Monica Napoleoni's Testimony (English)

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


Contents

Monica Napoleoni's Testimony

This is an English language translation of the testimony. See Monica Napoleoni'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 partial translation.


Key to abbreviations
GCM Giancarlo Massei Judge Presidente
GM Giuliano Mignini Prosecutor Pubblico Ministero
MN Monica Napoleoni Witness being questioned Deputy Commissioner of Police, Perugia Flying Squad
CP Carlo Pacelli Lumumba civil lawyer Avvocato
LG Luciano Ghirga Knox defense lawyer Avvocato
GB Giulia Bongiorno Sollecito defense lawyer Avvocato
MDG Maria Del Grosso Defense counsel for Amanda Knox Avvocato

Prosecutor Mignini

....

GM:
There, so 6 November, the house was therefore subjected to sequestration, so there were ...
MN:
Yes, the house, after it was subjected to sequestration, there was Amanda in the Questura when we got back, since the material that was sequestered/confiscated, a lot of it was hers, apart from the keys to the house of the boys on the floor below, that the boyfriend left with Meredith the keys to below, we notified the sequestration to Amanda, at any rate we sequestered the whole building.
GM:
There we go; the night between 5 and 6 November. You remember, no?
MN:
Certainly.
GM:
There now, can you tell us what happened?
MN:
We went ahead with the checks. Obviously, of all, of all [sic] the depositions, as [I] said. No indications of responsibility appeared against [any] others. We took photos from the Internet of the party, for example, of 31 October. We identified the people who we saw in the photos with Amanda. We had begun a series of activities also of telephone interception, obviously.
GCM:
Excuse me, in photos with Amanda
MN:
Pardon me, yes, with Meredith, yes. We had begun an activity of phone interceptions, in short, against numerous people, also to understand what had happened that night. We had also known, through the consultation of the phone read-outs, for example, that Amanda and Sollecito had had their cellphones inactive that evening. One from 20:35, perhaps Amanda from 20:35 and Sollecito from 20:42. And there was, shall we say, this void of telephone traffic [for] Raffaele Sollecito until 06:02 of the morning.
GM:
Of the 2nd [November], therefore?
MN:
Of the 2nd. And Amanda, on the contrary, until 12:03, 04 or 07, I don’t remember [exactly] at any rate, when she began, shall we say, to catch sight of [sic] or to seek to call Meredith. I don’t know what the first call was. And that, honelsly, it seemed strange to us because Sollecito had always declared that he had woken in the morning, that he had been awoken by Amanda ...
GB:
President, excuse me, we are again starting the usual…
GCM:
Report the declarations only where they are ...
MN:
Well, how should I do, then?
GCM:
... indispensible to do them for the subsequent investigations.
MN:
I wanted to say that if Raffaele had slept until ten-thirty or eleven in the morning, how on earth had his telephone been switched on at 06:02?
GCM:
So you carried out these investigative activities on the telephone printouts?
MN:
That’s why, in the meantime, we had ...
GCM:
On the printouts, in relation to these declarations.
MN:
Certainly, but kind of lot of people, and also, obviously, with respect to these declarations, so for that reason even this fact did not add up. Obviously, during those days, we were always there, we were continuously calling witnesses. That is to say, the English girls, we called them many times. The flatmates, we called them continuously, because [for] every detail we wanted to have a crosscheck, that is, bit by bit, as we advanced with the investigations, it’s normal that we need to re-hear/re-question the witnesses and see if we can manage, in short, to understand/grasp something.
