Rita Ficarra's Testimony (English)

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

Contents

Summary of Rita Ficarra's Testimony

Rita Ficarra's Testimony (English)

This is an English language translation of the testimony. See Rita Ficarra'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
RF Rita Ficarra Witness being questioned Chief Inspector in the Perugia Flying Squad
LG Luciano Ghirga Knox defense lawyer Avvocato
GB Giulia Bongiorno Sollecito defense lawyer Avvocato
CP Carlo Pacelli Lumumba civil lawyer Avvocato
MDG Maria Del Grosso Defense counsel for Amanda Knox Avvocato
FM Francesco Maresca Counsel for Kercher family (civil plaintiffs) Avvocato

Prosecutor Mignini

GM:
Listen, you carried out investigations on the death of Meredith Kercher?
RF:
Yes.
GM:
Tell us what you did, then I’ll go into specifics.
RF:
So I, on the day – to be precise the day of 2 November – I was on the afternoon shift and we received a phone call from Dr Chiacchiera who informed us that he was on the site of a crime, where a body had been found. Little was known as yet, because they were waiting for the coroners, in short. They said that in a very short while they would be trying to understand whether there were witnesses, and that they would begin to send any witnesses to be heard with brief recaps, so as to try and understand and to have details, in short, to carry on with the investigations and in the inspections. After a little while in fact there arrived, a few young girls arrived. I specify that since they told us that there were also subjects who did not speak the Italian language, or who at any rate spoke it very little, understood it little, we made haste to find the interpreter. In our office, we have foreigners, official interpreters, speaking English, German, in short. In that moment, there were none available: one, I remember, was outside, another had been called but would reach the place, the Questura/Police Station later, and these girls were starting to arrive and so we started to skim them off [NdT: “scremare” literally to separate the cream, i.e. divide them into distinct groups] of those who could give us declarations in Italian. I was given that girl, Amanda Knox, who understood and spoke Italian adequately enough. So, initially, I had a chat with her to seek to understand whether there were immediately elements with which we could continue, let’s say [NdT: typo? “mentre” i.e. “while”] I tell you there were other witnesses, and so we went straight away to seek them or [to seek] other particulars. At the moment of writing the report, since there had not arrived, there was not, there was not yet an interpreter available in order to avoid that there were misunderstandings between me and her, even though I repeat and I reiterate that she understands and speaks Italian more than sufficiently. It is clear that we are dealing here with a foreign subject: you cannot speak quickly, you have to speak slowly, you have to maybe repeat the question. Some terms might be less understandable and so one repeats [them], however for my nitpicking/fussiness I called a colleague who worked in the Flying Squad, who I know speaks English because [it’s his] mother tongue, in short he was born and grew up in Australia.
GM:
Who would that be?
RF:
Luigi D’Astolto. And so in this circumstance I was helped by this lad. And thus I heard [i.e. spoke with] Amanda myself, the first day.
GM:
Thus on the 2nd?
RF:
The 2nd, yes, the afternoon, and it went on to the end until the evening. Then I heard her again on the 3rd because from her declarations there emerged some contradictions, some particulars that were not clear, and so I heard her again the following day, at the same time as I heard also some other persons. Then I heard her again the, so the 2nd, the 3rd, the 4th I know she came, but I didn’t hear [speak with] her myself. And then I found [i.e. was faced with] her again on the evening of the 5th. I had been to make other checks outside, above all in the zone [of the crime], checks that concerned both the possible route that the victim had taken before returning home, so before the murder, [and] a whole other series of checks, in short, in order to identify other persons who might have seen, witnesses who might have seen something, and I return[ed] to the Questura the evening of the 5th, around 2300 hours.
GM:
Before continuing, I wanted to know something: when you examined [questioned?] her on the evening of the 2nd, how was Amanda dressed?
RF:
I remember she had a skirt, a t-shirt, there was a t shirt with a “girocollo” [NdT: either a “turtleneck/crewneck” or a “choker/necklace”], and a heavy jacket/parka over the top.
GM:
Just so that we understand: it was a t-shirt that covered the neck?
RF:
No, it didn’t completely cover the neck, it was a crewneck.
GM:
And then?
RF:
The following days, yes, there were always these high necks or else little scarves/neckerchiefs.
GM:
Carry on. We have arrived at the evening of the 5th.
RF:
The evening of the 5th, then, I returned to the Questura around 2300 hours, with another of my colleagues, and I found - when the lift/elevator door opened – I saw, I met Amanda. I saw that she was with other of my colleagues. In effect, the door of the lift/elevator opens on a lobby that is [situated] even before [you reach] the entry to the offices of the Flying Squad there’s quite a big space. My astonishment was that I saw, I found her there, and I found her doing – demonstrating – her gymnastic abilities she was doing a cartwheel; she had shown the back arch, she had done the splits, and it seemed to me, sincerely, a bit out of place, that is to say given the circumstances, the moment and the place. For which [reason] I admonished her, and I even asked her what she was doing there. She, and my colleagues also confirmed this, said to me that she had come because they had called Raffaele Sollecito, he had been invited that evening to give another recap, and she had accompanied him.
GCM:
You said this to her in English or in Italian?
RF:
In Italian. I reiterate that she speaks Italian, with me she speaks only in Italian. I do not understand a word of English, so … My colleagues confirm that there was Sollecito who was there in another room and in that moment the Deputy Commissioner Napoleoni and other colleagues were listening to him. And continuing to speak, the girl told me that she was rather shocked at the fact, annoyed at the fact that she had been called and recalled several times by the Police and [that] she was totally tired. At that point, I also admonished her because I said you’re tired, yet nonetheless you came this evening, when nobody has invited you you could have gone to rest. And furthermore – I said – you don’t understand that we are talking about a murder, of a person that you say was your friend, [who] lived in the same house as you, it happened in your house. If the Police call you, put yourself in our shoes we need useful information.
GCM:
So there’s this …
RF:
More than anything else ... Yes, in the end I had a quiet talk because I was trying to make her understand that our intention was to to seek [her] collaboration for me, she was a precious witness precisely because she had been close to the victim, she had been – she lived – in that house, they had gone to pubs/clubs together. And so I explained to her that the reason for which she had been called and recalled several times, it was because I was [sic. NdT typo? “ero” instead of “erano” i.e. “there had”] emerged some significant contradictions between what she had declared and the subsequent information that other subjects had given us, that there had even emerged some lies in the end, [which were] nonetheless ascertained by the person who had carried out the crime-scene inspection, who had been on the scene of the crime, or at least in the vicinity. I said we are asking for collaboration. I, from the first time that I heard her, I always insisted on knowing what the victim’s associations might be, whether she knew which people had known her [i.e. the victim], with friendly relationships, with mere acquaintanceship, who had been to the house, above all subjects who had been to the house there.
GCM:
Yes, activities to which ...
RF:
Activities, this I say because I [will] then explain why she gave me the names, named a few persons in the end, that is to say, in the end she understood, she said. I also explained to her that some of the lies that at the beginning might be understandable, such as the fact of saying “No, I don’t use drugs”, in the end…
GCM:
[You/One] cannot report, obviously, on the declarations …
RF:
Yes, but if I don’t say this, it will not be understood why then [later] she told me many things in the note.
GCM:
Yes, it can be said in relation to the investigations, to the investigation activities that were subsequently executed.
RF:
Yes, exactly.
GCM:
Only in this limit and in this limit, that is, they are not useable when you refer to [speech] from …
RF:
