Tuesday, October 28, 2014

Analysis #3 Of Testimony Of Dr Chiacchiera, Organized Crime Section: Contradictions Between RS & AK

Posted by Cardiol MD

1. Overview Of This Series

In 2007 Dr Chiacchiera was the Director of the Organized Crime Section and the Deputy Director of the Flying Squad.

He was one of the most senior and experienced law enforcement officers to testify at the trial. His testimony and his cross examination by the defenses occupied a lot of time of the court late in February 2009. He covered the following ground.

(1) He found Knox and Sollecito uncooperative when he asked them questions.

(2) Saw evidence contradicting any lone burglar theory and indicating that the “break-In” to Romanelli’s room was faked.

(3) Phone records and the police investigation into the accused phone activity the night of the murder.

(4) Discovery of pornographic magazines at Sollecito’s house.

(5) Details of how the large knife, Exhibit 36, was collected from Sollecito’s and the evidence that it is the murder knife.

Dr Chiacchiera was submitted to cross-examination on the above 5 items by 4 Attorneys for the Defence of Knox and Sollecito, by 2 Civil Party Attorneys, and to Re-examination by the Prosecution. He had a gruelling time as a witness.

All the translation is by the ever-dedicated main poster ZiaK. This series is highlighting some key portions. Here is the full 50-page transcript which will be posted in the trial testimony area of McCall’s great Wiki.

(GCM=Giancarlo Massei; MC=Manuela Comodi; MaCh=Marco Chiacchiera; GB=Giulia Bongiorno; DD=Donatella Donati; CP=Carlo Pacelli; LG=Luciano Ghirga; CDV=Carlo Dalla Vedova; FM=Francesco Maresca)

Continuation of Dr Chiacchiera’s Evidence-in-Chief:

MaCh: It emerged that normally Sollecito kept his cellphones, and also Amanda Knox, they kept their cellphones on until a late hour, evening, [sic] there is no telephone traffic from 20:40 hours. A thing of this …

{Witness begins Testimony re cellphones and is interrupted}

MC: But did this emerge from the declarations or did it emerge from the analysis of the [phone] records in the preceding days?

{Examiner interrupts witness with good Q re source of telephone-usage information}

MaCh: It emerged from the analysis of the [phone] records in the preceding days.

{Witness answers clearly}

GCM: Excuse me. Let me understand. In other words you say: the cellphone was switched off and there was no telephone traffic, these are two different things.

{Court asks good clarifying Q}

MaCh: I’m saying, Mr President. Two things. The first, normally Sollecito’s telephone and the telephone of Amanda, were switched on until the late hours. The fatal evening, they were switched off from 20:42 hours until … one [of the phones] from 20:42 onwards and the other from about 20:50 onwards. One. Two, the traffic …

{Witness is Answering Court's Q in 2 parts. When he gets to his part #2, Court interrupts}

GCM: Before going on to “Two”, excuse me: “normally” – what does that mean? You had …

{Court is asking good Q re witness's Part #1, but is interrupted}

MaCh: We had done a comparative analysis of the telephone traffic of that evening with the telephone traffic of the preceding evenings. Shall we say the habits ...

{Witness interrupts Court with narrative response, and is also interrupted}

GCM: And so the “normally” emerges from this?

{Court interrupts witness's response with good Q}

MC: How many evenings? If you recall, or not?

{Examiner asks witness relevant Q, adding redundant Q}

MaCh: Months, no … honestly, I don’t remember how many [evenings], but months.

{Witness stumbles, seeming uncertain re 'evenings' vs 'months'}

MC: I mean to say, not …

{Examiner preambles re her redundant Q but is interrupted}

MaCh: Not three days, no. The telephone traffic habits were evaluated. [This is point] one. [Point] Two, the element that emerged, that contradicted the declarations, I can’t report on the declarations but I can report on the element that contradicted [sic. i.e. provided the contradiction], that in effect no telephone call had arrived at 23:00 hours, as had been declared: on the phone line that was declared to have received that … the recipient of that very phone-call. Another element: no interaction with the computer emerged, unlike what was declared. So there were a few objective elements of comparison from the analysis and from the technical checks that contradicted what had previously been revealed.

{Witness interrupts Examiner with narrative response to Examiner's Q, witness indicating contradiction between suspects' declarations and objective records of telephone and computer activity}

MC: For Amanda Knox, were there incongruities of this type?

