Presidente
GM Giuliano Mignini Prosecutor Pubblico Ministero
MC Manuela Comodi Prosecutor Pubblico Ministero
EG Edgardo Giobbi Witness being questioned Rome Police Officer
LG Luciano Ghirga Knox defense lawyer Avvocato
GB Giulia Bongiorno Sollecito defense lawyer Avvocato
MDG Maria Del Grosso Defense counsel for Amanda Knox Avvocato
SP Serena Perna Counsel for Stephanie Kercher Avvocato
SS Sabrina Scaroni Counsel for civil plaintiff Patrick Lumumba Avvocato
LM Luca Maori Sollecito defense lawyer Avvocato

Giobbi Edgardo, born 29 September 1965, in Rome.

Prosecutor Mignini

GM:
You carried out the investigations on the death of Meredith Kercher.
EG:
Confirmative.
GM:
Tell us what you saw, at what time you became involved, what activities you carried out.
EG:
I don’t work in Perugia. I work in a central investigative office that has its headquarters in Rome, that among its various competencies has also that of participating as a back-up, in support of the Flying Squads, any time that events of particular seriousness and prominence occur. On the basis of an evaluation carried out by my superiors, as soon as we had the news of Meredith Kercher’s murder, it was decided to send me here to Perugia with an investigative squadron from my office, and I came in as backup and support for the activity carried out by the Perugia Flying Squad, which at that time was led by Dr Profazio. I arrived [in Perugia] in the late afternoon of 2 November, and I recall that when I arrived at the little villa, you were already present, there was Dr Chiacchiera, there was the Forensics personnel, the Flying Squad personnel. To start with, after having put on shoe covers and gloves, I entered in order to get a certain, to obtain immediately an impression of the crime scene in the little villa. Subsequently, that same evening, still in agreement with you, who were there, I devoted myself a great deal to studying the perimeter of the villa, in other words, to verifying whether there might have been any immediate answers, or not, on the fact of whether a burglar had entered inside the little villa, or rather if on the contrary some persons with an acquaintance with the victim might have penetrated or entered. The first, very clear, particular [was] that the door of the house had not been subjected to forcing. A second particular was that of the [fact that] the easiest entry for any potential burglar, namely the window immediately in front of the victim’s room, the one that gives onto the little terrace, was perfectly untouched.
GM:
Just so we understand each other: the one [window] that is hidden from the street.
EG:
The one that is hidden from the street. Shall we say, the little terrace that is precisely over the entryway to the little apartment below. There, [in] carrying out a careful examination also from the outside – so not only from the inside – I established that any given person who [sic] would be able to climb freehand [sic] and get up there, break that window and enter the house. A second particular that was in accordance with this [fact] was the fact that the broken window, [when one] entered in the first room on the left, seemed in short [to be] broken in a rather particular manner: not – on the basis of my investigative experience, by instinct, I held that it was not the work of someone coming from outside: but this, I repeat, in this very early phase were simply deductions that enabled me to establish investigative leads, because we arrive and we start from zero. We must nonetheless start from somewhere. Having established, shall we say, from this very careful examination of the outside, it was not possible, that is to say, anyone who had entered, according to my feelings, somebody who was known to Meredith: we have immediately focused attention on the people who frequented that house, and also at the same time have immediately [focused] on persons and on subjects of male sex, the young men who lived on the floor below. For that matter, with regard to the apartment situated on the ground floor, below – because in reality it was a basement with regard to the storey that was almost at street-level – when we entered there we immediately had those very strong images of blood shed throughout the house, which obviously to me, just arrived as an investigator, obliged me to establish priorities with the Forensic police, of the type: that I had to know immediately if the blood that was down there was the victim’s blood, or why there was all that blood. We’re talking about blood below that was splattered in all the rooms: there were stains on the wall, there was a bed-cover, a duvet, that was completely soaked. Also because it would have led me to grasp immediately that the investigative plans [NdT: i.e. how the investigation developed] – I mean to say, one explanation is that the homicidal action took place only in the apartment above, another explanation obviously [is] that it began on the lower storey. Because this then changed, in short, all the considerations. These were, shall we say, the immediate actions, the first activities that we carried out. Subsequently we began to listen to all the inhabitants of the house, both of the upper level as well as the lower level: this [was done] in order to check immediately, obviously, the alibis, with the conviction that someone had entered that house who was known to the victim. [So] of necessity we had to check the alibis of the tenants of the lower level, the alibis of the inhabitants of Meredith’s apartment. So it was a frenetic activity of checking/comparison that then led us in a very short time – I remember in short that we slept very little [during] the first days – to check that all the young men, the inhabitants of the lower level, nonetheless had an alibi. Because they were not, it seems to me that at least three of the four were not present in the town, and the alibis were all checked/compared, for some in the Marches. In short, they were in order. Because there were confirmations and situations. Then there was all, shall we say, I call it a cognitive behavioural investigation, that is to say, an investigation based very much at that point on the observation of all the subjects and on the psychosomatic reactions that these subjects may have had as the investigations advance. This was what that phase was.
GM:
Let us dwell on this aspect. What did you note about the subjects who frequented the house, or about those who lived in that house?
EG:
Let’s say that from that very evening, I was told about a series of behaviors of the young folk on the whole. Now I don't know. Certainly, shall we say, the couples that were formed by the inhabitants of the house above with their respective boyfriends, the different behaviors that they might have – it seems to me that they were called Mezzetti and Laura Romanelli – they had a much more moderate behavior, in short, compared that displayed on that very evening inside the Questura by Sollecito together with Magda [sic], who seemed a bit less struck by the episode. But I repeat that I held this to depend very much on the type of character that each of us has, that, in short, [we might] experience the various feelings [to a] greater or lesser [extent]. At any rate, one thing that really struck me, that for me was important, it seems to me that the day after – the 3rd, I believe – still in your presence, we returned to the villa, especially in the outside parts, to do a sort of crime-scene inspection together with Amanda Knox. On that occasion, I recall that at a certain point, I asked you to allow her to enter the lower storey, in