GM:
The evening of the 5th [November].
MN:
Ah, indeed. In fact, we had decided to call Raffaele Sollecito this time. We had telephoned a colleague from the SCO, it seems to me, who called him. Raffaele said he was out to dinner with Amanda, and that he would come to the office after dinner. In fact, he arrived after 22:00 hours, I don’t recall the exact time. Amanda also came that evening, the evening of the 5th. We said to Amanda that she could go home to rest. Since, during those days, she was always saying, always complaining that she wanted to rest, wanted to eat, we said: “Look, you’ve eaten, you can go and rest yourself. If there’s a need, we’ll call you”. Instead, she was very nervous and insisted on staying there, and we kept her ... well, not even in the waiting room, [but] in the entry-hall of the Flying Squad [offices], that is to say, before entering the Flying Squad [offices], outside the lifts, there are some chairs there. The girl sat herself down there. And I began to examine Raffaele in an S.I.T. [NdT: “sommarie informazione testimone” – a brief witness questioning/recap], together with two colleagues from the SCO in Rome. Then, I remember for example one fact, the same that had struck me [then], that I think I went to get a little bottle of water, something, [and] while I was going out I found Amanda who was doing the splits and cartwheels, in the Questura offices. It’s obvious that all these behaviours, all the contradictions, that is to say, we re-called …
GCM:
So she was doing…
GM:
What time was this?
MN:
Well, it would be about 11:00 [p.m.]
GM:
There you go. And then?
MN:
Then we ...
GM:
... behaviour of Amanda and Raffaele, but especially of Amanda, the night of 5 to 6 [November] in that period.
MN:
For one thing, I point out that it wasn’t me who heard her for the minutes/written record, but it was other colleagues who heard/questioned her. However, it’s obvious that we… some [of us] left, some entered, some were walking, that is to say, this is normal. She [Amanda] always had an exaggerated manner.
GCM:
In this manner, you said, she was doing the splits, cartwheels, there you go.
MN:
She was doing the splits, doing cartwheels.
GCM:
Others...?
MN:
That is to say, she was laughing. She didn’t have the behaviour of a person ...
GCM:
Please.
GM:
But this behaviour, did it then change? How did it change, and when did it change?
MN:
No, that, however ... Afterwards I again sa... [sic], that is to say, I saw her at intervals, however I was not there while they were taking her minutes/written record. A few times, I maybe went in to get, to bring a coffee, to bring something, however it was not me who was present there the whole time.
GM:
However you saw that at a certain point she had begun to cry, you said?
MN:
It was already almost the morning.
GM:
Towards what time did that happen?
MN:
Well, Raffaele Sollecito’s minutes/written record, I think – because we also gave him quite a lot of causes [sic: perhaps should be pauses/breaks?] – I think we finished with him around three-thirty, three-forty. [With] Amanda, on the contrary, it finished much later. Yes, I also saw that she was crying in the anti-theft office, in effect, where they were examining/questioning her.
GM:
Do you remember how she was treated by the staff, whether there were …?
MN:
Amanda was treated very well. Amanda, she was …
GM:
... violence, of ...
MN:
But absolutely not! Amanda was given something to drink several times. She was brought hot chamomile, she was taken to the bar of the Questura to eat. First she was given brioches from the little [vending] machine. That is to say, Amanda was treated well.
GM:
So, you, later, you continued the investigations, and never returned to Via della Pergola, no?
MN:
No, I ...

