Murder Abroad: The Amanda Knox Story
May 8 at 8:00p.m. ET and PT on CNN/U.S
Drew Griffin interviews Giuliano Mignini
Translator's note: the transcript in Italian contains these words in English at this point: Starts with translation. This notation suggests that there is either a second journalist, who does not directly understand the answers, or that **** is using a translator, human or automatic. **** is used in the place of the individual's name, which elsewhere is given as CNN. This is the only change that has been made to the transcript as delivered.
English question [Translatorâ€™s note: These words are in English in the Italian transcript of which this document is a translation.]
CNN: You didnâ€™t interrogate Amanda?
Mignini: Oh, the police interrogated her. I was told about it. I wanted to explain this. I remember that I had gone to sleep and the director of the flying squad, Dr. Profazio, called me, because he tells me: â€œThere are developments; Raffaele in fact has denied what he had said beforeâ€. So I went down* [Translatorâ€™s note: This seems to imply Mignini was not sleeping at home but instead somewhere on a higher floor at the Questura.] and the head of the flying squad told me what had happened. At some point they tell us that Amanda has made this statement.
And thus her interrogation as a person informed of the facts was suspended by the police in compliance with Article 63 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure [c.p.p. - Codice di Procedura Penale], because if evidence appears that incriminates the person, the person being questioned as a person informed of the facts can no longer be heard, and we must stop. Everyone stop! There must be a defense attorney [present]. And thus the police stopped and informed Amanda, who had placed herself on the scene of the crime and who said that she had accompanied Lumumba and let him in and that then Lumumba, in the other room, allegedly committed a sexual act and killed Meredith. This is what she said.
Then I was called, I was informed about this, I went to Amanda who, I remember how she was, what she looked like, I remember her very well, she remained imprinted in my memory, I still remember then two things about Amanda that struck me at the time: first, she looked like she was relieved of a burden and second, she was like, and this is another detail that was impressive, it seemed as if she was terrified of Lumumba.
Then I, as I had in some way to, let's say¦ this police interrogation had been suspended. At that point I remember that¦ they made me notice that Amanda, because she wanted to go on talking, I remember she had, like a need to. So I told her: you can make statements to me; I will not ask questions, since if you make a spontaneous statement and I collect it, I will collect your statement as if I were in fact a notary. She then repeated [her story] to the interpreter, who was Mrs. Donnino, I remember there was a police woman officer who wrote the statement down [verbalizzava], I did not ask questions. She basically repeated what she had told the police and she signed the statement. Basically I didn't ask Amanda questions. Not before, since the police asked them and I was not there, and not after, since she made spontaneous statements. Had I been asking her questions, a defense attorney should have been there. This is the procedure.
CNN: She had an interpreter during the whole time?
CNN: She says no.
Mignini: Look the interpreter was there, when I heard her there was the interpreter. The interpreter Anna Donnino, who is an interpreter for the police; she was hired by the police.
Just like I believe that there was [before], I do not have the minutes now, but yet now this is a fact, it is undisputed that there was an interpreter.
CNN: Amanda Knox says she was interrogated for 14 hours¦
Mignini: No, look, absolutely not. At 1 a.m., the minutes of Nov 6th has started at 1 a.m. and I arrived, 14 hours that cannot be, we are really¦ that's absolutely impossible. So the minutes were done at one clock, then the minutes of the spontaneous declaration was taken at 5.45, it maybe lasted half an hour because no questions were asked. She made her statements; they were translated; then at around 8 a.m., I think, at approximately 8, I drew up the detention order. Thus it is¦ well, she had been heard earlier, so she had been questioned as a person informed of the facts at around one forty-five a.m. She had previously been heard by a female police officer, but [that's] because she had gone voluntarily to the police and she reported that, she said things quite relevant to the investigation of Raffaele and was heard by the inspector [Rita] Ficarra. However this [event] ... I was not there, I do not know [about it]. But remember, there are the minutes. Then the minutes in which she was questioned as a person informed of the facts starts at 1:45 of November 6, and cannot have lasted 14 hours ... in no way whatsoever. Then she was arrested at around 8 a.m. or at about 9 a.m. or so.