order to ask her if she had noticed anything. Because in the meantime, the young men had told me that there was a cat that was bleeding from one ear, a cat that regularly visited the house and who was bleeding from its ear. In that moment, I recall that I gave the plastic “spats” as I call them [NdT: i.e. shoe-covers] to Knox, and I put my spats on watching Knox to see if she had in fact put them on. Knox looked at me, and made that move, that famous move with swaying hips and pelvis, and saying “voila!” and laughing. I was left perplexed for a moment, since the situation, since I was about to make her enter inside an apartment where there were bloodstains, since we were on the site of a crime. There, something went and made a further piece [of the puzzle] for me then, regarding what the girls from the upper [storey] had declared, and regarding what my men had told me, that had seen this type of behaviour in the evening in the Questura. And I said at that point, this type of behavior allows me to have an investigative intuition and to go pay particular attention [NdT: Giobbi here uses his own coined word “attenzionare” similar to “attentionise” or “attentionate”] to Amanda Knox. Other than this, I recall that one evening, now I cannot be very precise in the dates, however thus there were all the minutes/transcripts [i.e. the witnesses who were being taken down for minutes] who were going to give testimony [NdT: again, Giobbi uses “testare” i.e. “to make one’s will” to signify “testimoniare” i.e. “to give evidence”] during those dates, one evening then, we decided to call only Amanda Knox to the Questura to listen to her [i.e. hear her evidence]. I remember that there was a series of phone calls from the guardroom to say that there was Mr Sollecito at the entry to the Questura who was insisting, even with rather forceful behavior, on seeing Amanda – in short, even with a certain insistence in a rather forceful manner, they said to me down in the guardroom – which he was then, it seems to me, actually permitted to do, I believe he actually was. He was brought up and was present, in short – he remained there near his girlfriend inside the rooms of the Flying Squad. On the one hand, there is this. On the other hand, the one that then led me – I am still speaking at this point of feelings/sensations, because I would like to remind [you] that we are [sic. i.e. “were”] in an initial, very early, phase, we are at the beginning. That is to say, at the beginning we do not have the DNA that tells us something. The first two or three days we don’t have the scientific/forensic evidence/comparisons, so as investigators we nonetheless have to progress with the classic investigations that are also formed of sensations/feelings, they are also formed of the answers given in a certain way, of a review, as I repeat, of the behaviors and of the psychological reactions. I remember very clearly that in the afternoon, I heard my colleague Profazio telling me “Fabio [sic], there’s a very interesting phone call”, and it was the intercepted phone call, that was going on between the father of Sollecito and Sollecito himself. In the course of this phone call, the father was talking about organizing the degree-graduation party. I remember that he was saying that relatives had to come, and they had to be put up/housed, and they had to sleep at [his] home, and so on. At a certain point, the father asked him if he had been heard [NdT: i.e. questioned], interrogated, and he beseeched Sollecito not to take with him the knives he said he was, in short, obsessed with. Especially when he went to the Questura to not take them because he said “this is a very serious thing”, and so on and so on. It seems to me that Sollecito replied to him “I've already been there. They didn't find anything of the sort on me”. But other than the content of the phone call, what really struck me was the distance that he had during the conversation with his father, that Sollecito demonstrated during this conversation…
GB:
At this point the contradiction begins. These phone calls will now be transcribed, even this one that is part of a longer phone call. And then others followed. Otherwise I would have to ask you what there is before or after this phone call, and at any rate, your sensations do not interest us.
GCM:
On the content of the intercepted phone calls, you cannot report. They will be the object from [sic] where the relevant transcriptions are requested, respecting the related formalities, they can be acquired and used. Certainly if this listening-in gave you an input for your investigations - otherwise we will not be able to identify and to understand – to explain it. But this, in the limits of this, as far as the sensations are concerned … especially the reasons for investigative activity, maybe if you could look briefly on the investigative activity itself.
EG:
This is the investigative activity, President, that I was telling you in the light of these acquisitions, that are then also considered on the basis of [our] professional experience, we decided to hear [i.e. question] the two, Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, inside the Questura on the evening prior to the arrest warrant issued by the Public Prosecutor. This is, shall we say, in broad outlines, the investigative path that I personally carried out, together with colleague Profazio, in support and assistance to the Flying Squad.
GM:
Do you recall that night of 5 to 6 November, what the various passages/phases were, without entering into the merit of the declarations, but what were the developments, and what then led to the arrest?
EG:
Above all, we began – as judiciary police – with witness summaries/recaps [NdT: “sommarie informazioni]. These summaries/recaps were carried out at the same time in two different rooms by two different teams of investigators. I and Profazio did not participate, but we remained, shall we say, like a sort of control panel in order to try and understand what the contradictions were. Because we reached [this point] also on the basis of contradictions that emerged during the course of the various witness summaries/recaps. There was this evolution. There was, shall we say, the possibility during the development of these witness recaps/summaries of asking questions to study more deeply, of putting [someone] at their ease. In short, it was a very ordinary thing, I would say, in the ordinariness of things. After which, when the declarations emerged that went against our feelings/sensations, beyond the aspect [sic: perhaps a typo, “aspetto” instead of “aspettative” i.e. “expectations”] of our competence, thus, that they no longer seemed to us to be witnesses, but that they had a completely other position, we – as you well know – in short, we called you and you can, and then it went as …
GM:
Do you remember what the behaviour was of the two at that moment, and afterwards?
EG:
During the SIT [“sommarie informazioni testimoniali” i.e. witness summaries/recaps], I cannot say.
GM:
Outside of the minutes [sic: i.e., the witness questioning/written recording], what happened in that moment in the Questura, especially [to] Amanda?
EG:
Yes, shall we say, Amanda was the one that had a little bit more of a display of behaviors, I don’t even know what terms to use. I could describe them, the displays of the two behaviors were completely different: very easy: Amanda was more emotional, she had much stronger reactions. I remember clearly great wails, great cries, great emotional howls. But this [was], then, shall we say, during the phase when she was giving Lumumba’s name above all, because I associated it to the fact that she recalled in that moment the specific episode. I should say that Raffaele Sollecito was, according to me, he had an absolutely gentleman-like behavior. He always replied. He was put completely at ease. We, in short, however, we did things, giving him water often. However, also he, at a certain point, the answers necessarily required closer examination because even in defence of the same witness, because if we have answers that are contradictory or answers that do not match up with our investigative acquisitions.
GCM:
The behaviors.
EG:
The behaviors, I’ve outlined them. Mr Sollecito was, shall we say, to my mind, because I did not participate, as I said at the beginning, I was a sort of intermediary control panel, that is to say Profazio and I, who were those who were in actual fact leading the inquiries, we got the information from the operators and investigators who were physically carrying out the summaries/recaps. However, I must say that Amanda’s howls could be heard in the corridor of the Questura, even though the room was closed. Mr Sollecito did not have the same attitude, a much more gentlemanly and calm/even-tempered manner.
GM:
Going back a few days, you were present in the Questura on the evening of the 2nd, from the 2nd to the 3rd?
EG:
Yes.
GM:
Do you recall, because then too there was a series of interrogations, do you recall what the behavior of the two was on the evening of the 2nd November? You spoke of the evening of the 5th to the 7th [sic].
EG:
I, as far as I can recall – so much time has passed – however, it seems a little bit overstepping the lines the behavior that Mr Sollecito had, it was only on the occasion when we were hearing/questioning Amanda Knox without his presence inside the Questura. Amanda always had the attitude that I don’t know how to define, because I am not a psychologist, however it seems to me [to be] an out of place behavior. That is to say, [it is] not a well-situated behavior inside [i.e. in the context/framework] of the fact.
GCM:
The evaluation of the behavior, [can] you describe it? What did it consist of?
EG:
The problem is finding the correct terms, according to me. On many occasions she was casual/carefree/impish/gamine, on other occasions – there you go – for example [in] an interrogation, she was desperate, but always unusual/particular/singular sensations/feelings. The thing that really struck me was certainly the episode of the move [NdT: the “voilà!!”, hip-shaking move], because in short the move, to me, it was a bit strange in that moment.
GM:
The day after, in effect.
EG:
Yes.
GM:
What activities did you then carry out? Did you do crime-scene inspections?
EG:
I carried out an activity, shall we say, for the role that is my duty/under my authority, of absolute coordination, presence and support to the investigators of the Perugia Questura. And my investigators, who, obviously I did not go to do the checks on the alibis of the young men who were [living] below, but I order [them] to do it. I participated with them H24 [sic: i.e. 24-hours?] almost, at least for the first 5 days. I recall perfectly that we had worked on average 20 hours a day on all the activities. Then we concentrated - once the Forensic [police] had told us about the presence of the famous Y-chromosome in the paper found inside the toilet and in the vaginal swab from the victim – on the search for this Y-chromosome; who it belonged to. And this was a second phase in my presence. Also because, I repeat, I remained in Perugia right up until Rudy Guede was captured in Germany.
GM:
If [sic] you were at the crime-scene inspection in Sollecito’s home when the knife was seized, or else on other occasions?
EG:
I participated, along with you, in the crime-scene inspection. I recall perfectly that I found a list of the tableware present in Sollecito’s home. This, however, to my mind, was not the crime-scene inspection when the knife was found, when it seems to me that I was not physically present. I was in Perugia, but I did not go inside the house. I went in later, with the Forensic [police] and with you, and in that moment the list of tableware was found that I considered to be fundamental, very important, in light – in short – of the finding of the knife, that took place in a preceding phase.
GM:
What do you recall about this list?
EG:
About this list, I went immediately to seek the location of the kitchen cutlery, because shall we say there was a perfect correspondence. I remember above all the subject of the two long kitchen knives that, it seems to me, were actually written, of which one was a bread[knife]. It seems to me that it was thus.
GM:
The evening when you arrived, that is the evening of the 2nd, do you recall how the shutters of Romanelli’s room – that is to say, the highest of all the rooms - were positioned?
EG:
On sight, the external flaps/leaves were closed, that is, excuse me, I call them the external ones.
GM:
The green ones.
EG:
Yes. Then there was the broken glass.
GM:
Did you check whether these flaps/leaves were there?
EG:
No, I didn’t touch them. However, I must say that went immediately outside to see the possibilities of access from that window, that according to my experience were ...
GM:
Did you go into Romanelli’s room? Do you recall how…
EG:
Romanelli [sic] was the room where there was the broken window.
GM:
Yes.
EG:
I saw Romanelli’s room, and I saw a crazy mess. I saw the stone, I saw a load of pieces of glass [shards] that were on top of these jumbled clothes.
GM:
So the pieces of glass were on top of the clothes.
EG:
Yes.
GM:
So this particular/detail in all the [sic], that is to say the clothes were on top of the bed, or also on the floor?
EG:
I remember there were postcards on the floor, postcards that the tenant then said had been attached to the wall. Then there were certainly a load of clothes at the level of the wardrobe, that seemed to me were close to the window, spread out, the desk all in disorder, and under the desk other clothes and a paper bag.
GM:
And the pieces of glass were on top of the clothes?
EG:
Yes. In fact, I was even struck by this aspect, that many of the pieces of glass were on top of the clothes, not under.
GM:
The small bathroom. Do you recall – those were days of sunshine remember, they were days ...
EG:
I was in Rome. I don’t know.
GM:
To me, it seems that I remember they were rather fresh/cool days, but they were sunny. Do you remember how well you could see during the daytime in the little bathroom?
EG:
No, I don’t remember that.
EG:
No.
GM:
You don’t remember.
GM:
With the corridor [door] open?
EG:
Look, I don’t remember because I have to say, apart from the fact that I never went in there, I remember that the evening I made, shall we say, that internal tour, without however entering in the room where the body was, because Forensics were there.
GM:
Coming out of the small bathroom, so there’s the corridor, on the left, immediately to the left, what was there?
EG:
There’s the window – the French window.
GM:
Fairly big.
EG:
Yes. Let’s [just] say it allows access onto the little terrace.
GM:
From the little terrace – the lower one.
EG:
Yes.
GM:
Then there’s Meredith’s room.
EG:
On the right.
GM:
Where the window was.
EG:
Where the window was, yes.
GM:
Then.
EG:
Then on the left, there was the wardrobe, going towards the kitchen, on the right, the room ...
GM:
So at any rate, on the left, there was this very big door from which light entered.
EG:
These, in the following days, yes, from that window there, the light entered, certainly.
GM:
I have no other questions.

