Pre-trial detention is established by Article 275 CPP.
Article 280 regulates the applicability
Also known as preventive detention, it indicates the imprisonment of the accused, ordered by the judge with arrest warrants, at the request of the prosecutor, when there are special needs. First of all, an accused must be charged with serious clues (serious indications of guilt). In addition, there must be needs related to the investigation (for the acquisition and avoid manipulation of the evidence), founded fears of escape, danger of use of weapons or other means of personal violence and all other measures must be found inadequate (such as the prohibition of expatriation, the obligation of going to the offices of the judicial police, the prohibition of residence in a determined location or, instead, the obligation to live there). The maximum duration of detention may not exceed two years (maximum penalty six years), four years (maximum penalty twenty years), the six years (maximum penalty equal to life imprisonment or up to twenty years). Obviously, the period of custody will be deducted from the term of imprisonment.
The abuse usually made of this measure is in contradiction to Article 13 of our Constitution:
Personal liberty is inviolable.
No form of detention, inspection or personal search are admitted, The same applies to any other restriction of personal freedom, except for a rule initiated by the judicial authority and only in the cases as allowed by the law.
In exceptional cases of necessity and urgency, strictly defined by law, the public security authorities may adopt temporary measures, which must be reported within forty-eight hours to the court and, if the court does not ratify such measures within forty-eight hours, they are revoked and become null and void.
Every physical and moral violence on individuals under restrictions of freedom is punishable. The law establishes the maximum period of preventive detention.
The reasons usually applied are 3:
manipulation of the evidence;
danger of escape;
re-iteration of the crime.
In your case, your lawyers requested the repeal just once at the GUP(The Judge of primary investigation) hearing, Judge dr. Micheli(GUP), denied for one reason only (the other two having failed): REITERATION OF CRIME. Since he could decide upon a less restrictive measure, such as house arrest, we can conclude that Micheli decided to deny you this because you could repeat the crime even being forced to stay in your home. Ergo you could have killed me, or Mara, or Simona. I think this is a blatant abuse of the law by the Judge.
You must tell the lawyer that for our code the opinion of the Magistrate counts more than any lack of evidence of guilt. The defendant therefore is NOT ‘PROTECTED BY THE LAW, because if the judge is convinced of your guilt, he convicts you even without any evidence or worse still AGAINST the evidence itself. Make known, in reference to this, that at the end of the first trial the Court presided by President MASSEI completely ignored the testimony of five individuals who were in front of the house on Via della Pergola continuously from 22.30 to 23.30 on the evening of 1 November 2007 and declared in the courtroom that they did not hear any screaming coming from the house, nor did they see anybody coming to the house, nor did they see anyone exiting from the house, nor did they see any lights being put on in the house. In other words, they did notice anything out
of the ordinary. Massei instead, wrote that you and Amanda alone or with Rudy (you name it) at around 23.00 left Grimana square and went to Meredith’s house (also Amanda’s house) to kill her(Meredith). Not only did he also write that the crime was carried out between 23.00 and 23.30 and that Rudy could have arrived at a later time, but always within the same time span, because he had to take a shit. Even the prosecution’s own key witness, Curatolo, stated in the courtroom to having seen you and Amanda in the square continuously from 21:30/22:00 to midnight and to not having seen you leave, before he himself leaving to look for a place where to sleep and to have left you and Amanda there. He did not grant the independent review on DNA and stated in the judgment that to identify an individual from a complete profile of DNA, it is enough that his map corresponds to 9 of 16 loci, even when Stefanoni(prosecution DNA advisor) said in court that: even if a single locus out of 16 does not correspond to the person that imposes the exclusion of identification.
In your case the PM(Chief Prosecutor Mignini) has committed a crime of falsification.
In fact, he lied to the court when he stated that he had issued, in accordance with Article 104 CPP a restrictive measure which was intended to prevent your lawyer to meet you in prison.
