Mauro Barbadori's Testimony (English)

From The Murder of Meredith Kercher
Jump to: navigation, search
This is an English language translation of the testimony. See Mauro Barbadori's Testimony for the original Italian transcript.

Contents

Summary of Mauro Barbadori's Testimony

Mauro Barbadori is a police officer that participated in the investigation into the murder of Meredith Kercher. He participated in the search of the cottage on November 6, he collected and testified with respect to the CCTV video collected from the parking structure across near the cottage, and he reconstructed Meredith's route from her English friend's house to the cottage. He was also involved in setting up the audio surveillance used to listen on Sollecito and Knox's conversations in the police waiting room.

The November 6th Search of the Cottage

There was nothing noteworthy with respect to the testimony regarding the search.

The CCTV Footage

Barbadori testified that the parking structure across the street from the cottage had CCTV cameras that were activated by sensors that detected vehicles entering the structure. One of the cameras was situated so as to record not only the entrance to the parking structure but also the street just to the west of the cottage.

The CCTV Camera Was 10 Minutes Fast

Barbadori testified that the CCTV video was ten minutes fast and so to get the correct time you would need to subtract ten minutes from the time stated on the video. This calibration was accomplished by comparing the time on the camera during the collection to an accurate time taken from the Internet.

Defense attorney Bongiorno advanced an argument that there are alternative ways to calibrate a camera and suggested using phone records as fixed points. Barbadori acknowledged that any fixed point could be used but that he had not used that method. Instead he simply compared the time on the camera to the actual time from an accurate source.

Bongiorno advanced the argument that using the phone records and some of the footage it was possible to establish that the CCTV camera was actually slow rather than fast. Barbadori explained that he did not process the phone records and so could not respond to that question.[1]

Bongiorno asked Barbadori if he was the one who did the calibration. Barbadori stated it was one of the technicians. Bongiorno asked for the name of the technician and arrangements were made to have the name sent to her.

Possible Image of Meredith Returning To The Cottage

One of the items of interest that the CCTV camera captured was the figure of an individual returning to the cottage at 8:51 pm which once you adjust the time is 8:41 pm. The media was quick to publish that this image was the last time that Meredith was seen alive. The testimony is much less convincing. According to Barbadori's testimony you can't see the individual's face, you can't determine if the individual is male or female, you can't determine if the person is wearing a skirt or trousers, and while he feels comfortable stating the person had dark hair you he can't determine if the hair is short or long. In essence he can't identify the person on the CCTV video. The speculation that the image is of Meredith is based on the time corresponding to roughly the time that Meredith would be traveling that route.

The Communications Police

The other item of interest on the CCTV video are various images of the Communications Police arriving, looking for, and then heading toward the cottage. The initial arrival of the Communications Police is at 12:36 pm which is actually 12:26 pm. The Communication Police are looking for the cottage and as stated in their testimony originally went in the wrong direction. At 12:41 pm which is actually 12:31 pm the Communication Police are again seen this time heading directly toward the cottage and only a few meters from the front door. The significance of this is that it established that Knox and Sollecito called the emergency number to report the burglary after the Communications Police had already arrived.

Reconstructing Meredith's Walk Home

Barbadori was also responsible for reconstructing Meredith's walk from her friend's house to the cottage. He used the route that that Meredith is believed to have taken and included a pause at the point where Meredith parted ways with he walking companion. According to Barbadori the trip would have taken Meredith ten minutes.

A question was asked if Barbadori or anyone else did a similar simulation to determine the amount of time it would take for an individual to travel from the cottage to the location where Meredith's phones were discarded. Barbadori responded that no such simulation had been undertaken.

Surveillance of Knox and Sollecito in the Police Waiting Room

Barbadori was responsible for setting up equipment so that the police could hear what Sollecito and Knox discussed while waiting. Barbadori reports that one interception Knox was discussing a third person who they would not name. This intercepted conversation is what led police to believe that a third person was involved in the murder. On cross-examination Barbadori admitted that since the conversation between Knox and Sollecito was in English he had to rely on an interpreter for the contents.

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


Key to abbreviations
GCM Giancarlo Massei Judge Presidente
GM Giuliano Mignini Prosecutor Pubblico Ministero
MC Manuela Comodi Prosecutor Pubblico Ministero
MB Mauro Barbadori Witness being questioned Deputy Chief of the State Police
LG Luciano Ghirga Knox defense lawyer Avvocato
CDV Carlo Dalla Vedova Knox defense lawyer Avvocato

Mauro Barbadori's Testimony

....