Mignini: Look, I remember what I saw when I saw her personally, because she said, I told her: you can make, if you deem it [necessary], a spontaneous statement, because Italian law provides for this. If a person is aware that he/she is suspected [under investigation], may request to speak before a magistrate, it happened many times, they came also to me, and they say I want to make a statement. Very well, I listen. If I listen, I wanted this to be highlighted¦. to be clear, I listen and that's all, and I ask no questions, the defense attorney may be not present. But if I ask questions and I object to the facts [of your answers], it is like an interrogation and thus we would need a defense attorney.
CNN: was [Amanda Knox] scared?
Mignini: Well, I recall this feeling that I had in that moment which, [as] I am explaining to you, in the spirit in which I am doing this interview, to explain to you the acceptance [adozione] of our requests [provvedimenti], what was, why the trial went in a certain way. [Translator's note: The Italian in the CNN transcript is nearly incomprehensible. We have provided the foregoing on a best effort basis.]
She was, she seemed to me like she was uplifted, freed of a weight, and terrified of Lumumba. That's an impression that has stayed with me, yet I don't understand. I remember that there was a policeman who was called, from the SCO [Servizio Centrale Operativo] in Rome, who made an impression on me because he was very fatherly. She was crying as though freed of a great weight, and he was trying to console her. I remember there was also a policewoman who, well, she¦[missing word?] and I'm sure that.. [missing word?] .. well, all that picture how it was described later¦ at that moment it wasn't like that. Right then, there was a situation in which I was trying to console her, to encourage her, because actually we believed that she had told the truth.
CNN: No one hit her?
Mignini: No, look, absolutely not. I can state this in the most positive way, and then, let's say¦ I wasn't there when she was being questioned by police, the rooms are quite far away¦ you don't know but I was¦ it's quite far, there's a corridor, and I was with the director, Dr. Porfazio, and she was being questioned in a different place. I also remember that passing through, I also saw Sollecito who was alone in a different room; he was also being questioned, as I recall. I don't exclude¦well¦it's clear that I wasn't there, but I don't believe that anything whatsoever happened, and in my presence absolutely not.
On the contrary, there was an attitude of¦ I mean they gave her [some] ... [missing word?] then she was like, you know, like someone crying from a sense of liberation, as though she had been freed. That was the attitude.
CNN: Why wasn't there any video or transcript of those hours?
Mignini: Look, that's, I was at the police station, and all the¦let's say¦when I made investigations in my own office, I taped them. I taped them, we have an apparatus for that, and I transcribed them. For example, there's the interrogation of the English girls, Meredith's friends, it was all taped. The interrogations of Amanda in prison were taped, and then transcribed, and we have the transcripts of¦ But in a police station, at the very moment of the investigation it isn't done, not with respect to Amanda or anyone else. Also because, I can tell you, today, even then, but today in particular, we have budget problems, budget problems that are not insignificant, which do not allow us to transcribe. Video is very important¦I completely agree with you that videotaping is extremely important, we should be able to have a video recording of every statement [verbale di assunzione di informazioni] made Because what is said is very important, but it's maybe even more important how it is said, the non-verbal language. Because from the non-verbal language you can [missing words].
Mignini: It isn't only Amanda, it's always like that. But I wanted to say that I agree with him that itâ€™s fundamental, only thereâ€™s a problem, especially when the witnesses are so numerous, and in fact just recording, I mean recording the sound, isnâ€™t enough according to me.
CNN: It doesn't cost much, he says.
Mignini: Well we have significant budget problems, that's what it is.
CNN: So in the end, you did get a confession. But then, everything that was written in the confession became a lie?