Serena Perna, Counsel for Stefanie Kercher

SP:
No questions for the time being.

Sabrina Scaroni, Counsel for civil plaintiff Patrick Lumumba

SS:
I wanted to know if you can tell me whether in those first days, up to, shall we say, the arrest of Messrs [sic] Sollecito and Knox, so from the 2nd to the 6th, you and your collaborators who were doing, in short, who collected the summaries/recaps, had occasion to tell the recap/summary-givers any particulars about the murder, about the criminal event in general, about how the events took place? Did you ever say to the recap-givers, “so, the event, this took place, the throat was cut, there was …”?
EG:
One of the two [sic] tenants [female] certainly communicated something.
SS:
No, I’m not saying what they told you, [but] what you communicated to them, that is to say ....
EG:
Whether between themselves, you say?
SS:
No. So, you and your collaborators, shall we say that you did not gather the recaps/summaries.
EG:
I also did so.
SS:
Also you. You, or anyone acting for you, in gathering the summaries/recaps, did you sit down [with] I don’t know, Filomena Romanelli, and say to her “listen, Miss Romanelli, so first you tell us what you know, we’ll tell you that Meredith Kercher died in this way … she had this …”. I wanted to know whether you ever reported particulars…
EG:
No. That, no.
SS:
Regarding the behaviour of Miss Knox, you said that how much [sic: typo, “quanto” i.e. as much/however much/etc. should be “quando” i.e. “when”] she was interrogated, you were doing shall we say, you were a sort of control panel, so you were not present. However I wanted to know whether you had a means of observing the behaviour of Miss Knox in the Questura in the moments of, shall we say, breaks, in the various moments when …
EG:
No.
SS:
You didn’t see her, so you don’t know.
EG:
I never went into that room.
SS:
No, in the room where she was being interrogated. But maybe when she was waiting?
EG:
On the occasion of the summaries/recaps in the evening.
SS:
Outside of the summaries/recaps, maybe when she was in the antechamber/waiting room, waiting for her turn to be heard.
EG:
I would have seen her maybe a couple of times while she was having a little break in the antechamber of the corridor of the Flying Squad, where she was drinking water, maybe this.
SS:
In those moments, then, you were able to observe particulars/details of the young lady’s behaviour.
EG:
No. She was drinking water. And then, in that moment, I had other [things to do].
SS:
You don’t remember.
EG:
No, it’s not that I don’t remember. I didn’t have time to see behaviours in that specific moment. We are talking about the moment of the summaries/recaps the evening before the arrest.
SS:
Only that, no. I was talking also about the previous days.
EG:
The previous days I saw her, as I said earlier, loads of times often [sic].
SS:
Apart from the episode of the “move”, I was saying, other episodes that, I don’t know, the fact that she was doing yoga, was doing …
EG:
No. That episode remained impressed on my mind. There are no others.
SS:
I have no other questions.

Knox Defense Counsel Luciano Ghirga

LG:
Today you reported having arrived in Perugia in late afternoon on 2 November, that is the day on which the body was found, and the evening you were in the Questura where numerous performances [of duty] were made, SIT[?]… that evening - I finish [sic] the question of my colleague of the civil party – did you observe Amanda during one of her summaries/recaps? Were you present?
EG:
No. I observed her in the waiting room. As soon as one enters the Flying Squad [offices], on the left there are the bathrooms, and then there is a square room with chairs. She was there, beside Sollecito. I then there [sic], obviously I had just arrived, she didn’t attract my attention much, I didn’t even know who it was. Afterwards, I asked who these people were, and I was told.
LG:
Regarding that evening, you spoke of the psychosomatic reactions, that is to say of the psychological aspect relative to the young men, Amanda – I’m speaking of Amanda – but also perhaps of Raffaele, from whom emerged some investigative cues, [if] I’ve understood well.
EG:
Investigative sensations/feelings. But comportmental behaviours, I am not a psychologist, so ...
LG:
No, you explained, you spoke of the psychosomatic reactions of the young people I tell you, if it is the same to say investigative cues of a psychological nature, shall we say, as you said in the initial phases.
EG:
Without scientific/forensic importance.
EG:
Exactly.
LG:
So I’ve understood correctly, then.
LG:
That episode that you were very struck [by] of the 3rd, of the following day.
EG:
I can’t fix the date exactly. I remember that we went ...
LG:
Amanda said if it could be the 4th, because Amanda was heard/questioned on the 2nd, the 3rd, the 4th and then the 5th and 6th. It was the following day. The 2nd there were these behaviours that you, as a good manager start to work [on], this episode that then struck you, even if you are very detached [sic], is the following day.
EG:
I can’t answer you with certainty. It could be of the following [day], or of the day after that even. However I remained struck by the fact.
LG:
Or the 4th perhaps.
EG:
It is easily discoverable from the fact that on that day we went with the Prosecutor to do an actual external check, and it was also aimed, I seem to remember, at seeing where that stone could have been taken from that was found in the room.
LG:
So we’re at the evening of the 5th, then the night between the 5th and the 6th. To us it appears from other points of the investigation, also from the witness [evidence], that on that evening, around 21:30 only Sollecito had been called to the Questura. You, on the contrary, said that they were both made to be questioned/heard together.
EG:
No, I remember having said that they were called together on purpose.
LG:
You, but [sic] to us it appears from the testimony of your colleagues that only Amanda was called, and Raffaele Sollecito insisted on coming.
EG:
I gave direct orders to the investigators to take them. I, look, I remember it very well, because it was the first time that we carried out a sort [sic], of doing two SIT [recaps/summaries] in a simultaneous manner, and I said go get them. I seems to me they were in a pizzeria. I can tell you mathematical certainty. I remember perfectly well having arranged a technical tactic.
LG:
You took the question out of my mouth, that of hearing/questioning them together was a choice.
EG:
Absolutely, yes. I believe it was the only time that they were heard/questioned concurrently.
LG:
I remember that when Amanda was taken for summary/recap, [for] the first information, by other people, you were in the control room with Profazio.
EG:
I, with Profazio, was in the control room the evening of the arrests.
LG:
That is to say, you were not present at the moment of the SIT, of the summaries/recaps of the witnesses.
EG:
But that, the evening [sic].
LG:
No, here we have arrived at the 5th, in the evening, when you called them both as a result of an investigative strategy.
EG:
The 5th evening.
LG:
So you were not present when Amanda gave a witness summary/recap.
EG:
No.
LG:
However, recall that at a certain point the PM [pubblico ministero], the Public prosecutor Dr Mignini. What happened? If you [can] recall without going into the content.
EG:
I recall the passage was described to the Public Prosecutor – everything that had happened that according to us we could not proceed with the SIT, because to my feeling there was a different position.
LG:
Of suspects, so we understand each other.
EG:
Exactly. My feeling yes. I recall that I asked Dr Mignini, in short that I said “Look, I am interrupting the questioning/written record because I am not continuing, because I must stop”.
LG:
Do you recall what happened then? The PM came?
EG:
Yes.
LG:
And the spontaneous declarations were gathered.
EG:
I... the spontaneous declarations of whom?
LG:
On the part of Amanda Knox.
EG:
On the part of the PG [procuratore generale, i.e. Attorney General].
LG:
Certainly they were taken by the Public prosecutor the spontaneous declarations by Amanda Knox, you were not present.
EG:
I was present in there, however, in short, it is a detail that I maybe learned later, I learned it later.
LG:
No, I’m asking you to be precise. We are at 5:45 in the morning, the Public Prosecutor has arrived, and in the case files there is, there are some spontaneous declarations in the sense of Article 350.
EG:
Yes, there are.
LG:
You were present in the moment when Amanda ...
EG:
I was not present in the moment when the here [present] Public Prosecutor took the summaries/recaps.
LG:
You were not present.
EG:
I was inside the Flying Squad [offices].
LG:
No, if you were there, where ...
EG:
In the room, no.
LG:
Listen, since I know who you are and I know you, I ask you another question which I think you will answer with absolute certainty. I heard it on the television, me, on the “Storie” programme in the winter of 2008 on a Saturday, on tg2 channel; you gave an interview to a programme on tg2, “Storie”, which is broadcast on Saturday evenings around midnight.
EG:
No.
LG:
I heard it, myself.
EG:
I gave two interviews representing the department of public security to an English channel and to an American one.
LG:
Then I heard it on “Storie”.
EG:
I did not give interviews to “Storie”.
LG:
The question is this: did you give interviews to “Storie”?
EG:
No.
LG:
[A] programme of the tg2 [channel] that is broadcast at 23:30 on Saturdays. I saw it?
EG:
I did so many interviews.
LG:
Do you know what you said? Two things: one that you arrived in the afternoon and that you immediately suspected them because of the kisses they gave [each other] outside the house. I heard it myself. So we will acquire that transmission. Instead, it turns out that you arrived in the late evening. Then you said that there came …
EG:
Pardon me, the trial/process, it seems to me that it is done here [sic], however I don’t know what you are saying, that is to say, that is an interview, I haven’t understood.
LG:
I am challenging your facts. One I said was released, you said not. To recall better to your mind the circumstance I’m telling you, one that the suspects of a psychological nature, since I am the lawyer of Amanda when I heard [it] I … unless I take on such public responsibilities of a lunacy, it seems too much to me. You said that from the bases [sic; possible typo “basi” instead of “baci” i.e. “kisses”] outside, remember, President, that when the Postal Police [and] the Carabinieri chased [sic] them all out of the house.
MC:
Let’s ask the question.
LG:
The question was this: whether you remember better the circumstance, that the suspicions of a psychological nature arose because of the two young folks’ behaviour, who were kissing and caressing each other, were holding hands outside the house, in the immediacy [sic] of 14:00 – that photo that was always broadcast. The second thing, then I’ve finished, do you recall whether it was decided to call them separately, still for procedural strategic reasons, that is to say, the opposite of what you say today – do you not recall this?
EG:
I repeat that since my office, I for that matter head a division that has enormous compentencies in all sectors, from stalking to robberies/muggings and homicides. We, unfortunately, I say, because it is a thing that for that matter I do not like very much, are often sent to represent the institutions in television. I can tell you that as far as I recall, I personally have never been on the Storie programme. Then, with regard to the historical content of the declarations, and even if they took place, that is to say, I mean to say they might even have been said on purpose in order so as not to say what actually happened, because I, what truly happened I say it in court, I don’t say it on television.
LG:
Indeed, the marvel was also this. Thank you for answering this way, so it will thus be our activity on our part to find this.