Yes, to understand why she told me things that I was not quick enough to write afterwards; they had necessarily/therefore to be written in the later note. I’m coming to this to say that, on that evening, therefore, she understands [sic RF uses present tense] my intentions and says to me “Ok, I now will tell you the names of other persons” because I invited her myself to look at her mobile phone, at the phonebook/contacts list, I say [sic, i.e. “said”] “Bring someone to your mind [i.e. “remember”]. It’s not possible that no-one ever entered this house, or only two people. Call to mind who might have known her”. So she runs through her mobile-phone contacts list and starts to look at a series of numbers, and then she remembers and says to me “Look, it’s come [back], there were another four-five people that I know who knew her, some of these actually came to the house, some of them I brought myself”. She gives me the references of telephone numbers and for some she also gives me references of where, in particular of Patrick Lumumba, she gives me the particulars of where, of the area where he might live. She says to me that she even worked with him and from there she tears, that is to say she makes me this little drawing on a big notebook pad she always had with her, after which she tears it out for me and so it was then “acquired” [NdT as an exhibit], in short, I attached/appended it to the note. At that point I say to her “for me it is important then that we write these [names etc down], that therefore, since you are waiting [NdT. i.e. for Raffaele], let’s go do a follow-up to the recap that you have already given me, have already submitted to me”. So I go to the office, that is to say, I go into the office room, and we begin to write.
GM:
Listen before continuing, she wrote a note?
RF:
Yes.
GM:
The note you can, I believe you can consult/examine/refer to it.
GCM:
Yes, certainly, it is permitted to consult/examine/refer to her records.
GM:
I am referring to everything that that note reported.
RF:
Yes, I’ve already said that, in effect… The note of 6 November, at 2000 hours, I made it in the evening because having then not slept for two days, I went [straight] to bed in morning when I finished. Morning and afternoon. The first part I’ve already related and it gives me indications about these boys, about non-Italians, about a certain PJ Peter Svizzero, who had seemingly been several times in their home and who lived nearby the area of via della Pergola 7. Patrick, of the [sic] owner of the pub, Le Chique [sic], where she herself worked, I’ve already said, she gives me the mobile-phone information. Then she speaks of a certain Ardak, a North African citizen, and gives me the mobile-phone information. A certain Juve, an Algerian citizen, who worked occasionally at the Le Chique [sic] pub and who apparently lived in the vicinity of the home of another of the victim’s friends, of Sofie [sic], also for him she gives me the mobile information. Spiros, a young lad of Greek nationality, for whom she gives me only the mobile-phone information. Shaki [Hicham Khirir], a Moroccan citizen who works in a pizzeria, frequents the [same] pubs [as those] frequented by all the girls of the victim’s group, and [is] also friends with Sofie [sic]. She furthermore reports about a black South African boy, short, who plays basketball in the Piazza Grimana court, [and] who on one occasion had apparently visited the home of the boys who lived underneath the apartment.
GM:
Was “South African” an exact term?
RF:
No, no. In fact, I wanted to explain that she didn’t recall the particulars of this boy, or at least she did not tell me about them, so I said to her that if she recalled also any boy who had been in the home of the neighbours, of the students who lived below, because we had found out from these other boys that there had been a meeting between them; one evening they had had a little party in their home and that they had [sic], in which there was also [sic], in that circumstance there was also Amanda and Meredith. And she said to me “Yes, it’s true, I remember that boy. But I know neither his name nor can I give you his telephone number because I never saw him again. I can’t say anything else.” This is what she said to me, therefore she was ...
GM:
But she said South African or [Côte d’]Ivorian?
RF:
South African in the sense that I wanted to mean of a dark colour, that is a person, excuse me, not …
GM:
Go on…
RF:
South African. [It’s] nothing. Then she confided other things to me, because I had in fact - as I said earlier Mr President, that otherwise I couldn’t explain what she reported to me in the note – she had told me several times that she had never seen …
GCM:
Excuse me please. She had never seen? These will not be useable, but let’s hear.
RF:
In short, she never saw or smoked joints, had never used drugs, but here instead she says, contrary to what she had told me, she says to me that yes, a few times I’ve used, or at any rate I’ve used …
GCM:
But only that which you have …
RF:
She tells me this, I say it in the note, she tells me herself.
GCM:
Yes, in the note, in this conversation…
RF:
She tells me also who supplied it in this circumstance.
GCM:
In the informal conversation.
RF:
In that conversation, exactly.
GCM:
Before the taking [down] of information.
RF:
Yes.
GCM:
Please.
RF:
And so, she says to me that she had used substances such as hashish together with her boyfriend Raffaele. She says to me that, according to what he had confided to her, he had also used other substances in the past, but that for the moment, to her knowledge, it was only the fact that he used hashish.
GM:
To narcotic substances, obviously, of various types.
RF:
Yes, of the type… She tells me of hashish type, in the past, she says that he seemingly confided that had used other substances but even stronger, stronger substances.
GM:
Cocaine, for example?
RF:
Other substances.
GM:
I ...
RF:
yes, types [such as] cocaine, yes, yes, yes. I wrote that, in fact. And nothing that actually [NdT or “currently”] instead he used only, that they together used smoke [sic – NdT slang for “hash”].
GM:
Here we go, and ok. So then she continued. What did you do… Ok, then ...
RF:
Then what happens? I acknowledge/admit that Knox, following the notification of the order for arrest issued by the Public Prosecutor, actually immediately after, that it was notified to her and that its content was translated into English by the interpreter, she gives me, that is, she asks me to give her a pen and papers because she intends to write. In my presence she did this, [and] that [i.e. presence] of the interpreter, there was Colantoni in the late morning and there was Inspector Sergio Ragni, because we were in their office. We gave her pen and paper and she began to write, honestly I didn’t understand what … What was her intention? She asked me “please give me a pen and paper” and says to me “I want to give you a gift”, where by “regalo” I understood that she meant a pardon, she meant “I want to give you a thing, I want to give it to you please, I would like that you read this before accompanying/taking me to jail, so that you can have clearer ideas about what I’m thinking and about what I have already told you, and if you have any questions to ask me, you read it”. She said to me and together with all the other policemen/women, “this way, if you have any questions to ask me because you have doubts, please ask me them first”. Justly I, apart from the fact that it was written in English, and then they were calling for me at the [very] moment she handed it over, precisely, traded [sic NdT “commercial” in Italian. Perhaps typo for “commensurato”? i.e. “at the very moment”] of being taken to jail. Already they were stressing to me that it was late and we could not tarry any longer, so she gave me that sheet and pointed out to me that she would have [liked to have] delivered it to the judicial authority, because it was this [authority] that was proceeding I could not do anything more. So this was the evening of the 5th, but here, this is it, the contents of my note. Then here, the recaps/information that she gave me earlier however should be incorporated.
GM:
In fact, let’s go back to the evening of the 5th.
RF:
On the evening of the 5th, after having made these declarations to me about these people who might in some way have known Meredith, might in some way have had something to do with the victim, I say to “so, let’s go in and write down the content, what you’re telling me”.
GM:
Do you remember what time it was, more or less?
RF:
Well, look, we had called the interpreter first/earlier, so then I started to chat with her informally at 11 when I arrived, so therefore not before one-thirty [i.e. 0130 hours], perhaps enough time ...
GM:
So it was in the very early hours of the 6th?
RF:
Yes, in the very early hours of the 6th, the time it took for the interpreter to join us, and we started to write.
GM:
Listen, how was Amanda? I ask you [what was] her behaviour, how she was behaving, shall we say, in the various ...
RF:
I repeat, I already said it earlier, about how I was astonished already when I was coming out of the elevator/lift by what I saw, and I had already admonished her. I admonished her even more so because I saw that in the preceding days she had had - contrary to all the other people that I saw there, who were all sad, all afflicted - I had always seen her either skipping around or flirting with Raffaele, smothering each other with kisses [NdT i.e. smooching/snogging]. She had been admonished more than once for this behaviour that did not seem fitting for either the place or the situation.
GM:
So, even while you were listening to her, she was as unworried/unconcerned as she had been?
RF:
I told you that she was doing cartwheels…
GM:
No, no, that was when you arrived. But I’m saying, even when, shortly after midnight, you had started to hear her [NdT i.e. listen to what she had to say]?
RF:
She was very calm, she was calm because we had a quiet chat, I said “Since you came here yourself, no-one called you, you’re giving me extra information, let’s write it down properly, because there could be very important details for us”. She had understood very well that ... And she was calm, she says [sic] “Yes, yes, ok. let’s wait for the interpreter that way we avoid misunderstandings”, and that is what we did. The problem [is] that at a certain point, the problem, that is to say, the fact that at a certain point there was a colleague from the SCO [NdT “Servizio centrale operativo”, Central operations service], who came from the place where they were listening to Raffaele Sollecito. And then after that came the Deputy Commissioner Monica Napoleoni, who says to me that Sollecito had said different things, that in effect he was no longer giving an alibi to Amanda, and therefore to ask Amanda, since I was recording [NdT in the sense “writing down what was said”] her - [or] I had started to report/write down - to ask what the latter had done that evening in particular, in other words, to focus on that evening more than on anything else we were interested in the hour more or less preceeding ...
GB:
Mr President, until now we, obviously, we have not opposed each other because what was being referred to was an information [note], etc., if [i.e. perhaps] now we start the analysis of the memoranda we are “punto e daccapo” [sic. NdT probably “punto e a capo”, i.e. “start a new paragraph”].
RF:
No, I am not hurting [sic] any of those that ...
GCM:
Yes, yes, excuse me. You cannot report, unless it is necessary/useful, “we are closed in this”?? [sic. NdT possible misunderstanding from verbatim typists? possibly “if in this there were”?] in the event that there were declarations made they would not be useable.
GM:
With these clarifications/explanations, you illustrate that which happened, without of course reporting the content of the declarations, save for if these are indispensable for making us understand…
RF:
So, they called me to tell me that there were contradictions and I heard her [i.e. what she had to say] about these contradictions. At the time when she was heard, she was asked to show us her mobile phone in order to check just in case whether in the memory there were messages that referred to appointments that evening, and we were able to see, myself and the other colleagues who were present, [while] scrolling through that mobile phone, that there had been easily, that there were various messages from the days preceding the 1st. We even saw that there were messages with the victim from the 31st [October] that they should meet in some way or another, or at any rate they made a semi-appointment to see each other later, and then there were no others [messages].
GM:
The evening of the 1st? The evening of the 31st?
RF:
Of the 31st. On the day of the 1st, then, there was only one message. I remember that it concerned the night, around 0145 hours between the 31st and the 1st, with a subject with whom [she] said they would meet up, that they should meet up on the stairs of the Duomo, and then there are no further messages and we found a message sent around 2000-2030 hours it seems to me, around that time but at any rate it is in the files because we also photographed the mobile phone with the message where the name of Patrick appeared, and there was this message that said… Can I report it?
GCM:
Yes, did you see it?
RF:
Yes, certainly I saw it. We saw it together. It said “Certainly”...
GM:
We saw it or else I will show you it if ....
RF:
Yes. “Certainly. See you later. Good evening.” [Certo. Ci vediamo più tardi. Buona serata.]. It was the only [message] of that evening, and we asked who this Patrick was, and this seemed to us an appointment, see you later, certainly, in response to another [message]. We did not find any messages received around that time, so we did not find the message to which she was responding. We found only that one sent by her. She, in the moment in which was, she was given the mobile into her hand, so it was said who is this person, so did you go out later or not, she said the name of Patrick Lumumba and gave the declaration that then ...
GM:
And what behaviour did she then adopt/assume?
RF:
She suddenly put her hands to her head, burst out crying and said to us “It’s him, it’s him, it was him, he killed her”. It was the only time that I saw her cry.
GM:
This behaviour, did she then continue like that during the course of that morning, by now we were at what time?...
RF:
No, she was as if she was giving vent in that moment, she cried, she began to say that he was crazy, he was crazy.
LG:
No, that’s not possible, excuse me…
GCM:
No, the question ...
GM:
I was still talking about the behaviour.
GB:
The behaviour is [described] in all the reports.
GCM:
No, the behaviour, what was it?
RF:
But this is not in the reports.
GCM:
Sorry, the behaviour, what was it [like]?
RF:
The behaviour was that she brought her hands ...
GCM:
Were there fits of crying, were there ...
RF:
Yes, yes. She brought her hands to her head, she started to “sgrullare” [NdT Tuscan dialect i.e. either “shake” or “hit”] her head, she started to weep, she burst out crying and said that it was him.
GCM:
Please.
LG:
And suspends the report.
RF:
I suspended the report obviously so that she could say what she said to me.
GM:
There you go. And after that, what happened?
RF:
After that, that morning, she then at a certain point said to me that she needed to rest because she was tired, and I left her rather than take her down to the cells below.
GM:
Did she make any further declarations?
RF:
I suspended the report, we took the declarations together with you, Doctor [Mignini], she maintained the same behaviour, and also there she began again to cry then.
GM:
So we have arrived [at the point] after the “hearing” [i.e. the questioning], the spontaneous declarations, she wanted to sleep, wanted to rest?
RF:
Yes, she wanted to rest. She said to me that she was tired, wanted to rest, felt a bit ill. We made her take something warm from the bar, it was already the early hours, it was well into the morning in short. I joined some chairs/seats together for her, I made her rest/lie down. I tried to close the door so no-one would enter, because otherwise there was too much coming and going of people since they were going about preparing other reports/files, so at a certain point we were left [with] just me and Inspector Ragni, who arrived in the morning, and we did the reports, the arrest reports, we did them in there while she was resting.
GM:
After which?
RF:
Afterwards, when she got up, I took her to the bar to eat something and I was even admonished for that, because I took her without, that is I calmly [took her] here and there even though she was already under arrest.
GM:
Do you recall, shall we say, that night between the 1st and then the spontaneous declarations and then the order for arrest, who and what was with her, other than you, whether there were other subjects that spoke with us, how they behaved? Did [she] undergo/experience violent [sic NdT “violente” in Italian, probably typo for “violenze” i.e. “violence/force/assault”] by any chance?
RF:
Absolutely not.
GM:
Was she intimidated, threatened?
RF:
No. I, as I said earlier, I came in that evening and there were some colleagues from the Rome SCO, I was with Inspector Fausto Passeri, then I saw come out, that is come out from the entry-door to the offices of the Flying [Squad] the Assistant Zugarini and Monica Napoleoni, who appeared for an instant just outside there, then we went back in calmly, because the discussion we had with her was quite calm. Everything that she asked [for] we gave it to her, I repeat, she was treated with firmness and severity whereby by “severity” I mean that she was admonished in the moment when circumstances called for admonishment. She was treated with kindness and courtesy by all, because nothing was denied to her that she wanted. In fact I made her sleep, I took her down for breakfast, I took her back [NdT down to the canteen] before she left for jail to eat something because it was late by then. It seems to me that nobody in there treated her badly, absolutely [not].
GM:
Listen, then after that there was the arrest, after how much time?
RF:
The arrest happened after midday, she, immediately after the notification of arrest, after having read the contents in English, was there saying to me “Please, can you give me some paper, I must write [something]”/
GM:
Listen, this “memoriale” [NdT a report/a note/a memoir] of the 6th, do you know if there were checks carried out, what was done in relation to this “memoriale”?
RF:
Look here, on the che… the “memoriale” was in English, so surely it was … I gave it to the Murder Section, so to the Deputy Commissioner Napoleoni, who looked after sending it to the judicial authority with the related translation, clearly, the translation in Italian, the checks were surely carried out.
GM:
In relation to Lumumba’s position?
RF:
Yes. What should I say?
GM:
Whether you know [sic]. Do you know whether the checks were carried out regarding this “memoriale” on Lumumba’s position?
RF:
That night?
GM:
No, subsequently.
RF:
Subsequently, yes. I even did some myself. I went to carry out a search at Lumumba’s house, I went to carry out a search at the pub. We heard/questioned various witnesses on the possible opening or closing of the Pub during the incriminated [sic] evening.
GM:
So that memoriale gave you the prompting/cue/idea/starting point for carrying out these investigations on Patrick?
RF:
Certainly, because …