....

Civil Party Attorney - Pacelli

CP:
Lumumba defence. Listen, I’m referring to the evening of 5 November, precisely, when Amanda came to the offices of the Questura. At what time did she arrive?
MN:
They had been out to dinner, she and Raffaele, so for that reason they arrived around 22:15, 22:20 – after ten o’clock for sure.
CP:
After 22:00.
MN:
Yes. Certainly.
CP:
She remained, therefore, the whole evening, the whole night of the 5th obviously…
MN:
Yes, yes.
CP:
Also the morning of the 6th. During that period of time, does it seem to you that Miss Amanda was beaten/struck?
MN:
Absolutely not. I already explained that earlier.
CP:
Yes, no, but I however am in cross-examination. I am asking detailed, precise questions, and I have very few.
MN:
No, absolutely not.
CP:
Was she, by any chance, therefore, manhandled/beaten up, threatened or insulted?
MN:
No, she was treated well. Obviously with firmness, because it’s not as though we were at the cinema, in short, or at the circus – even if someone else might think that, we don’t. With firmness, but with courtesy she was …
CP:
These methods of treatment, how did they translate into practice? With what behaviour/actions [were they carried out] in actual fact? Earlier, you recalled that they actually brought her something to eat…
MN:
It’s true. That morning, I remember that Inspector Ficaro [sic. phonetic in text] actually took her to the bar to eat as soon as it opened. But before [that], we have little [vending] machines on the ground floor, and she was brought water, she was brought hot drinks, she was brought a snack. But also Raffaele, he was given something to drink, it’s not as though they were kept … absolutely.
CP:
Yes, yes. But thus we have a firm manner, but with great regard and respect?
MN:
Absolutely, yes. Because at any rate we were dealing still with young folk of twenty years of age, that is to say, we never forgot this.
CP:
Thank you. Thank you, Doctor [NdT: “Doctor” refers also to graduates, and is a term of respect, not necessarily implying a medical or PhD degree]. I have no other questions, President.

