However all of the versions offered by Sollecito are untrue not only because they are
contradictory, but also because many of them have been substantially disproved. For
example, the witness Popovic disproves that Sollecito returned to his home alone at
around 20:00/:30, although this is what he claimed in his last account which he never
withdrew. This witness testified that she visited Sollecito's house twice on the evening of 1
November 2007, at about 18:00 and at about 20:40, and that on both occasions saw Knox
there, from which it seems certain that both of the young people were at Sollecito's house
together at least up until the time of the later visit. In addition, examination of his
computer showed that it was in use, to watch a film, and showed signs of human
interaction, between the hours of 18:27 and 21:10. It is also disproved that the young man
was working at his computer on the evening of 1 November 2007 until 23:00/24:00. The
analysis of his computer shows that between 21:10 and 05:32 there was no human
interaction, though the machine remained switched on, downloading films in an
automated manner (although Sollecito's expert witness D'Ambrosio claims that a short
animated film was viewed between 21:26 and 21:46). The claim that the two slept all night,
from 24:00 or 01:00 until 10:00 is also disproved; one of them (there was nobody else in the
house) at 05:32 had turned on the computer, and listened to music for half an hour, and at
about 06:00 someone had turned on Sollecito's cell phone which was then able to receive a
goodnight message from his father sent at 23:14 and which had not been received earlier
because the phone was turned off. Finally, it was disproved that Sollecito had received a
phone call from his father at about 23:00 on 1 November 2007: the phone logs show that he
received no calls on either the fixed or mobile line after about 20:40, [6 ->] and indeed his
father explained that having established from this call that his son was with his girlfriend,
getting ready to spend the evening together, he avoided telephoning again in order not to
disturb them.
It is not for this court to investigate possible reasons for the lies, nor to decide to what
extent they serve as evidence for the prosecution of Sollecito: what they do demonstrate is
that they clearly constituted evidence from his own mouth, leading to the suspicion of a
person then under investigation, capable of corroborating other facts, which according to
the investigators, demonstrated his involvement in the murder and the other associated
crimes, and to thus confirm the validity of the investigators’ theories, even if ambiguous or
questionable, in a way unfavourable to the subject, to the extent to consider them in the
period of initial investigation and during the first-stage trial to be proof sufficient for him
to be found guilty.