Mignini: But then, there was the fact that she placed herself at the scene of the crime, and Lumumba wasn't there, together with the three of them, the two of them, but Rudy was there, according to the facts that emerged later. But the fact of having accused¦and she's even accused of calumny in regard to Lumumba, was an element that was very important from the point of view of her legal position at the trial. Why accuse someone of participating in a crime, placing yourself at the scene of a crime? Because with those declarations, she placed herself at the scene, at the place of the crime. And she placed someone there who was a complete stranger to it. Why did she do that? There is one detail that's particularly significant. Above all when Lumumba was arrested and no one if it hadn't been for the Public Prosecutor's Office that conducted the investigation, and that is mandated to seek elements in favor of the accused, Lumumba would have stayed in prison. But we investigated, and we saw that Lumumba wasnâ€™t involved, that he was the object of calumny and so he was freed and the case against him was archived.
CNN: Was she asked to imagine what might have happened?
Mignini: No, absolutely not. Either you saw a person or you didn't. I can't ask someone what they imagine because it would be a question that doesn't mean anything, that I even don't understand.
CNN: Do you think Amanda Knox is bad?
Mignini: Look, by the way we did make some personality assessments, we usually do make them, but they are only for investigative purposes. About Amanda I can tell you that she is a very, extremely intelligent girl, I always said so, about being bad, I don't .... I wouldn't, I couldn't say anything. It seems to me that going beyond this would be a personal judgment, devoid of significance. What is important is the fact, what is important is why an event takes place which is a crime, a crime accomplished without premeditation. So I don't¦ any¦ I mean, I don't want to do it, I don't think it would be right to say that someone is good or bad, absolutely not.
This means the assessments that we did make were made only in order to ascertain responsibility, but what someone's personality is, the personality of the accused, that deserves great respect and we don't, the evaluations that we do we only make them to ascertain responsibility and then for the sentencing. At that stage in fact the personality of the criminal is taken into account, for the purpose of establishing penalty, in Italian law, but we did that in the request for a guilty verdict. There, there was one element that has some relevance to the psychological aspect; it was the fact that a crime was alleged that was committed for futile motives, which is an aggravating circumstance. And we did hold that this was an aggravating circumstance, but it was only for this purpose that we made personality assessments, not for any other purpose.
During the investigation, I heard them being made, and I read articles, they kept attributing judgments to the investigators that were never made; certainly I never made judgments like that. I have the greatest respect for the persons of the accused.
CNN: The accusation [Translator's note: non-grammatical question] is like: once it was proven that Lumumba was basically a lie of Amanda's, you should have started again from scratch. Once all the DNA evidence of Rudy Guede came out, you should have said we've found the culprit, because of the fact that there just wasn't any trace at all inside the room, and then, according to the defense, the defense says that you became fixated on Amanda and Raffaele, almost obsessional.
Mignini: No, absolutely not. I did what I did and now I'm talking about the past, about what the investigation showed, about what happened at the first instance trial, because I am, I was and I am, I did what I did because I'm convinced, on the basis of the evidence collected, that they were responsible, in the most absolute way. There isn't¦how was Rudy involved? Rudy was one element, but the crime, I repeating, one can't say any longer that this crime was committed by a single person. Now we have a judgment from the Court of Cassation, the Supreme Court, saying this crime was committed by Rudy together with other people, and it then indicates, by confirming the verdict and sentence of the Court of Appeal which condemned Rudy, that it is incidentally speaking of Amanda and Raffaele. So from now on, this crime must be seen as having been committed by more than one person, one of whom is Rudy.
So what has been assessed was held, I want this to be clear, precisely for the purpose of reconstructing the facts: I am called[C1] , I issue the warrant of arrest, for the arrest of Amanda, Sollecito and Lumumba, it goes in front of the Judge for the Preliminary Investigations who rules on the grounds of the warrant for arrest, so there's a request to validate the arrest and permit a precautionary measure; the judge for the preliminary investigation validated the arrest and allowed the precautionary measure. Then Lumumba was removed from the picture because we conducted our investigation and saw that he wasn't involved, so he was out. So, when we had collected the elements that convinced us, me in particular since I was the one who made the request, the archiving request, first his release and then the archiving of the proceeding against him.