Defence Attorney - Bongiorno

...

GB:
You said, precisely, that Amanda was treated very well, taken to the bar, chamomile, etc.
MN:
It’s true.
GB:
During these interrogations in the Questura, I wanted to know, as regards Sollecito, who had these extremely long interrogations: was Sollecito also taken to the bar? Did he eat?
MN:
Sollecito was not taken to the bar, because I did not take him to the bar. However, Sollecito was given … he requested water, [and] he was brought water. He was given numerous pauses/breaks.
GB:
Was it said to Sollecito, at a certain point, when you challenged/impugned/questioned him... obviously the interrogation, as we know, went on an extremely long time ... that he could have recourse to a lawyer?
MN:
I took him for the recaps/summary information, and I did not suspend/interrupt the minutes/written record against him.
GB:
You didn’t think that a lawyer was necessary?
MN:
In that moment, no.
GB:
How long did this interrogation last?
MN:
We started at 10:40 until three-forty approximately.
GB:
Were there objections [NdT: “contestazione” can also mean “formal notice”, e.g. of a charge] in the course of the interrogation?
MN:
No, I did not make any objections/[formal notices]. We asked him simply to tell us what had happened that day.
GCM:
Excuse me. When you say “10:40”, do you mean 22:40?
MN:
22:40, yes.
GB:
So during the course of the interrogation, you did not ... [he? NdT: the following word “raggiunto” (reached/joined) is accorded with a masculine subject] was never reached/joined by suspects or by clues/evidence?
MN:
He was not?
GB:
You did not make any objections/formal notices?
MN:
When we hear someone for recaps/summary information, that is to say, it is normal that we ask them questions, it’s normal, that is to say …
GB:
Questions, yes. I was asking you if you had made any objections/formal notices.
MN:
I asked why on earth he had told us up to that point things that did not correspond to the truth.
GB:
And after you asked this question, did you not consider that for Raffaele it would … it was necessary to call a lawyer for Raffaele?
MN:
Well, Raffaele Sollecito, already from when he came to the Questura at any rate, no-one ever prevented him from telephoning or from doing what he wanted.
GB:
I’m not asking you if he was prevented. You know that it is provided ...
MN:
No, I no ...
GB:
Excuse me. Let me finish. You know that it is provided by law that when there are objections/formal notices or [if] recaps/summary informations turn into interrogations, the minutes/written record must be halted. The subject must be given the possibility, especially if it is the middle of the night, to have the possibility [sic] to call a lawyer and to have a consultation. You are telling me that there were objections/formal notices made, but you did not consider [it necessary/expedient] to stop the minutes/written records.
MN:
I am telling you that I took Raffaele Sollecito for minutes/written records [NdT: the witness often uses the term “verbale”, which is literally “minutes/written record”, in the sense of “to question/questioning”] without making any objections/formal notices to him, asking him things, as one normally does to all the witnesses, and I closed the minutes/written record, concluding the SIT [“sommarie informazione testimoniale”]. That is to say, in that moment I did not object/make a formal notice of anything to him.
GB:
However, you asked him the question that you told me earlier, if he was saying things that were not true?
MN:
But one asks this of everyone. That is to say, it’s not that it was asked only of him. I don’t understand.
GB:
How much later after this interrogation was Raffaele’s detention/provisional arrest made?
MN:
It was made the same morning.
GB:
What new elements were there with respect to those interrogations?
MN:
In the meantime Amanda Knox was being examined for minutes/written records over there, and there are … the contradictions between them were too [far] out.
GB:
And these contradictions ... on the basis of these contradictions, you never called the lawyer, neither for the one, nor for the other? Is this correct?
MN:
I was not with Amanda Knox, but I don’t believe that she was prevented from calling the lawyer. You must ask this of Inspector Ficarra, not of me, because I was not there in that moment.
GB:
The objective elements, starting from the declarations, on the basis of which Raffaele Sollecito was arrested: do you recall that there was a print amongst these elements?
MN:
He was subjected to provisional arrest/detention by the Public Prosecutor, not arrested.
GB:
Provisional arrest/detention by the Public Prosecutor. Do you remember the print?
MN:
For me, the objective elements are all the contradictions and, shall we say, the false alibis that Raffaele, together with Amanda, gave us until they were separated.
GCM:
The Attorney is asking: was there, at any rate, a print?
MN:
There was a print that was held to be compatible with Raffaele Sollecito by the Laboratory of Forensic Police of Foligno.
GCM:
Yes. That’s what you asked, no?
GB:
Yes, and I also wanted to know: these contradictions that you’ve talked so much about, so were they contradictions that were given during these minutes/written records that we are talking about, these minutes/written records when there was no lawyer…
MN:
Taken from the first second when we had begun to hear/question them, and going onwards from there. Because it was scarcely believable all the stories that they told us, and Raffaele knows very well that he told me things, spontaneously, without me having requested/pressed him, for that matter.
GB:
On the basis of all [sic]... You are talking to me of contradictions. I am asking you: since there were these contradictions, that you actually hold to be so important that they then led to the provisional arrest/detention, because this …
MN:
But the decree of detention/provisional arrest does not come from the Judicial Police.
GB:
You are telling me of contradictions from the beginning to the end.
MN:
It’s true.
GB:
Since you are not talking about a contradiction at the very last hour, that is to say at five in the morning, but from the beginning to the end, I am asking myself why a lawyer was not called.
MN:
I repeat that the provisional arrest/detention was from the Public Prosecutor, and not the Judicial Police.
GB:
No, I’m asking you why the lawyer was not called during the minutes/written record.
MN:
Because I did not consider [it necessary] to do so because I closed [the session] as recaps/summary information. The gravity of the fact emerged when Amanda Knox was also heard/questioned, who was examined from 01:45, it seems to me, of the morning. It’s obvious that afterwards my colleagues reported to me what was happening over there.
GB:
Very well. Listen, is there a report in which you speak of Amanda’s cartwheel?
MN:
No, me personally, no.
GB:
Did someone make a report with this cartwheel of Amanda’s?
MN:
The report on the cartwheel, in short, it did not seem necessary to me to make one. However, regarding strange and suspect behaviours there is always …
GB:
Since, in one of the preliminary hearings you reported it as one of the most significant elements.
MN:
It did not seem normal to us.
GCM:
Excuse me. Yes, at any rate, there was no annotation.
MN:
No.
GCM:
We are only at the questions and the answers. Please.

....

Defence – Attorney Ghirga

....