[questiong moves on to what happened next]

Patrick Lumumba Attorney Pacelli

CP:
Listen, if I have understood properly, Miss Amanda came to the Questura [Police Station] the evening of the 5th without having been sent?
RF:
Without having been called.
CP:
Did she say to you the reason for which she had gone to the Questura?
RF:
She had accompanied her boyfriend, because they never quit each other [i.e. they are always together], because it had already happened previously that she had been called on her own, and Sollecito – they called us from the guard house, saying that he was creating problems, they were not able to detain him/hold him back because he absolutely wanted to come up to be with her – and [then] when they were both above, they were always together clearly – bah, well, they’re boyfriend-and-girlfriend, [it’s] understandable.
CP:
Thus, when you, following the investigative activity that you had carried out during the course of the day, came back to the Questura, you found her already in the Questura?
RF:
Yes, I found her there in the little waiting room that is just before the offices of the Flying Squad.
CP:
Do you recall more or less at what time you came back, Inspector?
RF:
At 2300 hours. It was late.
CP:
Listen, afterwards, then, you had this quiet conversation in the terms which you recalled for us?
RF:
Yes.
CP:
After which, you take on Miss Amanda for the recap/summary. In that circumstance, other than you, who was present in the room?
RF:
Assistant Chief Zugarini and a colleague from the Rome SCO, Ivano - I don’t remember the surname of this [person], since we don’t always work together, I don’t remember well. Ivano Raffo, that’s it, and then there was the interpreter, Donnino.
CP:
Anna Donnino?
RF:
Yes.
CP:
In this circumstance, and I am referring to the recap/summary of 0145 hours, was Amanda by any chance beaten/punched?
RF:
Absolutely not. I’ve already answered [that] to the Public Prosecutor.
CP:
Was she hit with punches and with slaps?
RF:
No, absolutely not.
CP:
Was she mistreated/manhandled?
RF:
No.
CP:
Was she threatened?
RF:
No.
GCM:
Excuse me, Attorney, they have already made…
CP:
No, it’s to say that the Perugia Questura is not Quantanamo, Mr President.
GB:
Bah, well, let’s avoid ...
GCM:
Excuse me, please.
CP:
In the circumstance, Inspector, were the circumstances and the facts that were reported by Miss Amanda suggested by one of those present?
RF:
Excuse me, who knew Mr Patrick Lumumba?
GCM:
So the answer is no, you did not know him?
RF:
We did not know him, we asked her who this Patrick was.
GCM:
Please, Attorney.
CP:
Thank you, Inspector. Listen, still [with regard to] this circumstance, had someone - and in particular for a par of factual circumstances - suggested to Amanda that Patrick had had sex, had had sexual relations with poor Meredith before killing her?
RF:
Absolutely not. There are declarations, oral testimony, that she gave spontaneously. No-one ...
CP:
Still with regard to this factual verification, was there someone who had compelled, suggested to, Amanda to declare that she had heard Meredith scream, shriek?
GCM:
If there were suggestions/prompting in the declarations.
RF:
Absolutely not. Absolutely not.
CP:
Listen, Inspector, I am asking you ...
RF:
Yes, you are being a Attorney, and rightly so.
CP:
You certify/testify to me what happened. So all this that you reported/recounted as a point of fact and of circumstance, Amanda reported [them] to you spontaneously, on her own initiative?
RF:
Yes.
CP:
Listen, coming to the summaries/recaps, after which you said that you suspended [proceedings].
RF:
I closed the hearing/questioning because there were indications…
CP:
And you took steps to call whom?
RF:
The judicial authority.
CP:
Very well, to whom she made once again these ...
RF:
She again made the same spontaneous declarations in this case, in the presence of myself and of Dr Mignini.
CP:
In the ways that you described above?
RF:
Yes.
CP:
Also in this circumstance, was she struck/beaten?
GCM:
She has already said.
CP:
In the manner [described] above, ok?
RF:
As above, ok.
CP:
These are elements of fact. I ask if at 0545 hours she was beaten, Mr President.
MDG:
This is a tanquam non esset [NdT “as if it did not exist”] act
CP:
No, but what tanquam non esset? It is acquired as physical evidence.
GCM:
We are only at [the stage of] questions.
CP:
No, no, Mr President. Mine is a question, so I will repeat and reword it was she struck with punches or slaps?
RF:
Absolutely not.
CP:
Thank you Inspector. Afterwards, in the appending of signatures by Miss Amanda with regard to the recaps/summaries both of 0145 hours and that of 0545 hours, was Miss Amanda struck with punches and slaps, I repeat when ...
RF:
Absolutely not.
CP:
Was she compelled/forced ...
RF:
She was not compelled/forced by anyone.
GCM:
Attorney, this reiteration of questions ...
CP:
No, but ...
GCM:
Excuse me a moment. You recall also clause/provision 198, so she has already replied, and in any case we are at this, at the answers that she has given us, because otherwise it becomes ...
CP:
Question [sic] in point of circumstance of fact for clarifications that were needed with regard also to the interrogation rendered by Miss Amanda, in short.
GCM:
No, no. The questions. Let us turn to the premises/preliminary remarks.
CP:
After which, on the factual level, shall we say, of actions/gestures, how did Amanda behave in these circumstances?
GCM:
She has already reported something [on this].
RF:
I have already reported, but in what circumstance?
CP:
Immediately after ending the hearing of 0545 hours, the one given before the Public Prosecutor, just to ...
RF:
No, she was calm, I told you that she asked me if she could rest because she felt a bit tired.
GCM:
You already reported that.
CP:
Coming to the afternoon, in effect, the arrest happens, and Miss Amanda is notified of the arrest warrant.
RF:
Yes, around midday.
CP:
And it seems to me, I want to make a specification/clarification because it seems to me that there was a slight confusion between the 5th and the 6th. In effect, the request for sheets [of paper], Amanda made that [request] to you on the afternoon of 6 November, the sheets for writing?
RF:
Excuse me, the notification of the arrest warrant occurred on the 6th, it took place at midday?
CP:
Yes.
RF:
But midday and two minutes, I tell you that she asked me for the sheets, the interpreter was still there, Colantoni, who had replaced Donnino, who had been there during the night.
CP:
Yes, I thank you, because it seemd to me that…
RF:
It was in that moment when she had [been] read, in English, the reasons for the arrest, immediately after she said to me “please, give me a pen and some sheets, because I must write?” and we gave her a pen and sheets to write [with].
CP:
It was for my historical record, in the sense that she made a note around 2000 hours on the day of the 6th, in this note she reports facts from a conversation of the evening ...
RF:
I necessarily went [away] to sleep, indeed!, after two days.
CP:
And this circumstance in the afternoon of the 6th.
RF:
I returned in the evening and I did ...
GCM:
Have we clarified, are there other questions, Attorney?
CP:
Yes, I have one. I believe, however, that someone has preceeded/pre-empted me, I think [it was] the Public Prosecutor.
GCM:
[Only] questions for the purpose of [obtaining] answers are of interest.
CP:
It [the question] was referring, Inspector, to the ... There you go, look, I am showing you the print of the SMS sent by Amanda’s mobile phone to Lumumba on the date of 1 November 2007 at 2032 hours, if you recognize it, it was in a ...
GCM:
But is the same, Attorney?
CP:
I think so, I haven’t checked that, Mr President.
GCM:
It is still the same.
RF:
It’s only that one. There is only that one.
GCM:
Is it this one, Attorney? The Public Prosecutor has already shown it, and the witness ...
CP:
Thank you, I have no other questions.

