CDV continues (below quick summary his words)
going to the trial it is important to remind you chronology of trial
we appealed as the sentence is wrong
Errors were made, many
Some errors had great significance
He said : we heard a lot about ISO 9000 certificates, quality and compliance protocols [refers to forensic lab in via Tuscolana]
All these certificates were obtained after these facts
In these trial there is a "certificate" of error. Subsequent facts certify errors.
Main error is the evening of 5/6 november.
Hurry in operating .... PM should have applied caution that night
That night something bad happened.
The right to defence of AK was violated, Cassazione says that.
At a certain point she was suspected and she had to have legal assistance.
They should have stopped everything. Your statements may ruin you, she was slightly above age, speaking not very well, the obligation to have an interpreter, a lawyer ...
the text message to PL - misunderstood - is demonstration the two parties did not communicate well
[will do as suggested by Clander in single post using edit]
They should have analysed better the message.
I will be quick as we agreed with Ghirga to divide things
Incredible violation right of defence, statement was done at 545am.
Then the girl, desperate, did memorandum number 1 , this is the first defense document, the girl started to make a defense.
But there is violation, there is a recording where one policeman says she should not appoint a lawyer as a lawyer at that moment would be worse.
Evolution of facts now.
Second error is Lumumba. PL still wants to make you believe he was slandered.
Those documents are not usable as Cassazione says but you can use them for the slander charge.
That document entered this trial and at page 57 even the verdict mentions it. It was read in front of the popular judges ... anyway this is a side argument
Lumumba is an error.
PM declared they understood error, they seemed satisfied of it but PL was arrested by the same person as he understood he made an error.
Even declaration on PL could have been checked better. Let us check the two guys. They should have asked the alibi to Lumumba or shall we use just jail to obtain something?
Later PL gets freed.
This trial has a shortcoming, it was frozen, like a sailing boat which never changed direction. All positive elements to the girls were not spoken of.
There was a media bandwagon, but it is not a media bandwagon....
In front of it there is a rock now, the boat is sinking...
PL had damages for wrongful arrest, the money were paid not by AK.
It is not AK who paid damages ...
Third grave error is the verdict.
The verdict we read so many times is really lacking in main elements of a verdict, does not convince, for those who work in this profession it is automatic ... when there is a logic link between evidence ...
Length of sentence is sign of weakness, Carnelutti [famous lawyer] said....until page 381 is chronology
Motivation of verdict did not need new expert opinion ... already so many consultants we do not need ... this was unique, it is good later this attitude [in the appeal] changed
The verdict has a number of conjectures, which is not evidence ... when evidence cannot be important precise and concordant ....
at a certain point you convince yourself and you do conjectures
in particular on the incredible story of this knife ... pure fantasy
who goes around with a 31cm knife?
there is an effort in the verdict to describe how this happened .... so the boy suggested to the girl to carry knife as he was a boyscout - link to fear
We can stay here a week to talk about such matters.
This hint (piece of circumstantial evidence) does not make sense. Nodody carries a 31 cm knife. The girls was more than happy to be in Perugia, had no problems, no fear....
Amanda who is naive, in a telephone call with stepfather he says it could be that the murderer is still around ... another conjecture
[CDV take a pause to drink]
We brought to the attention of the court all the arguments of lack of evidence, lack of logic, contradictions ...
Red coat and grey coat ... a verdict like this cannot be so imprecise. One witness say she had a red coat. AK never had a red coat. Verdict says this witness was not reliable because of this.
Witnesses are of different kind ...
Quintavalle ... similar characteristics to Giuffredi, he also says that morning AK had a gray coat and did not buy anything. But AK does not have a grey coat, why Q is credible and Giuffredi not? PM said Q saw the sweater no the coat ... can a coat be mistaken for a sweater?
I would be tempted to speak more but prefer to concentrate on discussion.
All the witnesses are strange people, Capezzali, a widow, Kokomani, a bum, Curataolo, a bum .... they are all unreliable.
Curatolo makes mistakes, he speaks about 31/10, the bus element is certain. He saw the two but not that night. Curatolo was taken here as he was in jail. Curatolo said 3 times he lives in Grimana then he said he was at Capanne and said he did not know what crime he was charged with. When they asked him if he had a criminal record he did not remember crimes. We cannot base a life sentence on this.
Let us talk about Alessi, Aviello, I do not want to hide on this. It was something which had to be done. This knife after 3 years and a half was controlled. dr chiacchiera never considerd to go see it before. So we were right this activity had to be done.