{Examiner asks if incongruities/contradictions existed for Amanda Knox}

MaCh: Yes, there were incongruities because Amanda Knox was, how to say, contradicted by Sollectio, and then she contradicted herself, if I may …

{Witness answers affirmatively, amplifying applicability both to Sollecito & Knox, but is interrupted}

GB: President, if we continue in this way, then we might as well do the old [trial] procedure.

{Giulia Bongiorno, Sollecito's lawyer interjects, objecting-subjectively to Court, but submitting no legal basis for her objection}

GCM: Excuse me, please.

{Court seems to politely rule GB out-of-order}

MaCh: The elements, these are [sic], Mr President, I don’t know how to do.

{Witness communicates uncertainty to Court}

MC: But it is so difficult, however.

{Examiner chimes-in apparently commiserating with her witness's uncertainty}

MaCh: Mr President, I really don’t know what to do.

{Witness seems to repeat statement addressed to Court, who possibly interrupts}}

GCM: Excuse me…

{Court seems to begin response to Witness, but is possibly interrupted}

MaCh: If I have to describe the investigation activity …

{Witness may be interrupting Court or is continuing Witness's unfinished statement to Court}

MC: He’s not referring to declarations.

{Examiner chimes-in with his opinion re Witness's reference to Defendants' contradictions/incongruities - GB's interjection seems to have side-tracked court procedure}

GCM: Regarding these declarations, you can report on this [sic. i.e. in this instance?], and with regard to Raffaele Sollecito, you reported – citing the telephone traffic and citing the use of the computer. There now, and this is one point. With regard to Amanda Knox, you cannot report the declarations. But you may, however, say – following these declarations – what type of investigations you carried out, and the outcome of these. So, following the declarations given by Amanda Knox, did you do similar investigations, as [those you did] for Sollecito Raffaele on the [phone] records? Or was there nothing to do, except to …?

{Court rules on subject of testimony re Defendants' declarations, seeming to rule admissibility of Sollecito's declarations re telephone traffic and computer usage, but inadmissibility of Knox's declarations. Court does seem to permit description of investigations that followed Knox's declarations, without describing Knox's actual declarations, and Court asks whether phone-record investigations similar to those done for Sollecito were done for Knox.}

MaCh: Mr President, all the necessary checks were made, but in that immediate moment the most important element … that is to say, in [this] place [NdT: i.e. “in this Court”], in this moment, in this place, that is to say, when they were … I said [that] when the arrests were made, I don’t, I don’t know how to do, however, the incongruity of the declarations with the facts that we had found, and with the declarations that Sollecito had previously given us, [this] was the most important element. I don’t know if I have managed to …

{Witness seemingly responding to Court that he doesn't know how to deal with the declarations, is interrupted.}

GCM: No, excuse me (overlapping voices). So, with regard to Raffaele Sollecito, we have
understood these checking activities were carried out on the declarations made, the verification activities carried out, and [that’s all] very well. With regard to Amanda Knox, if you also carried out … maybe there were no objective elements for possible checking, there were no … or else, there were activities carried out of …

{Court, interrupting over witness's testimony, seems to be explaining his Q to witness, but is interrupted by witness}

MaCh: Later, there emerged a series of further elements.

{Witness interrupts with statement re unspecified further elements}

GCM: Not evaluations on the congruity, incongruity, likelihood, these are evaluations and will be done, there you go, comparably. I’m thinking of the [phone] records, of the use, if she had given indications on the basis of which [you] could carry out investigative activity …

{Court seems to want evidence in Knox's phone records justifying further investigation.}

Here ends the Testimony Of Dr Chiacchiera covering the relevant Phone Records, elicited by the Prosecution.

Next comes the Testimony Of Dr Chiacchiera elicited by the Prosecution, covering Discovery of pornographic magazines at Sollecito’s house, Details of how the large knife, Exhibit 36, was collected from Sollecito’s and the evidence that it is the murder knife



“Informal criminal profiling has a long history. It was used as early as the 1880s, when two physicians, George Phillips and Thomas Bond, used crime scene clues to make predictions about British serial murderer Jack the Ripper’s personality.”