If that had been, but I don't accept that attribution, there isn't any, there isn't any [missing word?]. If the magistrate, if that attribution were true, having started with Lumumba I would have had to continue with Lumumba. But in fact, it isn't that way because Lumumba had nothing to do with it. So, the precautionary measure was challenged before the re-examining tribunal, where three judges preside for each of the accused. On the order of the re-examining tribunal, Sollecito, Rudy and Amanda appealed the precautionary measure to the court of Cassation, but the court of Cassation confirmed it [Translator's note: i.e., denied the appeal]. The measure was also taken for Rudy, and the court of Cassation confirmed it.
Then there was the judge of the preliminary hearing who sent the case to trial, condemned Rudy, rejected a request to revoke the measure, and finally the first instance trial ended with a guilty verdict. Here, eight judges, i.e., two magistrates [giudici togati] and six lay judges, recognized that the accusations were well-founded. So, when there are elements that had to be archived, we did request that they be archived. So there is no such attitude [Translator's note: i.e., obsession], absolutely not. This is what I can [do?]. If there were, if there were some true or even just credible elements, because I would need something like that, which hypothetically could prove that they had nothing to do with the crime, I would take account of it and would act accordingly, I would have acted accordingly. In the most absolute way.
I'll tell you what happened, and please believe me, because around this event there have been a lot of things which are unfounded, to say the least. According to me, intellectual honesty is the main quality in a magistrate.
CNN: Is Antonio Curatolo a trustworthy witness?
Mignini: But the witness takes an oath and assumes his responsibility, if he says something false then he is committing the crime of perjury and calumny, at the limit, if he's explicitly accusing an innocent person of a crime, so in our, in Italian law, the witness is considered to be trustworthy, authentic, until the point at which you can't prove he said something false. Unfortunately, however, or fortunately, we don't know, the person who was in the piazza, who has lived in that piazza for ten years, at least ten years, who knew everything about that piazza, was this homeless guy. So the homeless guy is a bum so that's no good. But that's not right, he's a witness like the others. The woman what's her name, the witness who lived there, near the house, the one who heard the scream, is a totally credible person, a very normal lady who told what she had heard coherently. The school teacher, the one who lived nearby, is a totally credible, trustworthy witness.
With witnesses, it's not that we can choose their testimony. Witnesses are the people who are, by chance, able to give some indications. And for that matter, Curatolo is someone who actually lived there, and his declarations are altogether pretty credible, and confirmed by other people. Other witnesses were also heard, who were, I don't know, for example Gioffredi, a perfectly normal person So I don't see¦basically, it's the testimony of a perfectly normal person which has to be weighed according to what it says, and its coherence with a reconstruction [of the events, translator's note], and we have to believe it unless it's proven wrong.
Because if he says that he saw something, he exposes himself, he's under oath so he exposes himself to an accusation of perjury if heâ€™s not telling the truth, so we have to believe him. Otherwise justice, without witnessesâ€¦itâ€™s not as though we had a film of the crime, if only that could be the case.
33â€™30â€™â€™ CNN: Was Toto being investigated [sotto inchiesta] when he gave his testimony?
33â€™42â€™â€™ Look, I know that at the moment in which he gave it, I believe that there were some lawsuits against him, but in the stage of appeal, I think he had been condemned but was appealing, so, then later the sentence became definitive, but he gave his testimony when the sentence wasnâ€™t definitive yet. I donâ€™t know, those are details that I wouldnâ€™t know about exactlyâ€¦but I know for certain that the sentence was not definitive, so was still being contested.
