Frank Sfarzo wrote:Amanda vs Claudia
Part 1 - The 'confessions' and the 'memoir'
First, recall that after the facts of November 1, 2007 I was heard 3 times and then, on November 6 alone, twice. The last time lasted more than 13 hours and led me to a state of extreme exhaustion.
Because I was certain of my non-involvement in the crime, I fell into a state of depression which may be irreversible.
Below, I propose new elements of assessment.
-In accusing me, my two depositions of November 6 were used. I have always asked that they not be admitted.
And these have been deemed non admissible against me by the Supreme Court.
This decision shows that the entire accusatory theory is wrong and that it was built on violations of the law. The proof discovered in this way led to monstrous clues and created a false trail with grave damage to me.
-The Court of Freedom, repeating the arguments of the Prosecution, based its thesis on a presumed "confession" which was included in the documentation.
And the documentation is those two interrogations, which can't be used, and the memoir.
When such documentation is excluded, the entire accusation against me must be reviewed.
Your request that the cautionary measure be canceled or substituted with house arrest at the Caritas Community is admissible only if you submit new elements. For this reason, we can start excluding any examination of the two statements.
The judgment expressed by Supreme Court, that they are not admissible against you, does not change the probatory picture since the Supreme Court has taken them into account anyway, even in the sentences about Sollecito and Guede.
That is why we can't describe it as a new element of evaluation since the Supreme Court excluded any illegitimacy and confirmed the measures.
In addition, recall that in the original ruling by the GIP [in this case Claudia Matteini] issued on November 9, the statements made at 5.45 am on November 6 were not used and nevertheless the Gip ruled that there were serious clues of guilt.
Because other investigative results were later revealed; the two statements lost all their importance; and for the purpose of canceling the cautionary measure they are totally irrelevant, as has already been ruled.
-The so-called "memoir" was itself a defensive statement written to explain the "confessions." It was admitted only through Article 237 CPP ['documents from a suspect can be admitted'], but it has only the same value as the previous statements. It was made at the same time and in the same place; if the other two statements are not admissible then neither is the memoir.
The events and threatening outcomes put me in a state of anguish and terror; this written statement is merely the expression of it.
-And let's not forget my education and my dreamy nature, which was exacerbated by the use of psychotropic substances.
-It was just an imaginary delirium that I fantasized in an attempt to get out of an extremely difficult situation.
Immature individuals, under the weight of acute fear, can have a defensive reaction of this type and create fantasy visions.
What made this possible was that it was implied that if I signed such an accusatory document I would be released. For these reasons, the so-called memoir reflects only my state of confusion and torment and we cannot define it as being certain, unambiguous and serious as the law requires for it to be a serious clue of guilt.
The reasons that led you to write the memoir, as you explain them now, lack substance, because the only thing that counts for the purpose of using it for the process is that it comes from the suspect. And it was deliberately written by the suspect, so any violation of defensive rights is excluded.
There are no doubts as to whether this document was delivered spontaneously to the police. Indeed, on November 7 the director of the House of Detention writes that you spontaneously delivered to the Vice-Commander of your section two manuscript sheets, which were about the memoir.
Finally, looking at the content of the memoir itself, we must admit that its content is very careful. It is certainly not "a fantastic and imaginary delirium."
Frank Sfarzo wrote:After the dispute about the interrogations, let's look at some of the elements that the defense considers to be new and potentially in contrast with the "probatory picture" acquired until the Supreme Court ruling.
After this only the dispute about the knife remains to be seen, and that will have to wait for another occasion. But for now, enjoy merciless Claudia at her very merciless best.
Part 3- The probatory incident on Knox's computer
On January 21, 2008 Your Honor appointed an expert to retrieve all data from the hard drives; to create a clone of the single hard drive; and to assess all useful circumstances and determine the reason for the blockage that occurred.
The contents of the hard drive of my computer (as well as those of the other suspects) were not recovered.
Further data could be recovered if the manufacturer Toshiba were appointed, and I would request this because the data in question will further support my claim of non-involvement in any illegal activity.
First of all, the test on your computer determined nothing --either in your favor or against you-- because the hard drive could not be recovered.
And the test did not yield an exact reason for the damage, although it is probable that it is attributable to an error in handling, as any intentional act is excluded.
Obviously, we are facing a totally neutral element with regard to the probatory picture, which therefore remains unchanged.
Part 4- Precautionary custody
1-I would ask Your Honor to consider the following circumstance, already acquired but never examined in particular. The Court of Freedom concluded that the precautionary measure was necessary in my case due to the possibility of tampering with evidence, flight and repetition of the alleged crimes, while "awaiting the process of acquiring a more conscious maturity."
So it is a question of waiting for my 'maturity'.
Obviously this can't be the real reason. Once again the real reason is hidden and this masquerade is a serious sickness of the judicial system that recent jurisprudence has sharply criticized and seeks to remedy because of the damage it has caused.
2-Depriving a suspect of liberty and thereby causing suffering can never be a good way to obtain clues or statements. Statements obtained in this manner are fundamentally flawed at the core.