GCM:
Please Attorney.
LG:
One very last question: at the same time you say that the night of the 6th, between the 5th and the 6th, “Amanda was treated well, at 4 in the morning – [as] this timetable shows – she was even, shall we say, quote-unquote refreshed, she began to cry”…
MN:
No, I didn’t indicate that at 4, at any rate.
LG:
She began to cry at 4. If you want, I ...
MN:
However I have never indicated a timetable.
LG:
Nonetheless, when you pinpoint the time, shall we say, [of] this … You report about Amanda and say that, at a certain point, I have it written, at 4 in the morning it indicates, she was calm….
GCM:
Yes, please, please.
LG:
And that she was nonetheless treated well, when [you] place [this], and then this “treated well” emerges with a tea, it seems to me. Can you place this [event] in time?
MN:
Yesterday, at the Public Prosecutor’s request, I answered this, however I also specified that Inspector Ficarra dealt with this matter. I recall exactly how Amanda was treated because we were going in and out, however I can’t give you times of [her] collapse/breakdown, of when she started to cry. I saw her cry, but I don’t recall having been able to give this timetable yesterday. At 4, I don’t remember.
LG:
You said that Amanda was in an antitheft room.
MN:
She was in the antitheft office.
LG:
And that is on which floor? I don’t know this.
MN:
Still on our floor, the Flying Squad is the only one. There is a main door, and then there are various offices.
LG:
On the same floor where shortly before, shortly afterwards, we shall see, Raffaele Sollecito was also interrogated?
MN:
Yes, in a different wing, in effect.
LG:
It is in the antitheft room - but perhaps I’m wrong, so don’t get mad straight away – that you saw either the splits or the cartwheel and …
MN:
No, it was in the entry-hall before coming into the Flying Squad [offices], at the exit from the lifts.
LG:
So at the lower floor?
MN:
No, on the third floor one comes out of the lift, on the left there’s the entry to the Flying Squad. Before that there’s a pre-entry, with little armchairs.
LG:
So we’re at the entry-hall of the third floor, where the Flying Squad is.
MN:
Yes, but not inside the Flying Squad. There’s another door.
LG:
Is this the anti-theft room?
MN:
No, the antitheft office is an office where the antitheft squad is, and then advancing there’s the Flying Squad on the left.
LG:
But when you, I believe in order to get a bottle of water, go into a place where Amanda is, you see…
MN:
No, I was passing to go get the water, yes...
LG:
If you could clarify this for us better.
MN:
I was passing to go get a little bottle of water from the little [vending] machines, by necessity I must exit from the Flying Squad, and I tell you again that she was in the entry-hall, there by the lifts.
LG:
Alone?
MN:
No, there were colleagues.
LG:
Your colleagues?
MN:
Colleagues, it seems to me, from the Rome SCO.
LG:
She was with policemen, and she was doing a movement, which movements were different, a cartwheel and a split are not two things, so if you remember you were this precise.
MN:
I remember.
LG:
What was she doing?
MN:
For sure it struck me: she did both a splits and a cartwheel.
LG:
Both of them. She was doing gymnastics.
MN:
Eh.
LG:
Thank you.
GCM:
There are no further questions.

....

Defence – Attorney del Grosso

....

MDG:
With reference to the night of 5 November, do you remember at what time Dr Mignini arrived?
MN:
No, I don’t remember.
MDG:
And how long did the gathering of information from Amanda Knox by your colleagues go on? How much time?
MN:
Look in the minutes, I did not do it.
MDG:
And there is no minutes, there is no time of closing.
MN:
So then why are you asking this of me...
GCM:
If you remember.
MDG:
If you remember, Dr?
MN:
No, I don’t remember.
MDG:
If you remember. If you don’t remember, not ...
MN:
No.

....

Prosecutor Mignini

....

GM:
Listen, do you recall Amanda’s “memoriali” [NdT: written notes (plural)], do you recall the first “memorial”?
MN:
I remember that Inspector Ficarra said to me, after the execution of the detention/provisional arrest, that Amanda had asked her for blank sheets [of paper] because, word for word, she wanted to give a gift, wanted to write things. And I remember too that she was given these blank sheets [of paper], she wrote for some time, so much [time] that I even requested Inspector Ficarra to go [away/home?] because we had to accompany the detainees to jail. At any rate, Amanda was made to finish writing, and she gave to the Inspector this …
GM:
Were other “memoriali” sequestered?
MN:
Yes, later in jail.
GM:
At what times?
MN:
It seems to me that with the report of 29 November [there were] diaries and manuscripts of Amanda’s [that were] sequestered in jail.
GM:

....