34â€™34â€™â€™ CNN: Did Toto give his testimony hoping to obtain some kind of favor?
34â€™36â€™â€™ Mignini: Non, there was no favor, absolutely no favor. This didnâ€™t happenâ€¦the witness presented himself and made his declarations, thatâ€™s all. We took note of them, because they were relevant declarations.
35â€™17â€™â€™ CNN: So, you believed the testimony of a heroin-addict bum?
35â€™25â€™â€™ Mignini: Well, on letâ€™s say the legal position of this person, I have nothing to say because he was judged for something different, for a true and totally different fact, having nothing to do with the present one. For this one, he was a witness. And itâ€™s true that itâ€™s completely different in that he was heard as a witness, with no lawyer. If it had been a related fact, he would have had to be assisted by a lawyer and he would have had the choice to abstain from making declarations. But for this event, he is a plain and simple witness. Then, also, I wouldnâ€™t want to, because the witness, itâ€™s not that we ask the witness if he has a previous record, previous condemnations. We can ask that to the accused, to the accused, amongst the other questions that we ask the accused, we ask him if he has a previous record, but we donâ€™t ask witnesses this question, except during the defenseâ€™s investigations. This is theâ€¦so heâ€™s just a witness who made declarations. His declarations have remained quite, rather credible.
Thereâ€™s also for example the fact that, well, take for example the rain. Curatolo remembers that the evening during which he saw the two young people, it wasnâ€™t raining, and itâ€™s true that on the evening of the crime it wasnâ€™t raining. Vice versa, and they say this, also other witnesses say this, on the previous night, only in the town of Perugia, there was a limited weather phenomenon; in the late afternoon of October 31, it rained. And even I remember that, because I remember that the street was wet. So, this is to say that this is a detail which was confirmed byâ€¦there. Iâ€™m giving an example to tell you that also a person who has a criminal recordâ€¦and then, one would have to go see all the witnesses who were heard at the first degree trial, all of them, to see if they had them. We donâ€™t do it because it isnâ€™t relevant.
38â€™45â€™â€™ CNN: From the response of the bum, I assume that you took the responses of the two ladies as valid, and never went to check in their apartments if it was possible to hear footsteps with the shutters closed.
39â€™04â€™â€™ Mignini: So, the question of Curatolo is one thing, the declaration of Mrs. Capezzali, whatâ€™s her name, I think Capezzali, is something else. You say, sheâ€™s quite an elderly woman, she said she heard a scream, the scream thatâ€¦ She lives, I donâ€™t know if you know the area, but, I donâ€™t think you know it, she lives above the garage and looks over the house on via della Pergola, where thereâ€™s a kind of, something like an amphitheater. So the sounds coming from below can be heard with particular clarity and she heard the scream perfectly. She said so. And that same scream was heard by a very young teacher who lives lower down, in a street in the direction of, towards, letâ€™s say towards via Pinturicchio. And around the same time, she also heard a scream like that. Then she went down to her parents who were in a different part of the house and they said they hadnâ€™t heard anything.
40â€™26â€™â€™ CNN: He wants to know if you went to the house.
40â€™28â€™â€™ Mignini: Did I go? I have taken note of this witnessâ€™s statement and also of the other and, being two statements from persons who had no reason to lie and being these statements entirely credible since they are very similar to each other, the houses are very close to Via della Pergola, this statement was deemed fully reliable. There was then a request for an expert opinion, now I will not go into the merits of the trial events, but this thing was assessed during the investigation, by the Gup, and by the Assize Court that heard this person, who was cross-examined, she said, she repeated what she said. An absolutely believable person, who obviously [missing words]...further, as here [missing words]â€¦an experiment on the possibility of hearing was not done. We are, we took note of the fact that she told about this, about the scream that she heard. She confirmed it, she gave her, her, we say word, that she took an oath in court, to have heard this scream.