Knox Defense Counsel Luciano Ghirga

LM:
I heard, in your answers to the Public Prosecutor, you were very precise, accurate, so you had a photographic vision/image of that situation, and so on the basis of these you have also prepared very detail reports and service notes. So, how many times did you see Miss Amanda from the moment when you [NdT or also “she”] actually arrived at the Questura?
RF:
I already said it earlier, I saw her on the 2nd when I heard/questioned her, in the afternoon, on the 3rd. I don’t remember clearly whether it was the 3rd or the 4th that I accompanied her at the instruction of the judicial authority to Via della Pergola. Then at any rate, the 2nd in the afternoon, I heard her again, then on the 3rd… At any rate, when I saw her I always took minutes/wrote a report with her[NdT RF actually seems to use “verbalizzare” in the sense “talk with” or “question”, but I have used the correct translation as “report on/take minutes on”], except on that occasion…
LM:
The 4th?
RF:
No, the 4th, no. I did not take minutes/write a report on her the 4th.
LM:
And also on the 6th, you saw her.
RF:
And the night of the 5th, so between the 5th and the 6th.
LM:
For how long did you remain together with Amanda, in the sense of [being] in the same room?
RF:
Quite a bit.
LM:
So you saw the person of Amanda Knox for quite some time?
RF:
Yes.
LM:
Did you see that the latter had any wounds or had any scratches or ...
RF:
No.
LM:
Or some ...
RF:
Where?
LM:
I asked you if she had any wounds or any scratches and you answered no. Thank you.
RF:
You’re welcome.

Sollecito Defense Counsel Giulia Bongiorno

GB:
Inspector, with respect to all these names that Amanda gave you, and that you reported in this note with your signature, what type of checks were carried out?
RF:
On these people? There were made, I know, checks on every one of these people, however not personally by me. I was, for example, charged with the person who then was [revealed as] Rudy Guede. I was charged with pinpointing, with identifying this person that we all know [NdT ironic] who had had contact in some way with Meredith, because he had been, one evening, to the house of the students because he gravitated around the area of Piazza Grimana, and just like [with] him, I had [sic], I was charged with finding other subjects who gravitated around that place. So much so indeed, that I then - if you see the subsequent oral evidence recaps/summaries - I found other subjects someone who clearly indicated/suggested to me who that person was, and that enabled us to arrive at the identification of Rudy Guede.
GB:
Yes, in fact, on Rudy there was effectively a whole thread/line of investigations and we know how that ended up.
RF:
Yes. So I can report on that to you because I did it myself, and I was engaged in that type of checks myself.
GB:
In reality, my question was, since in this note, as you recalled earlier, there were indicated so many names, Peter, Ardak, Juve, Spiros, Shaki.
RF:
Spiros, for example, I myself heard/questioned him on [his] recap/summary.
GB:
There you go. I wanted to understand what type of checks and investigative leads/threads had opened.
RF:
I can tell you that Spiros, for example, I heard him myself, on [his] recaps/summaries, oral evidence.
GB:
After having heard/questioned him, did you carry out checks, did you verify anything?
RF:
Certainly, yes, Attorney. I didn’t do them myself, and I cannot report [on them] because, as I have already said to the President, I am part of a section of the Flying Squad that is not the Homicides section. I limited myself to helping - I and others - to helping colleagues of the Homicides section at the time when the event occurred, because we all collaborate.
GB:
Do you know who carried out the checks, in fact?
RF:
It was certainly Deputy Commissioner Napoleoni who did them, with the men of her squadron.
GB:
So we will find checks…
RF:
And the men also of the SCO.
GB:
On all these, on all these ...
RF:
Certainly. I remember some of them. I remember Spiros, I remember Shaki, who was the Moroccan or Algerian citizen, I don’t know that [sic, i.e. whether] he was indicated also by other girls, known.
GB:
However you cannot tell me the threads/leads. Ok.
RF:
I cannot tell you, myself.
GB:
With regard to Lumumba, I want to know only one thing. Other than Amanda’s declarations, what objective elements were present in order to proceed then with Lumumba’s arrest? - SMSs and Amanda’s declarations - I want to know what the other elements are.
RF:
I know that there were other checks carried out, sincerely, Attorney, I am an executer of orders. There was an [order for] arrest from the Public Prosecutor, it’s not as though I can criticize [NdT also “examine”] the reasons [for it].
GCM:
Excuse me. The Attorney is asking there were the declarations of Amanda Knox, the message on the mobile phone taken, [were] there other elements… She is not asking for an evaluation/judgment.
RF:
No. The other elements were those that the Public Prosecutor highlighted earlier, that on the scene…
GCM:
No, with regard to Lumumba.
RF:
Yes, on the crime scene, from the outset it was clearly a sexually-motivated crime, the declarations by Amanda in some way gave us to understand that the person that she had indicated had a sexual interest with regard to the victim, there had been the declarations that said in effect, in corroboration with the mobile phone, that there had been an appointment, that they had seen each other.
GCM:
So the little message [SMS], yes.
RF:
There and then, however, I don’t know then [what] the reasons ...
GCM:
That ...
RF:
The reasons for the arrest.
GB:
I meant to say this given that - let us forget the declarations and the SMS - were there, I don’t know, any papillary prints, blood, attributed to Lumumba, that is, was there any element, even objective? This is what I’m asking you.
RF:
How could we say that about prints in that moment?
GCM:
Excuse me, what seems to you, it was illustrative/as an example, the indication made…
GB:
That is to say, if there was any other element other than these two?
RF:
I don’t know.
GB:
You are not able to say.
RF:
No, I am not able to say.
GB:
You said that, precisely, when you went to seek that wild cat, and then the cat remained there, and you said “Ok, if someone wants to return to give food to the cat, they can return”. Did anyone return to give food to the cat?
RF:
I don’t know that.
GB:
Thank you.
RF:
I repeat that at a certain point, I took myself off/left, I went back to my section to do the activities of my section, so I cannot say much about the progress/development [of the investigations] I can report if they task me, if they say to me “Please, do this check for me, please”. I reiterate to you, I was concentrated on the subjects who gravitated around Piazza Grimana, on the identification of those subjects. Thus the investigative developments were the task of the section, therefore, of other investigators.
GCM:
Good. Thank you. Please.

