Here is some of what is known about the activity, including the alleged misconduct, of the police-agent interpreter, Anna Donnino, during the interrogation of Nov. 5/6, according to the motivation report of the Boninsegna court.
"Anna Donnino, a colleague of Colantone who does the same job, referred to the activity she carried out during the 06-Nov statement, at 1:45, declaring that
her interpreting activity started at around 00:30, that is before the time indicated on the statement, whose closing time, like all the others, is unknown. This is considered another reason for considering the relative documentation as untrustworthy, also regarding the time the activity started.
The witness confirmed telling Knox about the episode in her private life, when she had broken her leg during an accident, showing the young woman, who continued to insist that she could not recall the circumstances she was being questioned about, that she understood how she felt, not being able to remember, which had also happened to her on that occasion. This circumstance is also not shown in the statement, which the witness said she had recounted in a spontaneous sense of solidarity with Knox.
Regarding the investigative activity, the witness stated that Knox was asked the questions several times, as she claimed, talking of indefinite repetition of the questions that she was asked, for example in relation to reconstructing her movements that evening.
The witness stated that Knox had, firstly, stated that she had not replied to the message received from Patrick Lumumba, although it is shown in the statement that Knox had stated, on the contrary, to have replied to Patrick that they would have seen each other later. In fact
the witness {Donnino} confirmed that the phrase on record, see you later, should be understood as an invitation to a totally generic future meeting, equivalent to a presto [see you soon] or something similar, rather than to an imminent and certain invitation.
The witness confirmed reporting that Knox's statements were considered as lies, but also stated not recalling if the affirmation of not having replied to Lumumba's message had been taken of her own initiative or because of a decision of the interrogators. Also this circumstance, insofar as it showed perplexity concerning the traceability of the qualification in question, nevertheless signals a non-indifferent condition of the interpreter, which inevitably suffers from analogous contamination of her role by an emotional involvement given that her colleagues were the police officers who were carrying out the investigation."
Source:
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/
See PDF: February 04, 2016
Boninsegna Report – Dismissal of Callunia -bis
Comments: There are many issues about the interpretation as shown in the Boninsegna court MR, but of these, the non-neutrality of the interpreter, her suggestion of amnesia (even if Donnino doesn't state that it was a direct suggestion to Knox), and Donnino's admission, long after the fact, that Knox's phone message to Lumumba was not inculpatory, but simply a greeting equivalent to
a presto.
The ECHR will pay close attention to the record of such testimony when it judges Knox v. Italy. I don't believe any objective person would doubt that the ECHR will see a violation of Knox's rights in this alleged misconduct.