Knox Defense Counsel Maria Del Grosso

MDG:
I wanted to know whether you knew the time spent by Amanda Knox in the Questura from the 2nd to the 6th, the date of the arrest.
EG:
The overall time you are asking? Can you be more precise?
MDG:
Was she called every day, did she spend several hours per day.
EG:
I, she did at least 3 or 4 SIT (summaries/recaps).
MDG:
For how long each time, do you recall?
EG:
According to our needs for getting [the summaries]. I don’t have a stopwatch, I don’t go around with stopwatches.
EG:
The longest was the last one.
MDG:
It was a question, if you know.
MDG:
Do you recall how much time she was examined [i.e. questioned] for [during] the night between the 5th and the 6th?
EG:
If the lawyer said earlier that the Public Prosecutor arrived at 5:45, let’s say 5 or a bit before, because I obviously notified to come here [sic], to come to the Questura. As a beginning [time], it would have been after 10, however, that with regard to the timetable I can say that I haven’t studied the case files by memory.
MDG:
No, since from the case files it can’t be seen. You spoke, you used the term of “ordinary management. Now, this ordinariness in the moment when the minutes/written record were interrupted, should [it] not have included an invitation to appoint a personal defence [lawyer] in the face of the …?
EG:
I called the Public Prosecutor to share this aspect with him.
MDG:
Thank you.