Knox Defense Counsel Luciano Ghirga

LG:
Ok. Describing/recounting the night between the 5th and the 6th, you say that you encountered Amanda at 2300 hours approximately, in a place near the elevator, that she was doing gymnastics and you admonished her. What do you mean? Who was present besides Amanda in that moment?
RF:
As I have already reported, there were a few SCO colleagues, there was myself, who exited …
LG:
A few colleagues…
GCM:
Let’s let the witness finish and then …
RF:
Three colleagues.
GCM:
And then we will ask for clarifications.
RF:
Then, with me, there was Chief Inspector Fausto Passeri, then at a certain point Zugarini Lorena came in through the doorway to the Flying Squad offices, and Deputy Commissioner Napoleoni, at a certain point, opened the other door that gives access to the corridor, to the biggest lobby, and there was even deputy Commissioner Rapetti, as I recall, that evening.
LG:
So colleagues of yours.
RF:
All colleagues.
LG:
And you admonished her because you found ...
RF:
I admonished her because it is neither the place nor the right moment for doing certain things, but over and above the place, it was the moment [that was ill-chosen] more than anything.
LG:
We are at the 5th, at 2300 hours approximately, the 5th of November at 2300 hours.
RF:
Yes.
LG:
Ok. Then you took her with you?
RF:
Yes, into the office.
LG:
Because, at least from the note that you fully reported, you took her with you and out came … “Tell us something, if you …” in short, out came the names?
RF:
Yes.
LG:
But also lies came out, [as] you call them yourself.
RF:
Yes.
LG:
And you admonish her another time, is it so?
RF:
No, I she ….
LG:
You said yes, you admonished her yes.
RF:
Yes, but I admonished her in a good-natured way, I don’t even know what rebukes I used to her.
LG:
What does “rebuke” mean? you used that term.
RF:
Yes, I admonished her because, I told you [NdT can also mean “her”] at the beginning, if I find someone who is doing twirls in the waiting room of the Questura…
LG:
No, we’ve [already] done this.
RF:
It is for the same reason, because I told her that in this way one makes oneself hard to believe. It was almost a maternal rebuke, I say if you tell me lies the first time they might be understandable, if [you do so] the second [time] I say to you that there are both testimonial and fact-checking circumstances that demonstrate that you have told a lie don’t insist on the same lie, because it might be little, but it makes you scarcely credible for your subsequent affirmations.
LG:
We can clarify the concept better ...
GCM:
We have clarified, please Attorney.
LG:
The lies consisted in the use ...
RF:
I cannot report on ...
LG:
The lies, according to what you have reported, consisted in admitting that ...
RF:
The use of narcotics, exactly.
LG:
If it was a use of substances ...
RF:
Yes.
LG:
Something that earlier ... This is the episode that she reported to you [NdT or possibly typo “che Lei ha riferito” i.e. “that you reported”].
RF:
Yes yes yes.
LG:
Eventually the recaps/summaries of 0145 hours begin, because God willing there is the opening time of these ...
RF:
Yes.
LG:
While this interrogation - let’s call it thus - was in progress, some colleagues arrive ...
RF:
It was not an interrogation, Attorney.
LG:
They are called recaps/summaries. Had it [sic] already begun when your colleagues arrive and say “Sollecito no longer gives an alibi to Amanda”? Were these interrogation operations already in progress?
RF:
The recording/writing down of the witness recaps/summaries.
LG:
And colleagues arrive from somewhere else?
RF:
Yes, from the office where they were hearing/questioning Sollecito.
LG:
You ask Amanda what she did that evening, is that so?
RF:
Exactly, yes yes.
LG:
So Amanda’s telephone was taken or handed over spontaneously, would you like to specify whether she gave it ...
RF:
She was asked to show us her mobile phone in order to carry out checks, and she spontaneously gave it to us, and together with her, that is to say, near to her, we began to scroll…
LG:
No. It was handed over without any problem.
RF:
Yes yes.
LG:
So then the little message to Patrick emerged, is that so?
RF:
Along with the others, that one emerged too.
LG:
This Patrick is the same Patrick about whom [reference was made] in the note that had been made earlier?
RF:
Yes.
LG:
The owner [of] the Chique where Amanda worked, etc., etc. ... Can I ask ...
RF:
I had already written, perhaps I didn’t explain myself well…
LG:
You wrote it [the note] earlier/first.
GCM:
Excuse me, Attorney.
LG:
No no no.
RF:
I wanted to specify that she had made [NdT, i.e. said/given] that series of names of persons of which [it is spoken in] the note. I was starting to write and I had started with Patrick because he was the owner of where she worked, when then, that is to say, I didn’t have time to write because otherwise you would have found also all the subjects that I wrote in the note, it was in that moment that the information reached me that there were contradictions, that she no longer had an alibi, [that] I should ask what she might have done at that hour and ...
GCM:
And so there was the request for the mobile phone.
RF:
Yes.
LG:
And then Patrick’s name emerged.
RF:
Yes.
GCM:
Excuse me Attorney, we are at what the witness…
LG:
From the little message [NdT i.e. SMS] Patrick [NdT i.e. Patrick’s name] emerged in that moment?
GCM:
Even from before that, in any case, Lumumba emerged.
RF:
It emerged even earlier.
GCM:
That is what I am saying.
LG:
I asked, me it is the same Patrick as is mentioned in the note?
RF:
It is the same Patrick, yes.
LG:
Perfect. So Amanda, what did she do? Did Amanda’s manner change?
RF:
At first she remained amazed.
LG:
This discussion on Patrick, since we do not have a question in any report, [it is] all ADR, ADR, ADR [NdT “ADR” in a “Sommarie informazione” means “A domanda risponde” i.e. “in answer to a/the question”], what type of question you asked her, if you remember it, since you have such precise/accurate memories.
RF:
We asked her what that message meant, because from looking at the message it was a message of reply to another, because otherwise I don’t write to you certainly, [is that not] correct? What was the tenor of the message, if that meant an appointment [was made], if therefore she had gone out after that message or if she had remained at home, besides saying who is Patrick and having the confirmation of who he was.
LG:
This type of ….
GCM:
Please, Attorney.
LG:
[It’s] Ok like this. This type of dialogue between you and Amanda always took place as [if] in great harmony, in great calmness, or else speak, tell the truth, it’s better for you, was there some kind of … Not threat, I would never allow myself [to say that]. How [it] come about, did this type of … Given that the questions are not known.
RF:
I have to make a simulation… I already said it, we carried out….
GCM:
Whether she remained calm, whether there were, I don’t know, crises.
RF:
I've already answered that everything took place calmly, actually, after …
LG:
You said calmly.
RF:
It happened calmly.
LG:
So calmly that you had to interrupt the questioning/report.
GCM:
Did you suspend the questioning/report?
RF:
I stopped the questioning/report because there are indications of guilt. If someone tells me that they are in the house of the crime, excuse me, Attorney, what [else] should I do?
LG:
But I …
GCM:
Excuse me.
LG:
Calmly/Tranquilly [sic] that indications of guilt emerge and of what type that suspend/interrupt the questioning/report and make Amanda at the disposition of the judicial authority [sic. NdT this sentence makes no sense in the Italian]
GCM:
Excuse me, excuse me.
LG:
Is it so?
GCM:
But she was ... Excuse me, Attorney. She was describing/portraying the behavior, such as it could be remarked/observed externally .This is what we’re at.
RF:
In the moment when she saw the message initially, it is as though she were astonished. Can I give my impression? Well, if I cannot give it, then we cannot continue. I [will] give my impression and you will understand…
LG:
You cannot do that.
RF:
Then…
LG:
You made it the same, you, because ...
GCM:
Excuse me, please Attorney.
LG:
And the questioning/report was suspended/paused…
RF:
For a moment she is not looking [NdT also “you are not looking”].
GCM:
Please, let’s avoid overlapping each other with our voices, maybe let’s leave that question to rest for a bit…
LG:
The Public Prosecutor arrives…
GCM:
Excuse me Attorney, we’re there, the suspension/pause…
LG:
We have suspended/paused the questioning/report and Amanda was made available …
FM:
[sic – i.e. Maresca] She was answering.
GCM:
She was answering, but she has already answered.
LG:
But now …
GCM:
Attorney, Attorney, if there are other questions, please.
LG:
Look! [Now] I’ve been interrupted, me.
FM:
Excuse me, she was answering.
LG:
Excuse me, it is I who have been interrupted, not me who interrupts. Certainly there are other questions.
GCM:
Can we close this parenthesis [NdT i.e. “interval”], perhaps? Excuse me. Earlier she/you made a reference, it seems to me that I recall that at a certain point Amanda Knox burst out weeping, as connected with this.
LG:
Yes, this too.
GCM:
Can you pinpoint this moment…
RF:
I was pinpointing, and I was interrupted. I am saying it. If you make me [NdT or also “let me”] also give my impression, you will understand better what I want to say.
GCM:
No, no, no. The impression [sic. NdT, typo should be “non l’impressione” i.e. Not the impression]. The crying …
RF:
In the moment when she was [sic], she saw, the message from Patrick on the mobile phone, for a moment she stayed there looking at it, and then I can’t tell you my impression that she gave me in that moment, her manner, after which she burst out weeping and accused him of being the perpetrator of the murder and of having been, herself, there in the house of the crime that evening, together with him.
LG:
We have reported everything. Very well.
GCM:
Excuse me, Attorney, this, well, please. [sic]
LG:
The Public Prosecutor arrives, what happens? Was a defence [lawyer] appointed to the young lady?
RF:
The defence [lawyer] for the girl had been requested, even though probably ...
LG:
But I asked you if he/she had been appointed.
RF:
He/she had not been appointed.
GCM:
But Attorney, excuse me Attorney, you have every possibility ...
RF:
He/she was not appointed because there wasn’t one.
GCM:
... to make all the questions you want, however let’s let the witness finish when the questions are asked, otherwise it is useless to ask questions.
RF:
The lawyer was not appointed because there was no lawyer.
LG:
You know that on this point there is a ruling [made] by the Cassation… I ask, if you know, if you don’t know we will try it in a different way…
FM:
No, Mr President, there’s opposition. It is we who make the evaluations/assessments about the Cassation, and not the witness.
LG:
Then I will repeat the question, since I did not understand clearly the answer. Was a court-appoint lawyer/legal aid lawyer or a personal/private lawyer?
FM:
She has already answered.
GCM:
Please, let’s not interrupt. Please Attorney.
LG:
Was he/she appointed or not, this Attorney?
RF:
He was not appointed because there were none. If you look at the sequestration [arrest?] report, my next one [NdT. i.e. report] of that morning, I acknowledge that she could be assisted by a defense [lawyer], and she renounced that option, but if she renounced it, it is because there were none, and it is understandable because she is not Italian, not …
GCM:
Ok.
RF:
That is to say, the one who appoints.
LG:
I wanted to ask a question. All these quote-unquote courteous activities - a hot tea, the brioche/cake - they took place, if I have understood correctly, after the spontaneous declarations given to the Public Prosecutor, and before the notification of arrest, or after the notification …
RF:
Look! They took place even the day before.
LG:
I’m asking you that. No, you say she was tired, I put the seats, I made her rest …
RF:
Yes, she was tired afterwards, this after ...
GCM:
Wait, wait for the question to be finished.
LG:
This type of activity - so commendable - did it take place after the spontaneous declarations to the Public Prosecutor had finished, or not?
RF:
Before and after.
LG:
After the notification, you said that it was late in the morning.
RF:
Yes.
LG:
After the notification of arrest? If you remember.
RF:
She at a sandwich.
LG:
I am asking you after the notification of the arrest or before, if you recall?
RF:
But what?
GCM:
Excuse me, this behaviour, she has said that she ate a sandwich, after the notification of the arrest or before …
RF:
I don’t remember clearly whether the sandwich was ...
GCM:
But after the notification of the arrest, do you recall something/anything?
RF:
Of after the notification I remember that she asked me immediately for the sheet, paper and pen, however it even be that she stopped at a certain point because it was late.
LG:
In fact, I made a mistake, you are right.
RF:
Furthermore, I remember that in any case she, that is to say, we had to waste time before accompanying her to the jail in any case, because there were the doctors to carry out the inspection, she had to do a urine test and she couldn’t manage because she had done it [NdT i.e. urinated] earlier, because she had drunk tea and other things, and so we had gone down to get water, I remember. Now I can’t place [that], whether it was 5 minutes to 12 or 1230 hours, but I think that this doesn’t change very much.
LG:
I will ask you a final question.
GCM:
Please, Attorney.
LG:
Because it seems to me. At any time were the handcuffs, or anything of the sort, put on [her] in the Questura?
RF:
Absolutely not. I repeat to you that I was rebuked because I took her to the bar without handcuffs with respect to ...
LG:
Clarify this then ...
RF:
This comes back to my mind, it makes me remember, thank you Attorney, that I took her after the notification of the arrest.
LG:
Clarify for everyone, for the Court, for the lay judges, the manner [NdT i.e. the way things took place] of the little sheets [of paper], the expression I want to make you… That is, the “memoriale”, the first “memoriale” were the little sheets [of paper] requested before being translated in jail, after the notification of the arrest and before the translation in jail, the expression that Commissioner Napoleoni and also you reported – “I want to give you a gift” – how did… If you have doubts, ask me first, but anyway Amanda said these words in the moment when …
RF:
Yes, when she asked me for the sheets. The interpreter was also there…
LG:
Both of you used the same sentence “I want to give you a gift”.
RF:
Yes, she said “I want to make you a gift”, we understood there [sic. NdT typo? “lì” (there) instead of “li” (them)] as gift.. I said “what gift are you giving me?” [NdT or “what a gift you are giving me”]. As a gift, it was meant/understood as “I want to give you a thing”, but then the fact that she said to me “I want to give it to you so that you can read it before taking me to jail, so that you, if you have other questions to ask me, you [can/will] do that…”
LG:
This is everything I wanted to know. Thank you.

