Matteini Report (English)

From The Murder of Meredith Kercher
Jump to: navigation, search
This is an English language translation of the testimony. See Matteini Report for the original Italian transcript.

Thank you to Catnip from the PerugiaMurderfile.org community for this translation.

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

Justice Dr Claudia Matteini

having examined the procedural documentation indicated in the epigraph, in the matter of:

– DIYA, Lumumba, called Patrick, born in Kindu (Zaire) on 5 May 1963, resident of Perugia

– KNOX, Amanda Marie, born in Washington (USA) on 9 July 1987, domiciled in Perugia

– SOLLECITO, Raffaele, born in Bari on 26 March 1984, resident of Giovinazzo, domiciled in Perugia

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

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

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

[page 2]

found that the arrest warrant was executed for the crimes it pertains to

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

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

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

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

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

that there are grave indices of culpability, hereinafter specified,

that the terms of the law were respected,

FOR THESE REASONS

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

Having examined the petition submitted by the Public Prosecutor for an application for precautionary custody in prison regarding DIYA Lumumba, called Patrick, KNOX Amanda Marie and SOLLECITO Raffaele, it is necessary in the first place to note that the essential requirements for the purposes of an application for a precautionary order are grave indices of culpability and precautionary exigencies, and it is exactly the

[page 3]

extremities of these two requirements that must be bolstered by the evidence-in-chief of the investigations for the purpose of legitimatizing its adoption.

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

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

on the one side,

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

[and] on the other [side],

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

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

[page 4]

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

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

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

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

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

[page 5]

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

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

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

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

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

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

During the course of investigations, many ragazzi were interviewed who, during Meredith’s stay in Perugia, had had the means of knowing her and visiting her, and nothing specific came out regarding the

[page 6, incorrectly printed as page 7]

condition in which she was found, above all as pertaining to the discovery of bloodstains scattered and spread on the floor and on the wall.

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

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

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

On the date 5 November 2007, at 22.40, Sollecito, Raffaele, was again interviewed, modifying his version of the facts, affirming that on the evening of 1 November, after

[page 7]

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

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

She referred, further, to not being sure whether Sollecito, Raffaele, was also present but the morning after she found herself once again asleep in her boyfriend’s house on his bed; she then confirmed the declaration already made

[page 8]

pertaining to the unfolding of events from 10.00 in the morning, when she woke up, up until the arrival of the Polizia Postale.

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

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

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

[page 9]

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

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

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

Knox Amanda for her part, on the date 6 November, during the course of the preceding declarations, referred to Sollecito having spent the entire night with her, affirming to not remembering whether Sollecito

[page 10]

was present the night of 1st and 2nd November at the via della Pergola apartment together with Patrick, having consumed hashish in the afternoon and having therefore confused memories owing to not usually making use of such substances, but positively confirming that Sollecito was with her that morning after 10.00 having woken up on his bed.

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

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

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

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

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

[page 11]

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

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

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

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

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

The last confirmation of the closure of the locale before said time is found in the declarations of a regular customer, one Vulcano Gerado Pasquale, the which interviewed at sommarie informazioni

[page 12]

on the date 7 November 2007, referred to the fact that, on the night of the 1st November, he noticed, around 19.00, that the locale was closed, as well having noticed said circumstance much later on his return from the pizzeria.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[page 17]

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

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

[page 18; top left corner of fax is chopped off]

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

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

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

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

Perugia, 09 November 2007

Justice Dr Claudia Matteini (signed)

[Stamped:] Deposited in Chancery 9 NOV 2007 9.35am Chancellor B3 [stamped and initialled]