The same thing was said by another witness. What should we have done? Have an expert [perizia] ascertain, under different, not repeatable conditions, that which was heard at the time? The witness said what she heard. And, then, neither I nor the Court of Assizes considered submitting [missing words]. The Assize Court decided instead to do something very important. And this is a detail which I consider [missing words]. When I inspected the house on Via della Pergola, which in my opinion was a very important initiative, very crucial for the decision. That is, that was an opportunity to make an inspection to see that house as it was, how was this window through which this unknown subject would have climbed, which then would have been Rudy. And the court was aware that this reconstruction was, in my opinion, unlikely.
43â€™35â€™â€™ CNN: Would it have been easy to conduct [fare] the experiment?
43â€™38â€™â€™ Mignini: But letâ€™s say if a person has made these statements and it was this way. Because, you see, Iâ€™ve listened to this person, she was recorded, among other things, she was cross-examined during the trial. She was very precise. She said that she constantly used to hear, even during other nights, that she used to hear the noises of the youngsters who made quite a noise in the garage, in the parking lot. So. ... These things, these noises, she was used to hearing them. She stated this. There was no reason, she did not know the victim, she did not know the accused, what reason could she have had to [missing words]?
44â€™44â€™â€™ CNN: not that she lied but this is a fundamental question for your work. Is your job finding the truth and solving the problem or is it following your intuition and trying to incriminate the first person you find suspicious?
45â€™16â€™â€™ Mignini: Well this is, in the Italian legal system, the prosecutor is not a lawyer for the accusation. He/she is an organ of the judiciary who must also seek evidence in favor of the suspect. Which we have done, particularly in the case of Lumumba. And all the people, all the witnesses who were suggested by the accused, were heard in cross-examination. A very long preliminary investigation was made, extremely thorough, verifications of all kinds were made, [including] verifications on the phone cells. I have not spoken of the phone cells, for example, but that is another point that showed peopleâ€™s movements, peopleâ€™s location, that were confirming the accusatory hypothesis, as we say. So, [after] all these evaluations, the prosecutor, made a few requests. I did nothing. I made an order of detention, I asked for [its] confirmation. Then the judges had to confirm everything. And the Preliminary Hearing judge should have considered, he would have had to, if there had been any grounds of non-credibility of witnesses, they should have been pointed out, they should have highlighted this. But the Preliminary Hearing judge evaluated the indictment request, I asked for an indictment but is was the GUP Micheli who [actually] indicted the defendants.
There was the trial before the Assize Court, which took place, it was a proceeding that lasted a year, a trial that lasted a year, during which the case was examined thoroughly from every possible angle and therefore this is the [missing words]. The magistrate, the prosecutor has an obligation, letâ€™s say, in the current legal system, to seek, he is an impartial body, that has the obligation to seek the truth and if new elements emerge which make [a person] appear to be credible, which make a person appear to be unrelated to a crime, [then the prosecutor] has the obligation to request that all charges be dropped or, if during the trial, [to ask for an] acquittal. I myself have come across many times, during a trial, in light of witnesses, new witnesses, who were produced again in other cases, I asked for an acquittal. Anyone who knows me knows that this has occurred many times. But in this case I had, letâ€™s say, during the investigation phase and during the trial, I made, we made our requests, we explained them, we justified them, and the court gave, acknowledged the validity of this case. Then there is an instance of appeal. There is the appellate level. Now, I will not discuss this because it is on-going.
49â€™11â€™â€™ Mignini: The phone call, for example, another thing that had a considerable influence on the investigation was the phone call that Amanda had with her mother in the middle of the night in Seattle, even before [the body] was discovered. This is another element that comes to mind, even before the body was found.
49â€™52â€™â€™ There is a call that is made in an hour, now I do not remember, it was I think, I do not remember exactly, I think it was 3 AM in Seattle, I think.