Prosecutor Mignini

GM:
Did you carry out other investigative activities, did you participate in room taps/bugging?
MB:
Yes.
GM:
Do you recall which? On what day?
MB:
In the days immediately after the murder I carried out technical operations, that is to say, I installed bugging devices inside the office and then later also inside the jail.
GM:
Do you recall if they were on the 4th and the 17th November?
MB:
Well, during the 4th, certainly.
GM:
Let us dwell for a moment on the one of the 4th, without me asking you the content, I ask you … I ask you only this, in the meantime, between whom was the conversation taking place?
MB:
Look, they were doing, now I don’t remember exactly how many, it seems to me they were certainly making an intercepted [recording] in the office between Amanda and Raffaele.
GM:
I wanted to know this, if in fact the two were always talking with the same tone, or if at a certain point they lowered their tone, the tone of voice.
GB:
Maybe if we ask [him] to describe instead of …
GM:
to describe.
MB:
Look, the general feeling was that …
GB:
The general feeling in no way interests us, I believe.
GM:
I was talking of the tone.
GCM:
Yes, only objective facts.
MB:
Yes, the tone could be a bit higher/louder, a bit lower, as if they had the feeling that they might …
GCM:
that is to say, there was or there was not?
MB:
Yes, they could have the feeling … there was a louder/higher and a lower tone.
GCM:
A feeling constitutes an evaluation, so it is such a subjective element that it is not useable. The tone of voice was it always the same, high/loud, low?
MB:
No, in some cases it lowered.
GM:
I ask you another thing, it doesn’t concern the content, but it concerns on the basis of what elements did you then develop the investigations regarding this bugging? In particular, did Patrick’s name come up?
MB:
The name of Patrick, if I’m not mistaken, came out. That is to say, Amanda made reference to a person, I don’t remember exactly, a person … she didn’t say precisely Patrick, she cited a black man, now I don’t remember.
GCM:
Excuse me. The question of the Public Prosecutor only serves to ask you on the basis [sic], that is to say, from listening to this conversation did you take investigative cues, and if yes, which?
MB:
That there could have been, Amanda made reference to another person, there could be another person, that, yes.
GCM:
So you, what did you have, what investigative activities did you set in place with reference to this other person that was evoked/brought up in some way in the conversation?
MB:
The possibility that there might have been another person inside the house was assessed. Afterwards, the facts/data that followed were given to the Forensic [Police].
GM:
Do you recall; the lowering of the tone of voice of the two speakers, did it happen at the time of these assertions, or of others?
MB:
No, I don’t remember.
GM:
the other bugging, do you remember it?
GCM:
This is the one of the 4th.
GM:
Now, the other one, if you recall it.
MB:
No, honestly, I don’t recall it. Amongst other things, the buggings were in English. They were translated by the interpreters.
GM:
they were speaking in English? In these two buggings?
MB:
She was speaking in English, so the content was translated by the interpreter.
GM:
And Raffaele the same?
MB:
No, it seems not to me. Honestly, I don’t remember.
GM:
Did you do anything else?
MB:
No.
GM:
I have no other questions.
GCM:
The defence [teams] of the Civil Party have no questions. Please – [let’s hear] the defence [teams] of the defendants.

Defense – Attorney Ghirga

LG:
Attorney Ghirga, Amanda Knox defence. I’m talking about the bugging in the Questura of 4 November.
MB:
Yes.
LG:
You carried out the technical operations?
MB:
Yes, of positioning the bugs.
LG:
Did you also listen being in the Questura, or in another place, obviously?
MB:
Yes.
LG:
Was there also an interpreter for these?
MB:
No, I …
LG:
Do you know if there was an interpreter who then at any rate contributed …
MB:
the listening was delegated to an interpreter.
LG:
Do you recall the name?
MB:
An interpreter in force [sic. i.e. on duty?] at the Questura.
LG:
The question that you were already asked, and that I can ask you again; what investigative cues did you draw … in how much time, in how many phases did this bugging extend over? During the day of the 4th, from – to -?
MB:
I remember that it was interrupted in the moment when, if I’m not mistaken, Amanda and other co-tenants did an “on-the-spot inspection” in via della Pergola. So it was interrupted, and then subsequently it was reactivated. There was the interpreter who was listening to the communications.
LG:
Together with you?
MB:
Yes, obviously.
LG:
What investigative cues, relative to Amanda Knox and Raffaele, did you take from this bugging?
MB:
Cues. I repeat what I said earlier, [that] Amanda made reference to a third person.
LG:
Do you know the procedural/legal destiny of this third person? What developments it/he had, if there were any?
MB:
No, the fact/datum that emerged was not that Amanda identified this person, said the name or the surname.
LG:
No, the name, Amanda said it, she said it several times with a certain apprehension, if I may use the term “apprehension”. Let me recall to your mind that Amanda said the name, if you recall this? There’s a name.
MB:
There’s a name, however it’s not reportable.
LG:
Did this person ever become investigated?
MB:
She/It did not identify either to [sic] Patrick, nor to [sic] Rudy Guede.
LG:
I asked you , in fact, did he/she become investigated? This person named by Amanda several times during the bugging, as far as you know, who are following this trial, who have become a witness in this trial, was he/she ever investigated?
MB:
It is a subject that she did not identify, so it made …
LG:
No, she identified him/her!
MB:
She was referring to a third person.
LG:
She/you named [this person]; it is a witness in this trial!
GCM:
Do you know this name?
LG:
Do you mean to say that you don’t know???!!!
MB:
No. She did not say the name.
LG:
without violating …
GCM:
She didn’t say the name?
MB:
No. Now I don’t remember the transcription that the interpreter made.
GCM:
As far as you recall, she did not mention a specific name.
MB:
She did not say the name explicitly. Exactly.
LG:
what was the date on your note that you have referred to several times?
MB:
the 4th November.