Sollecito Defense Counsel Giulia Bongiorno

GB:
I would like to start from the moment in which you entered the lower floor, you said that you had seen a lot of blood. But can you describe for me actually, you spoke of a duvet soaked with blood. How much blood?
EG:
On the duvet there was a great deal, on the one side the …
GCM:
It is the duvet that covered the victim.
GB:
President, [we are talking about] the floor below.
EG:
The lower floor, precisely. One enters the kitchen ...
GB:
I asked the question when you entered the lower floor, this blood, if you could describe to me how much there was and where it was.
EG:
Such a lot there was. And there was, going in it seems to me that you enter [directly] into the kitchen, on the right the first room going to the right, the first door on the right, there was this bed, and on it was this duvet, in complete disorder, where we saw traces of blood, traces of blood that were significant, extensive.
GB:
Duvet. You mean, just to understand, duvet-mattress cover, you mean.
EG:
I don’t mean a mattress cover, no. I mean a [bed]cover.
GB:
When you say to me lots of blood, blood that made you think of [it] as an investigative starting-point, that could have come from a wound or that there could have been serious acts of violence.
EG:
I had to ascertain immediately whether the homicidal action had started down there, that is the body, since the body was upstairs. I had to check as a first activity whether the scene, if the place below had any connection with the dynamics of the murder. This was, shall we say, it forced me do this, because I even lost time.
GB:
But I wanted to understand, other than this ...
EG:
No, there were other [blood]stains even. I, the ones that I remember, see, there were a pair over the light switch, I don’t know if you can remember what the apartment below was like? Going in, instead of on the right, on the left as you go in – you enter, there’s the kitchen, going to the left, then, at the back on the left, there’s a sort of long rectangular room, that then leads to a bathroom, a bathroom where there’s a shower without the shower-tray. At the beginning of this room, at the level of the light switch, and this aggravated even further my initial conditions [sic], above there were some blood stains.
GB:
But a what height?
EG:
Over the light switch, the standard position of switches for turning on the light of the room, over that switch it seems to me it was, but they were small stains, I mean to say, small, visible to the naked eye, but small. Carrying on, and going then into the bathroom, it seems to me there were [blood]stains on the flooring in the area of the shower, that the window of the bathroom, which is a small window, and that it was open. It was open.
GB:
So these traces were on this switch, in these three rooms that you have described.
EG:
Yes. Confirmative. What I remember from the state of affairs is this, and of this I am absolutely certain, in short.
GB:
But at what time did you enter in that apartment on the lower storey?
EG:
It seems to me that I entered, certainly, so the evening that I arrived, and then the day after.
GB:
This quantity of blood, was it a quantity of blood compatible with the blood coming from the ear of a cat?
EG:
On the moment, look, I could think of anything except that. I immediately though, I tell you the truth, but I had to check it whether it was the victim’s blood. Naturally I thought that, because I mean to say, there was so much.
GB:
So much. Do you mean to say that one could actually see large patches?
EG:
There were big patches on the [bed]cover.
GB:
Afterwards, on all these patches of blood, according to you, do you know what type of checks were carried out?
EG:
I immediately asked Dr Stefanoni to bring forward the checks on the blood from downstairs, because obviously it changed the whole aspect of my approach to the case if, as I said to you earlier, if I had had, that is to say, I had to wait for confirmations on the blood group of the blood, or at least on the compatibility of the blood group with that of the victim. Because if the criminal action, that is the action of the murder, had taken place downstairs, in short, it changed several things for me. And I remember that then later, hearing the young men, I said: “look, there’s blood down there”, I was told about the cat, that had a wounded ear.
GB:
Just to understand: a wound on the ear?
EG:
What I remember was said to me was that for many days there had been this cat that usually visited the house, and that they even left the window of the small bathroom open on purpose to allow it to enter, that it had a wound on its ear that was being treated and it seems to me that I remember that Meredith’s boyfriend at the time also said to me that he had given Meredith the task of treating that wound during the day[s] when he was not there. Now, objectively, I said to myself, “but how could it lose all that blood”.
GB:
That was the question that I wanted to ask you.
EG:
No, I asked myself, certainly. Because at least the blood on the duvet, to me it looked like so much.
GB:
You said to Dr Stefanoni “I would like to do these analyses on the lower storey”.
EG:
No, I said to her “you must do these tests for me immediately in order to check whether the blood on this duvet is the blood of the victim”, those were [my] words.
GB:
What happened?
EG:
She told me it was from the cat.
GB:
All this blood.
EG:
Yes.
GCM:
This fact was compatible with the quantity of the {incomprehensible).
GB:
Perhaps it was compatible. It was also said to me I know a few days, [it] was wounded and it was said to me that usually it rubbed [itself] a great deal on the soft parts of the ear. This was told me. Now I don’t know how many days.
GCM:
But the compatibility as regards quantity?
EG:
As regards quantity, I was perplexed. That is in the sense “Wow! How much blood that cat has!” in Roman dialect, but it was that.
GB:
This, how was the story of the blood on the light switch explained to you?
EG:
That the cat jumped.
GB:
This is what was said to you?
EG:
That obviously, moving around inside the apartment.
GB:
But how high is this switch?
EG:
The standard height used by the electricians, the one for the central/room light.
GB:
But that was a joke that you made to me, or did you really ask yourself “how on earth is there blood [here]?”?
EG:
No, I asked it – still of the young men. He [sic] said that the cat often stopped in that room where I found only the two stains. It seems to me, I don’t want to make a mistake, that in that place there were clothes hung to dry, and maybe also on some clothes there were these bloodstains, now that I remember better.
GB:
Other than you, how many people saw that which you are describing for us?
EG:
Certainly Dr Profazio, together with me, the Forensic police, the Public Prosecutor [who was] immediately notified, and then let’s say, I now, I don’t remember whether there were some of my collaborators entered with me to do the crime-scene inspection. It could be, yes. We talked of it a lot, that is to say, the investigative squadron all knew about this fact of the blood downstairs, everyone knew it.
GB:
But you, what experience, for how many years have you carried out your work?
EG:
85 [sic].
GB:
On the basis of this experience that has developed since [19]85 until now, have you never come across so much blood in a room and then discovered that it was not …?
EG:
No. It is the first time that it has happened to me.
GB:
Nonetheless, you reported all this. You are not saying this for the first time.
EG:
No, absolutely, certainly. We reported [it] because then, even with the public prosecutor, I meant to say, who always at whatever time of the day or night, there was really a relationship of interpreting together, of exchange of ideas and situations and all that, a very good relationship.
GB:
Excuse me, there were also little cat footprints?
EG:
That I don’t remember. There was also blood, I don’t know if it was blood, on the stairs that led from downstairs to above, that open staircase that is there.
GB:
But still so much blood?
EG:
No, little stains.
GB:
Little stains.
EG:
Yes.
GCM:
Little stains of ...
EG:
Unlike the duvet, for me there was blood out there on the steps, that then were left open to the skies, in short. There were little stains and they might be, but they also might not be it [i.e. blood?].
GB:
You said that you entered the apartment above on the evening of the 2nd?
EG:
yes.
GB:
Do you recall if you went into all the rooms, did you walk in all the rooms?
EG:
No, I tell you in the room where the body was, I did not enter. I did not enter, I saw it from the corridor, because I remember that at a certain point there was Dr Mignini, that he had also an overall and all that, and was waiting to be able to go in, whereas I concentrated on the outside part, to checking at least to give a justification, or to go to see what type of person could have entered.
GB:
But in the following days, did you enter the room of the crime?
EG:
I entered the room of the crime, certainly, while the verifications were being carried out on the latent prints in order to check the wardrobe, because I had seen from the corridor that there were spatters of blood on the lower part of the wardrobe.
GB:
On what date, if you recall?
EG:
I don’t recall absolutely. The crime-scene inspection by Forensics was under way.
GB:
Was that the first time that you entered?
EG:
In the room of the crime, I believe so.
EG:
Yes.
GB:
You entered with the typical clothing.
GB:
How were you dressed?
EG:
I had my clothes, I had “spats” and gloves.
GB:
You didn’t have an overall and a mask?
EG:
No, overall and mask, no.
GB:
You went into the room of the crime, and what did you do on that occasion?
EG:
I went to see simply the issue of the wardrobe, of the doors. I remember because the body was positioned in a way, however in reality the spatters of blood were on another, shall we say, in order to check, they were not in front or near, they were put [sic], the head between the bed and the wardrobe and the spatters were in a diagonal towards the bottom, on the two [wardrobe] doors.
GB:
When you entered, were the doors still attached to the wardrobe? Because we know that they were later removed.
EG:
Yes.
GB:
So you enter [sic] that time, and see these spatters of blood on the still-attached [wardrobe] doors?
EG:
Yes. I said that I entered. I don’t recall properly when, but the doors were attached because I recall that I checked the spatters.
GB:
When you enter of course you remember the doors, and what activity did you carry out on that occasion?
EG:
I stooped down, still standing, to look for a moment in this way, for ten [or] fifteen seconds I’d say, and then I went out.