But also,

“In 1974, the FBI formed its Behavioral Science Unit to investigate serial rape and homicide cases. From 1976 to 1979, several FBI agents—most famously John Douglas and Robert Ressler—interviewed 36 serial murderers to develop theories and categories of different types of offenders.

Most notably, they developed the idea of the “organized/disorganized dichotomy”: Organized crimes are premeditated and carefully planned, so little evidence is found at the scene. Organized criminals, according to the classification scheme, are antisocial but know right from wrong, are not insane and show no remorse. Disorganized crimes, in contrast, are not planned, and criminals leave such evidence as fingerprints and blood. Disorganized criminals may be young, under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or mentally ill.”

Sounds like Knox, Sollecito, and Guede, and they left behind a lot of clues, didn’t they?.

Posted by Ergon on 10/30/14 at 11:15 PM | #

Hi Ergon

That quote seems to fit well with what the excellent SeekingUnderstanding etc have been telling us (scroll down here):


But you did see the source, right?! John Douglas is one of those obsessed with the idea that Guede did it alone and no way could the other two have fit Douglas’s profile.

He came after Kassin and Steve Moore of course (Jim Clemente followed him) but somehow managed to get even more facts wrong than they did.


Our exposure of all the “mistakes” in that chapter (there were similar chapters in two books) follows soon in the Interrogation Hoax series.


A problem for psychologists looking at this case is that 1/4 of the trial was behind closed doors.

That included the all-day analysis of the room by Italy’s top crime-scene analysts, and the video of the 15 minute attack in the summations, both of which proved the roles of three people (two knives, right?)

The APA was the society that published the notorious paper of Saul Kassin without any peer review.


Kassin by the way seems to have disappeared from John Jay College since our exposures. This by Cardiol MD was our latest on him


Posted by Peter Quennell on 10/31/14 at 08:05 AM | #

Thanks Peter. The list of “experts” willing to put aside their professional standards in order to get their moments of media fame is quite long.

Douglas, Hampikian, Kassin, extradition law professor M. Cherif Bassiouni, DNA expert Peter Gill, producing such slapdash efforts which were so easily shot down?


Posted by Ergon on 10/31/14 at 09:36 AM | #

Regarding Dr. Chiacchiera’s testimony, that Knox and Sollecito turned off their phones immediately after Jovana Popovic freed them up for the evening @8:40 PM?

Knox turns off her phone @ 8:42 PM, and Sollecito @ 8:50 PM.

It certainly wasn’t so they could watch Naruto.

Posted by Ergon on 10/31/14 at 09:55 AM | #

Hi Ergon

We should assemble a list of those experts who headed off down the slippery slope in Knox’s support and have now gone quiet (Kassin) or are backtracking (Gill).

They not only tossed the hard facts of the case under the bus, and conveniently failed to account for Sollecito. Some of them even tossed their own science!

In the links I posted above, there was one to an analysis by BR Mull of Kassin’s claims in his APA paper as compared to the hard facts of the case.

Perhaps even more deadly was this analysis by Fuji (which we posted twice) comparing Kassin’s and Knox’s claims as compared to Kassin’s own science.


In effect Kassin tossed both the facts and his own science under the bus, so desperate was he to be seen as THE one to “solve” the case and THE one to ensure Knox’s freedom.

Any one White Knight can be a real nuisance. In this case, we have seen dozens, each trying to leapfrog all the others to become the leader of the Knox parade.

Remember Preston, Heavey, Sforza, Fischer, Lovering, Moore, Rocco Girlanda, Hampikian, Halkidis, Moore again, Douglas, Clemente.

When Knox came back to Seattle late 2011, Steve Moore gleefully attached himself to her as a self-appointed “security detail”. End run!

But within a week Knox’s family had pushed the lusty pervert away, just as they did the lusty pervert Frank Sforza when he tried to grope Knox in their own home.

I dont know of any White Knights or experts that the Knox people FULLY embrace any more. Do you?

Or any that Knox rewarded? Well, except the Perugia drug kingpin, though that sex was for hard drugs, not faux science.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 10/31/14 at 10:22 AM | #

Make a comment

If you are reading this please log in to post a comment.


Where next:

Click here to return to The Top Of The Front Page

Or to next entry The Knox Interrogation Hoax #15: Dr Mignini’s Account Of Formal Warning Session Ending 5:45 AM

Or to previous entry The Hundreds Of DNA Samples Taken And Analyses Done, Shown In Table Form