Knox Defense Counsel Maria Del Grosso

MDG:
I wanted to know, if you remember it seeing as the closing time of the recaps/summaries is not given, how much time, more or less, Amanda was heard for?
RF:
When?
MDG:
The first questioning/report.
RF:
The first questioning/report finished late.
MDG:
Do you recall is it a case of 0100 hours, 0200 hours?
RF:
No, more [i.e. later], more, because first we had the general chat on what she had seen… To me, in that moment, more than writing [what] interested me was understanding whether there were clues, whether there were elements [on which] one could immediately carry out checks, and so communicate to my colleagues what there was to be done.
MDG:
It sufficed, the answer that you gave me. How many times did you admonish Amanda, because it seems to me that I understood that she had been rebuked for her behaviour with Raffaele, she had been rebuked for the cartwheel, she had been rebuked on other occasions.
RF:
Amanda was rebuked every time that the circumstances were not appropriate for her behaviour and I tell you what those are, Attorney they are the times when she was found kissing/cuddling/smooching with Raffaele along the corridor the very day in which the cadaver was found tell me yourself whether it seems suitable, in an office of the Questura, with a dead body still inside the house, if this one [NdT i.e. Amanda] should continue to smooch/kiss and cuddle?
MDG:
Mr President, that is an evaluation/assessment.
GCM:
Very well, Excuse me please, we are only at the answers.
MDG:
I said how many times, not…
RF:
It was the first.
GCM:
Then without going on to give a reason.
MDG:
I did not ask for an assessment of the expediency/suitability or otherwise of the rebuke.
RF:
Very well Attorney. Well, that was the first time, and then the second that [was] when I found her outside the elevator/lift, giving a demonstration of her abilities, and she continued to chuckle/snigger and to skip [about].
GCM:
The second time you have already spoken about. And then was there another occasion?
RF:
If in the same circumstance when I told her that – I already reported that I rebuked her in a maternal manner to tell her that we had understood that she had said some lies, even …
GCM:
That’s enough like that, please.
RF:
Three.
MDG:
You also rebuked her with reference to the SMS found in her mobile phone [that had been] sent to Patrick Lumumba?
RF:
What should I have rebuked her about there?
MDG:
What did you say to her?
RF:
I asked her who he is, why she had send him that message, if …
GCM:
Excuse me, answer yes or no.
RF:
No.
MDG:
Because earlier you spoke of contradictions.
GCM:
Excuse me, we are at the answers of the witness, please Attorney, so you said no about the message.
MDG:
What did it mean for you, the SMS sent to Lumumba, in the moment when you read it?
RF:
For us, it could signify an appointment that evening, after the time of sending of the message – which was around 2030 hours – because if one says “certainly”, answers a message and says “we’ll see each other later” [NdT the literal translation of “ci vediamo più tardi” is “We will see each other later”, usually understood as “See you later” in English], “Good evening”.
MDG:
Did you ask her “why did you never tell us about this appointment”?
RF:
No, we asked her what it meant and whether there was in fact, or not, an appointment – and with whom.
MDG:
Do you know the meaning of the expression in English “see you later”?
RF:
Yes.
MDG:
What does it mean?
RF:
We will see each other after, later.
MDG:
In the sense that one is giving [NdT i.e. arranging/setting up/confirming] an appointment?
RF:
No, I know that it means we will see each other later.
GCM:
Maybe the witness is not ... One can give various interpretations to the expression, for goodness sake…!
RF:
It was written in Italian.
GCM:
This cannot be the subject of a question to the witness, please.
MDG:
So you never suggested names to Amanda?
RF:
Names, no.
GCM:
Excuse me, Attorney, the question?
MDG:
Have you ever suggested names to Amanda?
RF:
No.
MDG:
Because a little earlier you reported, with reference to the indication of Rudy, that it was on [your/her] initiative that Amanda spoke of Rudy.
RF:
To remember that subject, I asked her what he was called because we had not yet identified him in that moment, we did not know who he was. We knew he was called “the Baron” by the boys below, from the flat/apartment below, but we did not know his identity.
MDG:
Did Amanda know the nickname “the Baron”?
RF:
No. Amanda did not give us any indication. She said that she did not exactly remember.
MDG:
Did you report/record [in writing] everything that Amanda related?
RF:
I reported/recorded [in writing] in the note what she related to me that night; I report/record [in writing] the things that relate to me.
MDG:
Yes yes. But I am talking also about the recaps/summaries; did you report/record [in writing] everything related by Amanda?
GM:
There is the report.
MDG:
I am asking since first the witness referred to declarations that were not reported/recorded [in writing], I wanted to understand…
RF:
Un-reported/un-recorded [in writing] declarations are in the note.
MDG:
No, in the same context, Mr President, otherwise I would not have asked it.
GCM:
The situation was different. Were there other similar/analogous conversations that were not reported/recorded [in writing]?
RF:
No.
MDG:
I am referring to the context of the undertaking in recaps/summaries, not outside of that.
RF:
No, in the context, no.
MDG:
I have no other questions.