It is well known that this kind of pressure has resulted in some tragic end results. Preventive incarceration imposed with the expectation of 'maturity' suggests a future prize when the suspect releases information useful to the prosecution. And this method is not acceptable under the Italian judicial system as it is described in the Constitution.
3-However, before considering this deduction, a constitutional presumption of innocence must always apply at each stage of the judicial process.
This situation, which has been going on for 7 months, appears to be a 'punishment' for me and not a precaution as set forth by law to ensure that an investigation can proceed.
4-I am a young foreign student in Italy, with no criminal record whatsoever. I have the typical ingenuousness of individuals raised in an anglo-saxon culture (as the documents deemed non-admissible by the Supreme Court prove). Preventive detention is causing serious harm to my health and deep periods of depression.
5-Your Honor should consider my sincere behavior after the terrible occurence of Meredith's death and whether this is the behavior of a guilty person:
I-Going the morning after the crime to the house to take a shower, wash my hair and take a mop to soak up some water at Raffaele's house.
II-Immediatey giving the Authority all details, which were totally precise:
Front door open, Meredith's door closed, blood stains in the bathroom, fecal matter in the toilet of the bigger bathroom.
III-Spontaneously accompanying Raffaele and responding myself to the request to go to the Police Station four times.
IV-But, in particular, couldn't I have left the country?
Is this the behavior one would expect of a person suspected of such a serious crime?
6-As of today, this situation has lasted more than 6 months. Obviously, the fundamental investigative elements have been gathered. The analyses, the technical tests, and the probatory incidents are over. We are just waiting for another result from Scientifica on May 6.
Prolonging my suffering is only justifiable if there is a compelling reason to do so. Since the investigative picture is complete, there is no further reason to continue denying the request for freedom of a subject who is constitutionally presumed to be innocent.
For thes reasons, I file a motion that the precautionary measure be revoked.
As a secondary issue, I ask that it be attenuated by granting me house arrest at the Il Casolare Community.
No new fact has emerged to justify the revocation of custody as per paragraph 1 of Article 299 cpp.
The same can be said for the request that the measure be attenuated through house arrest status on the grounds that it is no longer proportionate to the facts and the potential penalty (paragraph 2 of Article 299).
Let's analyze the reasons that could justify attenuation. The mere amount of time that has passed since incarceration began is not in and of itself a reason. It may be considered, but only together with new elements (S.C.2001,2006) which, for the time being, do not appear to be present.
As for tampering with the investigation, although the investigation has gone ahead, there is still a risk that you could contact people who have already made depositions, in particular the girlfriends, for the purpose of asking them to change their version. And their statements are important.
As for the danger of criminal repetition, we must say that from Article 133 cp we can deduce that this includes the way in which the fact occurred and its seriousness.
The homicide of Meredith was certainly not an impulsive act. On the contrary, all of the small wounds with the last fatal one demonstrate cold calculation within the context of pre-planned conduct, the characteristics of which are clear signs of perversion demonstrated by a 'strange' enjoyment of her suffering.
Meredith was a girl full of life and enthusiasm, who --for the sole purpose of having some pleasure and sensation during a boring day spent smoking joints-- was subject to acts of brutality and cruelty that are disgusting to any normal person.
In such a situation the danger of repetition of the crime is certainly very high and can't be considered to have diminished due to the mere passage of time, during which -- as a reminder -- you have never shown any sign of remorse or reconsideration of your life.
Even the behaviors you mention in your motion requesting release, which are presented as being in your favor, could be read differently in the opinion of this judge [Matteini]:
your conduct after the murder is symptomatic of a personality which, considering your young age, provokes no small measure of dismay and apprehension, considering how extremely easy it was for you to control your states of mind.
You, together with Raffaele, were able to pretend to have called 112 faced with the accidental arrival of the Police, in order to build yourselves an 'alibi'. This was cold and rational behavior, not at all consistent with the state of stress you say you were feeling because you had found this strange situation at home.
Your stress is not really credible if, as you say, on the same morning of November 2, you came back home after having spent the night with Sollecito and, although you were aware of the situation, took a shower, washed your hair, changed your clothes and went back to his house and then -- only after many hours -- sounded the alarm with this 'famous' call to 112.
As for the flight risk, it is still present. Your family lives in the United States, so it would be extremely easy for you to leave the country. The fact that you did not do so before you were arrested is totally irrelevant. We must remind you that your arrest was made very early, and was effected purposely before the arrival of your mother in order to avoid just such a possibility.
In consideration of the aforementioned, today the only measure that ensures the precautionary requirement is continued precautionary custody in jail.
Even house arrest at such a qualified community is not suitable for you. Not only would the community not allow for continuous control over you, which is necessary, but the structure in question works on the basis of the capacity for self-determination of the individual, and the desire to reconsider the past to start on a new life path in a spirit of reeducation. None of these elements seem to exist in your case.
So, your request must be denied and custody in jail confirmed.