The fact, in itself extremely serious, for which we are presenting a complaint to the Prosecutor of Florence, for irreparably harming your right of defense. But what is worse is that the fact itself suggests that it is true that you were denied to talk to a lawyer during interrogation on the night of 06 November. In fact, if a PM(Chief Prosecutor) figures out to have issued a restrictive measure, to prevent a trusted lawyer to talk with a suspect in custody and lets the Director of the prison say it, all the more reason you were denied it that night when you were alone against everyone.
In this regard, I will send you the judgment of the Supreme Court, which relates to Amanda and not you, because that asshole of our then appeals attorney, GAITO, forgot to write it in the application, in which it is stated that this interrogation, conducted without legal counsel, IS NOT VALID NEITHER AGAINST YOU NOR AGAINST OTHERS.
The law on wiretapping in Italy has not been changed, although there have been many proposals for legislation, all ended in nothing.
It is the 266 CPP
Instruction art. 266 Code of Criminal Procedure
Sources → → Code of Criminal Procedure BOOK THREE – Tests → Title III – Measures of investigation of the test (Articles 244-271) → Chapter IV – interception of their conversations or communications
The interception of telephone conversations or communications, and other forms of telecommunications (1) is allowed [295 3] in proceedings relating to the following offenses:
a) intentional crimes for which is expected to imprisonment for life or of imprisonment for a a maximum of five years, determined in agreement with Article 4 (2);
b) crimes against the public administration for which it is expected the penalty of imprisonment of not less than five years, determined in agreement with Article 4 (3)
c) offenses relating to narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances (4);
d) offenses relating to weapons and explosive substances;
e) crimes of smuggling;
f) crimes of insult, threat, wear, improper financial activities, harassment or annoyance to individuals by means using the phone (5);
f-bis) crimes provided for in Article 600ter, third paragraph, of the Criminal Code (6).
2. In the same cases is allowed interception of communications between the current speaking people (7). However, if these occur at the places specified in Article 614 of the Criminal Code (8), the interception is allowed [3a 295] only if there is reason to believe that there is taking place the criminal activity [103 5; cp 615bis] (9)
The interception is proposed by the PM(Prosecutor) and authorized by a judge for preliminary investigations. The authorization has a duration of 15 days, renewable from time to time by a new judge decree.
In our case it was proposed by the Judicial Police, validated and authorized by the PM(Prosecutor Mignini) from time to time by different judges for about 6 months.
Were intercepted in order: Francesco Sollecito, then his wife, then his daughter Vanessa, then his brother Joseph and his sister-in-law Sara, and finally her sister Theodora. A total of 39940 calls were intercepted. The authorizations were granted for the following offenses text:
“THE FATHER FRANCIS is working to LIGHTEN THE POSITION OF EVIDENCE OF THE SON RAFFAELE.”
In other words Francesco Sollecito was committing the crime of defending his son.
None of these calls was used during the 2 trials of Raphael. So have served only to make known to the investigators all the moves of the defense and to try to put on trial all the Sollecito’s family intercepted for defamation against the victim.
Now, the Sollecito’s intercepted has been filed for this type of offense, then all this investigative activity has ended in nothing, only causing serious economic damage to the community.
Therefore remains a shameful abuse of our judiciary.
INSPECTION ON CRIME SCENE
On 01 November afternoon starts on the 1st on the crime scene from the Scientific Police in Rome (considered the best in Italy). At 00.15 on 02 November the body of the victim was moved and at its back was found a piece of bra clasp with cloth and attached 2 hooks closure. The object was a fine show if the center of the room(that is the crime scene), in an area of the floor clean, because it is protected from the body of the victim. It was immediately photographed and has been identified on the precise point where the bra clasp was, as were the measures taken in centimeters of the distance between it and the front wall and the left side of the room, immediately after the object DISAPPEARED, there is no trace of it, when the next morning at around 10.00 am the inspection is resumed, interrupted by fatigue of operators around 01.30, the bra clasp isn’t on the list of objects filed in the crime scene.