GB:
What did you look at on the ground. Did you look at the flooring?
EG:
I looked at, shall we say, the big spatter of blood that there was on the flooring in front of the wardrobe, then I sought to interpret for a moment the trajectories of the spurts.
GB:
While you were walking, [did] you have shoe-covers? Were you I’m waiting [sic: typo: “attendo ” i.e. “I’m waiting” instead of “attento” i.e. “careful”] whether you trod on anything, or else not …?
EG:
No no. I was extremely careful.
GCM:
You were walking inside the room.
EG:
To reach the wardrobe, I walked.
GCM:
Because you were on foot, and you bent over?
EG:
Yes. I didn’t put my hands on the ground I remember well, so that thus lowering myself for a moment, without going on my knees, I remained on my feet. I was walking, always looking to see if there was something that could give…
GB:
So you paid attention to that flooring where, amongst other things, you saw that spatter? Do you remember, for example, whether on the flooring there was a cushion? There were objects on the flooring when you went in?
EG:
But objects on the route that takes [one] to the wardrobe, I believe not.
GB:
A little mat?
EG:
I don’t recall it now.
GB:
You don’t recall either a little mat or a cushion?
EG:
No. You know what it is, that I don’t want to cause confusion about that which I later acquired/collected as informative heritage [sic. i.e. evidence]. It’s clear that I was told that there was a cushion, because later on that cushion we found a palm print of Rudy Guede, and so for me the cushion is there. But I don’t recall clearly having seen that cushion, in the sense that it’s clear that it was there. I don’t know if I’ve put that in focus. I was not going searching for objects that evening.
GB:
But just so we understand, if you remember a flooring on which you say to me “Attorney, there were many objects”, I don’t know. Or else “I don’t recall very much stuff”.
EG:
There was not that much stuff, from the entryway up to the wardrobe, it seems to me that I didn’t come across very much. That is to say, for me, the stuff in a state of disorder was more in the area of the bed and on the desk.
GB:
So if I asked you if you had seen a little piece of cloth, that then is that famous little piece of bra, you would say to me...?
EG:
Attorney, in all sincerity, I tell you that I did not see it.
GB:
Now I find [in front of] myself a minutes/report of 7 November 2007, from 14:30 hours, in which you figure. Do you recall what you went to do on 7 November at 14:30 hours?
EG:
Look, I – as you will have noticed with the dates – I can say that I remember having drafted/written only one significant minutes/report, that was on the occasion when we went to check the clothes inside the washing machine.
GB:
I will maybe show it to you, as soon as I read it, and thus you can then confirm for me. It is because I am interested by one thing: understanding whether that which you described to me is [from] another occasion, or the same [one], and why [on] this there’s a precise date. In this way I’ll be able to situate your recollections. This is a definite minutes/report, 7 November 2007, 14:30 hours, and there’s you Giobbi, there’s Profazio, there’s Gentili, there’s Moscatelli, and what do you do? You proceed with the sequestration of a white-coloured computer, the Buck, taken from the desk situated inside the room where the body of Meredith Kercher was found. So from this here, I, maybe I’ll show it to you in a moment thus, [I] gather that you, on that date, entered the room.
EG:
No. In the room, no. I entered Meredith Kercher’s room for a moment. I entered the house, and I devoted myself to the washing machine together with Moscatelli and Gentili. It was Profazio who went into the room, I don’t even know in what way he entered, because I was at the washing machine, which is in the opposite part of the house. We did that collection of clothes [i.e. from the washer] and left. I did not go in there on that occasion. That is certain.
GB:
Because the occasion, the one on the contrary that you described to me first when you went in; it is before or after this minutes/report?
EG:
I can’t say. I believe before, because you are talking to me of the 7th.
GB:
This minutes/report says the 7th. [On] the 6th there’s a search. According to you, how did you find the room? Did you go before or after the search? Did you find the room with clothes piled up on the slats of the bed-base, or a tidy room?
EG:
I repeat, I did not see disorder on the flooring. I tell you that which …
GB:
But there’s a minutes/report in which it is attested that you entered there, and that you were in the room of the crime.
EG:
There was the Forensics crime-scene inspection under way, there was the open minutes of the crime-scene inspection.
EG:
Yes.
GB:
That one there.
GB:
On the contrary, on this occasion for which I have the minutes/report, you [sic] only Profazio entered.
EG:
But why should we then do [sic], shall we say, I believe that there is the minutes/report on the sequestration of the clothes.
GB:
At any rate, instead, on this occasion for which I have this minutes/report, you were there but did not go in.
EG:
No. On that occasion I did not go into the room, because I repeat I really liked the idea of the clothes in the washing machine, I concentrated on that.
GB:
Did you have occasion, yes or no, to observe the means by which Profazio entered? How much time he was in there?
EG:
No. I’ve just told you that I did not see by what means he entered because the washing machine, from the washing machine it seems to me that there is no visibility of the corridor. I was thus concentrating on doing this collection from the drum [of the washing machine].
GB:
The mattress was on the slats [of the bedbase] when you went in?
EG:
No, look, I actually, I hold that when I went in the mattress was on the slats [of the bedbase].
GB:
Other than this occasion that you said, that you went to see the little drips of blood, do you recall if you went back into the house.
EG:
Below?
GB:
Upstairs for now.
EG:
No. I concentrate [on] these moments here. Then I entered one evening with the Public Prosecutor, when we showed the knives of the house on via Della Pergola to the co-tenants, and there was also the young lady.
GB:
It’s possible that was the 4th.
EG:
Probably, if you say so. Certainly on that occasion there, I also entered. We remained in the kitchen, where then also there, in the kitchen, she had – on showing these knives – Amanda even had a reaction even there, in short.
GB:
When you were inside the house, did you always see the other people who were in the house with the precautions and the single-use gloves, or were you able to see, or are you unable to tell me?
EG:
No. I can tell you that because Forensics, it’s true that we are part of the same management, however Forensics on this [matter] was crazily thorough/rigorous, because they enforced on anyone who was entering first in the house to all put on at the very least “spats” and gloves. I always put on “spats” and gloves.
GB:
These gloves were used differently/otherwise to touch all the objects?
EG:
I always took them from two cardboard boxes that were placed, it seems to me, around in front of the house door, and were closed like little hankie [boxes] that open.
EG:
Exactly.
GB:
That one takes them and enters.
GB:
My question was, do you know whether every time that an object was touched, [or] an [exhibit] was collected ...
EG:
No, I can’t tell you that.
GB:
You already know my question?
EG:
I have already understood what you mean to say – were the gloves changed?
GB:
Yes. Are you able to say so, can you exclude it, you don’t know.
EG:
As far as I’m concerned, I did not touch almost anything. In short, I mean to say, I did not change them, but it’s not as though I went [around] touching and doing. Every time that I entered and exited, I took them [off], scrunched them up, and threw them away.
GB:
You, as a method, you took a pair when you entered, and then when you exited you threw them away.
EG:
Me, yes. But I didn’t touch almost nothing [sic], or in fact, nothing at all, shall way say.
GB:
The others, can you tell me?
EG:
The others, I know, I can tell you because it was a nightmare, because I remember in particular that it will even [sic], that is to say, in those days I slept very little. Every time I had to put my “spats” on, standing on one leg only, I reeled/tottered, and so every time I (word not clear) that I had to put the “spats” on, I always put them, and I remember perfectly that both Stefanoni and, it seems to me, Giunta –who was the one [doing] the latent prints – would not let anyone enter without “spats” and without gloves. On this I am sure.
GB:
This reaction of Knox’s that you described to us today, and that obviously struck you, it was seen that, it is an element on which you said “I really focused attention”, did it then form the subject of one of your reports?
EG:
No.
GB:
How on earth did you not consider it an element?
EG:
I reported it verbally to the Public Prosecutor, but that, I mean to say, if I do a report that Miss Knox does a move, apart, I mean to say, I don’t write it. But it is not a decisive element for the investigations. That is to say, it was my, on my experience, a behaviour [that was] not very relevant to the situation in which we found ourselves. I did not consider it necessary to write a report about the move.
GB:
You said that at a certain point you heard Amanda howl/shout while you were outside.
EG:
Yes.
GB:
On what day.
EG:
I heard Amanda howl on two occasions. The first occasion when there was the identification of the knives inside the house. The second occasion was the night of the arrest, and it was reported to me by my colleagues that there was particular situation, because [she/you] spoke of …
GB:
But did you hear her how, or was it reported to you?
EG:
No no, I heard her howl. I immediately went closer and they were reporting to me that in that moment there was a confession, or that is to say, that speech, there was an “absenting”? [sic: “assenzione” i.e. typo, should be “asserzione” i.e. “assertion”?].
GB:
When there were these howls/shouts, you did not consider [it necessary] to interrupt the minutes/written record, and do ...?
EG:
It was interrupted.
GB:
At which point you said “I said that the minutes/written record should be halted and I called the Public Prosecutor”?
EG:
Exactly.
GB:
So you represented to the Public Prosecutor that there was a need for a lawyer.
EG:
Absolutely. I maybe did not represent it to him, because it was maybe offensive to tell him that, in the sense that he knows it better than me.
GB:
I have no other questions.