50â€™58â€™â€™ CNN: In 2006, you were found [missing words], letâ€™s move on now to the other case, the prosecutor of Florence said that you would do anything to defend yourself in front of those who criticize the way you investigateâ€¦
51â€™43â€™â€™ Mignini: Well, I will not comment on this statement, I do not know when it was made. The proceeding that this person brought against me and Dr. Giuttari, ended in part with a full acquittal because no crimes had taken place [i fatti non sussistono], for one part. And this is a final acquittal because the prosecution did not appeal. So, this part of the allegations that were made, which were formulated, which was the most important part and led to the searches in the offices of the prosecution and also in Giuttariâ€™s police offices, this part has totally collapsed. A search was carried out, a seizure was made, which had already been annulled by a court in Florence.
Then the court of Florence acquitted us because no crimes had been committed, with a full acquittal. And this acquittal is final. A part of the charges formulated against us remains, that I honestly find hard to understand, because they say [si dice], we were accused of having carried out investigations that had no relevance according to the theory [impostazione] of the Florence prosecutorâ€™s office, I make this distinction, they had no bearing on the investigation we were conducting. I say that they had a full relevance and among these files there were interceptions that were all authorized by the competent magistrate. So this conviction was based on alleged offences [ipotesi di reato] to which we object, we have appealed, objecting to the jurisdiction of the prosecutor of Florence that conducted a trial although magistrates from the very same Florence Public Prosecutorâ€™s office were involved in this very trial. And this cannot be done.
54â€™26â€™â€™ Because when there is a magistrate who is involved for different reasons in a matter, the trial must be moved [to another city]. So, if there is a magistrate from Perugia, the trial is moved [si va] to Florence, but if there is a magistrate from Florence, one goes to Genoa. And if there is a magistrate from Genoa involved as the offended party, as it was in this case, you go to Turin. And this is not what they did in Florence. We have objected to the jurisdiction of the Court of Florence for the violation of article 11 of the c.p.p. and if this jurisdiction should be recognized, everything comes to be nullified, and everything goes to Turin.
55â€™14â€™â€™ In addition there are other aspects that I do not wish to, well, you asked me the question about Preston, then I spoke, and I would like a moment
56â€™05â€™â€™ Mignini: Then I would add one thing, listen well to this. If I want to do something intimidating, meaning that I want to do an investigation that has an intimidating purpose [carattere] against a person because that person speaks against [me], no? If I want to do an act of intimidation, I have to do an act which that person feels, that that person understands, knows, perceives. I must, hypothetically, carry out a search, make a seizure, do an inspection ... Instead, I performed [faccio] a wiretap that was secret, I heard a witness who remained secret. How can I intimidate a person if I carry out an investigation that remains secret? Because the investigation must be secret. This activity is not like a search that is immediately known by the person. If I want to intimidate a person do you think that I carry out an investigation that remains secret? And how can I intimidate him? Itâ€™s a contradiction in terms. So someone will have to explain to me the meaning of this accusation.
57â€™32â€™â€™ The problem is that at the origin of these proceedings there was [missing words], I do not mean the whole Florence Prosecutorâ€™s office with which I have very good relations. Iâ€™m talking about a time when [missing words] I talk about a conflict between offices, a conflict that has ended up in front of the Supreme Court Prosecutor Generalâ€™s Office because the Prosecutor General of Florence. That is, the Florence Prosecutorâ€™s Office wanted us to hand over to them a case we had, the one regarding the death of doctor Narducci. We said no, the competence is ours. The prosecutor general of the Supreme Court, Dr. Febbraio, on July 29, 2005, agreed with Perugia.
So at the origin of this matter there is a conflict of jurisdiction and there is an indictment brought by us, I would like to make this clear, the Perugia Prosecutorâ€™s Office had indicted the Florence Chief Prosecutor at that time, and this proceeding, at the origin of this proceeding, there is this fact. And this person also filed a civil lawsuit against me and Dr. Giuttari. This is the ... there is a contrast between offices, there was.