Prosecutor Mignini

GM:
Just one thing, Amanda, when you/she submitted the report/record, did the report/record in front of you, when she gave the spontaneous declarations, was she forced/compelled to give them, or was she, did she do it spontaneously?
RF:
No, she did it spontaneously.
GM:
Do you recall who was present at that moment?
RF:
I was certainly together with her.
GM:
Was there the interpreter?
RF:
There was the interpreter, certainly, there was Donnino. Then there was present other staff who had reported/recorded [in writing] together with me the preceding oral evidence recaps/summaries, Zugarini and Ivano, only that maybe they were going in and out, then at a certain point they went out to give greater tranquility/calmness to the drawing up of the deed/case file, in short.
GM:
I have no other questions.

Kercher Civil Party Attorney Maresca

FM:
Just one question, if I may show – it has already been acquired by the Court – the manuscript that was written/drawn up by Amanda Knox and handed over to the Inspector, if you are able to recognize it.
RF:
Yes. It’s the one that I have, me. I don’t understand a word, but it is that one. Yes, because I have a copy of it, I made a photocopy.
GCM:
So it is this?
RF:
Yes yes.
FM:
It is already acquired in the case/court files. This handing-over, did it happen spontaneously on the part of the accused to yourself?
RF:
Yes.
FM:
I have finished. Thank you.

Sollecito Defense Counsel Giulia Bongiorno

GB:
In the context/case of this note of 6 November 2007, did you also describe this cartwheel, these “oh-so-particular” behaviours?
RF:
To whom?
GB:
Since you were making a note in which you described these conversations that you had …
RF:
Certainly. But we speak between ourselves and the others of the other squadrons, we speak. I described it, certainly.
GB:
Then explain to me …
RF:
No, you have to tell me to whom I should have described it.
GCM:
No, excuse me, ask Attorney Bongiorno thus for the purposes of the transcription…
GB:
I arouse a bit of hostility in effect…
RF:
No, I don’t understand…
GB:
There is a note in the context of which you describe this pre-recap/summary conversation with Amanda and give a series of details, behaviours, all that. Since it doesn’t seem to me that I see, it seems to me that this circumstance of the cartwheel - which we are now giving significance/importance to even from a procedural/trial point of view – is not noted therein, I was asking myself the reasons for this missing indication, that’s all.
RF:
The reasons because it is a behaviour, she had already been quietly admonished for that behaviour, then in the end …
GB:
That is to say, you did not consider it relevant for ... Since there is a series of indications of Amanda’s behaviour there …
RF:
Yes, I understood what were the indications that were useful [for] the activity of the investigations. In a note, I report those that are the indications or the elements that are useful for advancing the inquiries if I were to report about the cartwheel, what advancement to the inquiries would that have?
GCM:
We have understood the meaning of the answer.
RF:
I say, it might have a meaning today, when I say it for … But not yesterday, not in the note.
GCM:
Excuse me, look, the questions that are posed are only in order to acquire information, even if to you they may seem perhaps …
RF:
To me they seem a bit strange.
GCM:
Useless, superfluous, however to us … So they are always useful.
LM:
If the parties are all in agreement, I would like to request the acquisition of the note signed by Inspector Ficarra of 6 November 2007 at 2000 hours.
GM:
It is already acquired for the case/trial file, Mr President.
GCM:
Nonetheless, if there is no opposition, we can acquire it, yes. Its production has been requested and it has been acquired for the purposes of usability, on the consent of all parties. If there are [any] questions.

Knox Defense Counsel Maria Del Grosso

MDG:
I wanted to know only if Mr Patrick Lumumba, if you know, was arrested before or after the writing of the “memoriale”.
RF:
By “arrested”, what do you mean? The notification of arrest, or that he had been physically taken first?
MDG:
Both those circumstances.
GCM:
If you know it.
RF:
Since it was other colleagues who went to seek him, while I had … I don’t recall, honestly, I don’t know how to place it [in time] because I don’t recall. Maybe I had the door closed and I didn’t see the precise moment in which he came in.
MDG:
You did not proceed with [deal with] the notification of arrest with regard to Lumumba?
RF:
The notification, yes.
MDG:
Then at least with reference to the notification you can tell us.
RF:
In reference it was first the one for Amanda, if I don’t remember wrongly, but I don’t remember well.
GCM:
The Attorney is asking [if it came] first with respect to the drawing-up of that writing [NdT i.e. the “memoriale”] by Amanda Knox, or else after?
RF:
If I don’t recall clearly the notification of arrest for Lumumba, how can I manage to remember whether it came first or afterwards?
GCM:
She doesn’t remember it./You don’t remember it.
RF:
I don’t remember it.
MDG:
No other questions.

Judge Massei

GCM:
I wanted just to ask you earlier, you spoke of one of your investigation activities with regard to the route [taken by] Meredith the evening before.
RF:
Yes.
GCM:
If you could say what route, what it was you reconstructed.
RF:
I, like others, we redid the same route several times, so we left from the house of the girls where Meredith had been to dinner during the evening before going back home, so we did the route to go down, now I can’t indicate the exact names of the roads, until we arrived at the little stairs, also to calculate also [sic] the time, in short, that it took and see if there were places/pubs open at that time, if there could be subjects, [and] where, [and to] seek to understand also the siting of any video cameras, and we arrived then at the end, in fact, near the little basketball court where, moreover, we sought, as I have already said, to identify subject that might give evidence of the presence, even in the past, of …
GCM:
The travel time?
RF:
What?
GCM:
Travel time.
RF:
About 10 minutes, it seemed to me.
GCM:
There are no other questions, so …
FM:
Mr President, the Inspector’s note was already acquired nonetheless with the “memoriale” of the 6th; it is a duplicate.
GCM:
Ok, we will acquire it; in any case, we will only re-read it at the declarations given by the witness for … [Ficarra] is dismissed. It is 12 and three quarters. We could hear a witness before ending the morning, thus continue until one and three quarters, or 1400 hours, then we’ll have a break from 1400 hours to 1430 until 1500 hours, roughly. Thank you, good day. Unless there are different needs.