Sollecito Defense Counsel Luca Maori

LM:
Let’s return to this reaction of Amanda’s on the day of the 4th at the sight of the knives. Describe for us her reaction.
EG:
I was very struck by that reaction, because it was a reaction that was the exact opposite of a slightly carefree behaviour that Amanda had had, and [was] unique compared to the other witnesses who were present.
LM:
Who was present?
EG:
It seems to me that there was Amanda and there was Romanelli and Mezzetti. Profazio and I were there, there was you/she, and that was the situation. There was a completely unique reaction of its type and very emotional.
LM:
What caused this reaction, and describe it to us.
EG:
I think it was linked to the fact that we were showing all the girls the drawer in order to ask if the knives were [all] present, and if the positioning of the knives inside the drawer was as they recalled, or perhaps not. I don’t know. However, even here so much time has passed. I don’t know if Amanda had actually seen them, precisely in consideration of the reaction that she had.
LM:
What reaction did she have?
EG:
Of loud wailing, and also there of shouting/screaming. I remember that she then straight away put/sat/threw? herself on the couch that was there, in the pantry in front of the kitchen table, and we also there had a suspended moment [sic], I remember.
LM:
Describe for us, first you showed these knives to the two Italian girls, or not?
EG:
All three were there. I remember that we made them come close to the drawer saying, “open this drawer, please, and check whether the knives that you know as being [part of] this house’s equipment are all present, and if they are in the position in which you usually put them”. Because obviously, even I, in my house, I put the knives for eating in one place, and the long ones, for cutting, we put them in another drawer. I remember that the two Italian girls did it, they even spoke to me of knives that, it seems to me, they all had blue handles in the house on via Della Pergola. And I repeat that there was this reaction, that I don’t remember now whether it was preventive/precautionary [sic] with regard to the opening of the drawers and that thus, that Amanda did not actually open these drawers. I consider that it was so, however.
LM:
What did Amanda say? Did you then ask her something?
EG:
Me, no.
LM:
Do you know if she was asked?
EG:
No, I was observing her reaction.
LM:
Was a doctor called?
EG:
I don’t remember.
LM:
I have no other questions.

Judge Massei

GCM:
The report relating to the deposition of the witness Sbardella Pietro is acquired [for the case files] and made available by the Public Prosecutor. The other report was already acquired. The reservation on the acquisition of the other documents indicated by the Public prosecutor for an overall evaluation is confirmed in view of the fact that the defence [teams] reserved [for themselves the right to] conclude on the point. The next hearing is set for 5.06.2009 at 09:30 hours, [with] the recall of Dr Lalli on the points specified by the Public Prosecutor, and in accordance with what the Public Prosecutor requested. For the same date of 5.06 the questioning of the consultants and witnesses of the defence [team] of the civil party Kercher is ordered, and send to the registry office in order to summons the previously-mentioned English interpreter. Furthermore, the defence of the civil party Lumumba on the... [part of the translation is missing here]
SS:
[part of the translation is missing here] ... crime of calunnia is invited, this is the point. So report to Miss Knox that it is not a medical examination on Miss Knox, obviously, on the/her personality, but with reference to the subjective element of the crime of calunnia.
GCM:
On this aspect, we reserve the right to evaluate.
MDG:
In these terms, the Knox defence [team] holds that the circumstances which the examination of the Doctoressa ought to concern are absolutely inadmissible, and at any rate reserves [the right] to conclude better at the next hearing, with regard to the next hearing [sic], with regard to this request.
GCM:
We can complete Dr Lalli[‘s questioning] on these two points that seem rather limited, and proceed with the examination of the civil party Kercher’s witnesses and the consultants, which will take up the whole day. It is ordered that once the said trial activity is completed, [we] will proceed with the examination of the defendant Amanda Knox as requested, and still in the same (word not clear), we don’t know in this context how to establish the times that will be necessary for hearing/questioning the consultants, and above all we don’t know if the defendant Amanda Knox will subject herself or not to examination, [or] of how much time the same [examination] will require if she submits to examination. Most likely it will be updated on 12 June, and [we] invite the defence [teams] of the defendants to kindly send the witnesses that they wish to examine for the hearing immediately following on the 19th and onwards, that will go to lodge/register the 5 days before the hearings already indicated, with the exclusion of the 18th June that is repealed, the 12 and the 13th we leave for the examination of the defendant. The hearing is thus adjourned until the hearing of 5 June.