During this inspection, the forensic biologist Stefanoni from Scientific Police, erased each track of blood came to his observation (partial-or total shoe sole, left with on thee victim’s blood, blood stains on the handle door, on the light switches, on the faucet of the sink, on the edge of the bidet etc..) with a little gauze soaked in saline, not before having photographed, with the aim to detect traces of DNA. The lady did not consider it appropriate to await the arrival of his colleagues, experts on fingerprints, to give them the ability to detect at the stains on the door and switches, the palmprint of those who left it, I thought, to detect DNA, would be enough to make withdrawals Random, without erasing the tracks.
Finished the inspection, the house is left at the disposal of the Police of Perugia which carries, within 40 days, 3 perquisition, one of which is not even put on record (so you do not even know who and how many people entered and if they had the guards), during which the house is put literally turned upside down: the furniture are disassembled and their parts are moved from room to room, furnishings, books thrown to the ground on the murder scene and so on. The logical consequence of this, and that the crime scene had been completely and permanently contaminated and rendered useless then.
On the contrary, it happened that the Director of the Scientific Police in Rome in person to the Judge asks permission to make a second inspection to the house, stating its reasons for the need to photograph from another angle the shoeprints on blood (those which had been erased by the his collaborator Dr. Stefanoni) …. unbelievable …………..
After receiving authorization, a team of forensic team back to the house, exactly after 46 days, to carry out the second inspection and, before entering, as it was surrounded by cameras of all kinds and a host of consultants armed with cameras super professional , is protected with suit, gloves, masks and boots, not to contaminate a crime scene, by this time completely and permanently contaminated.
Once inside, operators together with the various scientific advisors of the parties, can not find even a footprint, as it was obvious, but they start a random filing of anything: all kinds of objects and clothes of Meredith, which were put in bulk in a large suitcase.
In the late afternoon of the same day, by which time all the consultants were gone, an operator, poking around under the desk in the room of the victim, found beneath rugs crumpled the piece of bra clasp with two hooks.
This is first photographed, then taken with a dirty glove, that was already used during the inspection, it is passed from hand to hand among other operators, who also wore drity gloves for the same reason. the bra clasp is eventually put back on the floor dirt, and finally re-photographed and filed.
What emerges from this discussion is that with a false reason the Director of the Scientific Police asked to make a second visit only and only to allow the discovery of this object, sidetracking all consultants.
Only on bra clasp hooks the Stefanoni discovered, by chance, a trace of mixed DNA, produced by at least 4 contributors, among whom, in her point of view, was Raffaele, Meredith and two other male contributors not detectable because she could not compare them as they had only the complete profiles of Meredith, Rudy and Raffaele.
In its judgment the Court of First Instance with its President MASSEI writes that there is no contamination, because it’s not the prosecution that has to prove the authenticity of the find, but it’s the defense that needs to prove contamination, SIC ………. And that even if the DNA is not dated, that of Raffaele on the hooks is dated and was left during the crime occurred.
The in-house experts designated by the Appeal Court of 2nd degree, instead, have established that the finding is contaminated and that, given a track mixed with other contributors, knowing the profile of a person, this could be found on that track. Indeed, responding to a question by the court Pratillo Hermann, said that, knowing the DNA profile of the judge, they could also identify him.
In May 2009, a consultant forensic scientist Raffaele, authorized by the court of first instance, was able to analyze the pillow on which it rested Meredith’s body and discovered the presence of spots, due to CUM, a full ejaculation, not detected by the Scientific Police, which was right next to the vagina of the victim.
Our defense officially asked at that time the Court of Assise of FIRST degree, with President MASSEI to carry out an analysis of these spots, to get the identification of the person who had left them. Well, the court rejected the request, (and therefore we still do not know who they belong to) writing in that judgment: the DNA is not dated (while that of Raffaele yes) and those spots would have been belonged to Meredith’s boyfriend. Omitting to consider that the girl has not been seen with her boyfriend for at least 4 days before his death. So we can assume that this poor girl, according to the Court of Assise with President Judge Massei, slept quietly for at least 4 days on a pillow, whose pillowcase was dirty of the full ejaculation with sperm of her boyfriend.