Alessi: is a witness who came up after the verdict. He declares things which could "acquit" the two. So cannot be ignored as they did in the investigation.
Nobody even did a criminal record check for AK as positive aspects were never considered for AK.
I get to the heart of the defense.
Expert opinion. We asked and obtained it.
In the verdict these are the only 2 elements which place the 2 in the crime scene.
We hade Torre and genetist Gino who controlled C+V opinion.
[commercial break - lost a bit]
[resumed but this piece was already aired before, skytg24 is now airing a recorded piece, may be there is a break]
[15 mm lost]
LIVE again
---------
the expert opinion demonstrated the knife is not the knife.
Now we have an expert who says the clasp cannot be considered in the trial and must be eliminated from the trial.
[CDV asks for a break 1130]
Ghirga said he listened to Rai1 something regarding video in the hearing ... all authorised. Judge: we clarified already.
Judge says it will be reconvened at 1200 max.
------------------------
There are a number of documents on what she did that night.
AK's email is very detailed and is very important
she was heard 54 hours over a few days by police
has alibi ever changed?
17/12 PM interrogated, the same story [alibi]
even in jail she wrote us a letter as in a naive way she thinnks she should tell us what happened and repeats the same story, what happened that night.
she never slips
criminals normally on alibi after 3 times they slip
is it realistic she was at RS' that night?
we decided to have her interrogated ...
there may be risks but we did, in that hearing she repeated the same.
at a certain point she went to sleep. Sollecito's role was not considered.
But for the alibi, you can find confirmations. we have a great element. A witness, Sollecito. As Amanda is his witness.
Sollecito said I was home, we watched movie then to sleep.
So the idea of the false alibi which is so suggestive is denied by the same defendants. Is it false? What do they say for that?
- they switched off phones . but they had nothing to do ... normal, AK did it all the time to save battery
- they had to go Gubbio, 40km ... but you can easily wake up at 10am
- she showered at home ... verdict was wrong here. why did you shower at home? she responded "did you ever see the shower at RS?", then "I had made love so..."
When they were talking about taking prints on Laura and Filomena the PM slips says there is no need the others had an iron clad alibi ... not true, Filomena and Laura were out at the boyfriend's and that is it. It is the same alibi than AK
MOTIVE
you do not need motive but important in the logic.
Motive was changed 4 times. Verdict says there is no motive. Before PM said it was "hate".
But AK had in common a lot of things with MK. They were friends. SMS exchanged ... love love love ... the search of motive at page 352 of verdict since they cannot find motive court asks itself "why 2 people with interests and students etc. kill is within the possibility of choice .... "
- they could stay home that night
- AK and MK are friends
Even now not explained. In Guede verdict, "moment of alteration of erotic violence". What is it?
In doctrine there is study of personality of criminals even in murder "in concorso" when more people commit murder ... some people arrive to this without motives. This helps in a murder without motive. It results prof Gaspare [Mella] died a few years ago but says it does not exist a criminal born criminal ... there is no murder without motive and either the person is crazy or revenge or drug or money etc. Here there is nothing so may be the person is crazy.
The personality of AK - if we value the doctrine - can we take AK within this "quasi crazy" people? Let us look at behaviour. She spoke to policemen, she said to Battistelli nothing was stolen. This is the same than what Battistelli said. There is nothing special in saying that.
We met this girl and appreciated her. She found motives to go forward in 4 years with intelligence.
The English girls all go away after the statements. AK is the only one who collaborates. Filomena and Laura call their lawyers immediately. Amanda who should have organised all night cleaning ... collaborates instead, she is available.
Prof. Negri says she was punctual, good student .. Romanelli said AK was nice and had a lot of positive interests. She woke up early. Popovic which comes at 2040 at RS says AK was happy and smiling.
what the 5 English girls say [against AK, on her character] is the same. it was built.
Simulation ---
this is also used against the alibi as they say breaking the wall not possible.
I refer to what is on file.
Here we see the room of Filomena. [showing slides]
the stone is a simulation - they say
- this is window this is glass
broken glass - photo 2/11
little chip on the wood
glass on the side of window
first i want to say these are open drawers ... not like they said the drawers were closed ... the bag on the bed
presence of glass on top of clothes and objects ? not at all, look here here and here on the bed there is nothing, it is clean
[problems to connection]
can you see from the photo the cars of carabinieri? you could throw stone from there, it is very close.
Other photo ... I will be quick.