....

Defense – Attorney Dalla Vedova

CDV:
Instead, on the basis of the conversation of 4 November, where you had taken care of installing the bugging equipment, you reported that there were various people in that room.
MB:
In which room? That is to say the office?
CDV:
It appears that there is a prearranged room in case of need.
MB:
No, they were mobile bugs.
CDV:
I have here before me an account of the conversation made by the interpreter, who is the person that you named, who mentions precisely a prearranged room in case of need.
MB:
Well, maybe in jail. May I see?
CDV:
No, it is in the Perugia Questura.
GCM:
Yes. This is an account. What date does it bear?
CDV:
4 November 2007, in the premises of the Perugia Questura.
GCM:
the Question therefore is if there was a prearranged room.
CDV:
At this point, yes, I’m asking you if …
MB:
It’s a note by the interpreter, it’s not the minutes/written record of transcription. It’s only a note by the interpreter.
CDV:
The bugging; how did it take place on the 4th, from a technical point of view?
MB:
From a technical point of view, the bugs can be placed in any point. There is not a room allocated for this activity in the Flying Squad [offices], but since they are mobile, we can put them where we want.
CDV:
Did you personally take care of installing these bugs?
MB:
Yes.
CDV:
And do you recall where you installed them? In the entrance, in the stairs, in the rooms, the bathrooms?
MB:
No, inside the room. Now I don’t recall exactly what point, however in the room where the subjects were.
CDV:
the subjects, who were they exactly?
MB:
It seems to me there was Amanda and there was Raffaele Sollecito.
CDV:
Only those two? You are talking in the plural. I thought ...
MC:
Two is plural.
GCM:
Excuse me. Only those two, or were there also other people?
MB:
No, there were no other people.
CDV:
You don’t recall whether Italian girls also entered?
MB:
I don’t recall. The activity was so intense that it is not easy to recall all the passages.
CDV:
So you don’t exclude that there were other people that evening?
MB:
It’s difficult/unlikely, however I don’t exclude it.
CDV:
Then you reported that the conversation was, especially in relation to Amanda Knox, in English.
MB:
Yes.
CDV:
Excuse me if I ask you, but do you understand English?
MB:
No, there was also present the interpreter, who was listening.
CDV:
However, you reported that Amanda seemingly said about other people. Who told you this? The interpreter?
MB:
Certainly; it was reported to me in relation to what the interpreter wrote.
CDV:
So you did not hear?
MB:
No…
CDV:
You could not understand?
MB:
Exactly.
CDV:
In relation to the declaration that you made this morning, you specify about a young black man. Are you sure you recall?
MB:
I, exactly, the wording, since it was re-interpreted, I was referring to a third person, but …
CDV:
So the question is this: are you sure that it was referring to a third person who was defined as being coloured?
MB:
No, I’m not sure.
CDV:
And you don’t remember, if still reported by the interpreter, if names were mentioned?
MB:
No, I don’t remember.
CDV:
Thank you.

....


Notes

  1. The claim that the CCTV footage was slow is a claim that has been advanced online but it was never established in court. Bongiorno alleges it here but she is a lawyer and her statements are not testimony. The defense was free to schedule an expert witness to introduce this argument but elected not to. After the testimony phase of the trial had concluded and it was clear the Massei court would convict, the defense asked to introduce several items of evidence including evidence related to the CCTV clock being slow. Massei denied the request to add additional witnesses that late in the game so the evidence was never heard.