You can see the chip on the wood. that is fresh, look at this window. Seems this just happened so the stone thrown from inside is denied by the photo
The famous sweater, those are not pieces of glass ... do not make the error.
It takes a bit of time but only the analysis of the file takes out the truth.
There is glass everywhere.
[sorry sometimes words are doubled as my laptop keyboard is small]
I say therefore simulation is false, denied.
Also on 4/11/2007. There is a recording at police. The marche region guys. One boy says "is it premeditated?" "no, it is one who knew noone was there, or crazy". "which is the window of Meredith? ... it is the room of Marta's room [ girl living there before]" "there is a little window even I went up there ones"
So it is not true that was the worse window to choose as the PM says.
That is the only window without grid. A thief would have chosen exactly that window, this is the good one for a thief. Even on this point there is uncertainty. It was easy to enter that window. This must be connected with Rudy Guede.
RG now is important as he now says the beautiful eyes of MK I will never forget she was killed by RS and AK. We know RG was heard here as without being heard his statement could not be used.
He is a thief. He was stopped in this nursery school in Milan and they find him a large knife, a computer which presumably it is from the lawyer in Perugia (as it had disappered). There is another witness Tramontano who saw RG with a knife - but could not him... he smelled of alchool.
Mrs Mancini also says he came back to Perugia and rents a home in via Canerino. How is it possible he could rent a flat without any work? It is obvious he needed money.
RG never speaks about AK when arrested. Only 1/10/2008 starts speaking of a man who killed MK when he was in the bathroom. He takes the towel but then he goes away and goes to the disco.
Further arguments are concentrated on circumstantial evidence which was deemed to be important precise and concordant.
TRACES
blood, bathmat, luminol.
It is normal there are traces in your home, you cannot date footprints.
DNA resists over centuries. Date cannot be determined.
in the bathroom 3 traces + a fourth of AK. Then there are mixed traces in sink, bidet and cotton fioc. It is suggestive to say mixed traces but it is in the bathroom not on the murder scene. This is the sink (shows photos)
The trace of blood on the sink is very small. So the argument she took shower without seeing this is not good.
In a sink you normally find everything. Biologic material and in particular in the discharge/first drainage.
Discretionality of this "lady of the scientifica" [showing video] which goes and take a trace here and a trace there ... she mixed the traces, they were not mixed before. It is possible they made a mistake. We cannot consider them mixed traces. They were mixed by scientifica.
Let us go to another subject which is utilised - luminol traces.
footprint, shoeprints
Normally to find in your room footprints, then she took a shower that morning, traces of AK in her own room
All these traces of people who were in the flat (and the prints of the other girls were not examined)
Look at this photo [print of Knox]. This print is only a piece of a foot ... probable identity, this is only probable, we cannot convict to life. This circumstantial evidence cannot be used to convict. All these traces came out negative for blood.
First police declared those prints are not identifiable. Later they re-analysed and state AK could be inside the flat. On luminol I close here.
CDV: I wish to conclude exam on the false alibi and personality of the girl ...
there was a change of reality (shows the photos of the bath with luminol when all was reddish). On tv all malicious people say she did shower there [reported by English paper first]
Mignini - intervenes saying he showed some photos and were not allowed and this photo is not in the file so cannot be shown. Judge agrees.
CDV says this photo is on file but he mentioned it only to show malice of press.
"I was there" statement - we must be very careful on this
I was there means at Raffaele. When in the previous paragraph she talks of the knife At Raffaele she continues saying I was there at Raffaele.
I get to the end.
Capezzali, Monacchia and others for TOD and scream.
One of the reasons of appeal is Capezzali.
At the beginning she was not sure. Verdict says she heard a scream and then noise on staircase. This is used too link the various people. She was spoken first by journalists. Only when PM asks insistently she says it. pM asks "did you hear steps" ? Even if she heard the scream it may be possible she did not hear the steps.
Formica did not hear anything, was in a Pizzeria with boyfriend, but when she was in the staircase she is hit by a boy passing by with rude manners.
Monacchia lives a bit further from st Antonio parking. Monacchia says different things. Capezzali heard loud scream. Monacchia tells she heard two women speaking Italian who then screamed. What does Capezzali do? the poor widow, a simple lady who had difficulties, sleeping pills and health problems ... she went to sleep ... so she was induced to say what she said.
Monacchia instead wakes her parents up, they watch out of window and then go back to sleep.
There is lack of substance of all these witnesses.
--------------------lunch break, CDV has another 30 min to one hour
[Judge en passant says they decided to go until Monday so they have no hurry]
