Witness Statements of Alessi, Aviello, Castellucio, De Cesare, Trincan
[Deposizioni testimoniali di Alessi, Aviello, Castellucio, de Cesare, Trincan, pp. 42-43; translated by teddypots, a.k.a. Newcomer]
These people, all currently imprisoned for various reasons [a vario titolo], were called to testify: Aviello on assertions about his direct knowledge of the death of Meredith Kercher; the others on the disclosures that Rudy Guede allegedly made to them in prison regarding the non-involvement [estraneità] of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito in the crime.
This Court called these people to testify, on the request of the defendants’ counsel, due to the profound conviction that it was not possible a priori, without having heard them, to exclude their credibility merely by considering their character and the fact that they are being detained for serious crimes.
Now, in retrospect [a posteriori], having heard them leads the Court to consider all of them as being untrustworthy [non attendibili]: Aviello because there is a complete lack of objective verification [riscontro obiettivo] [of his testimony] (as emerges also from the testimony of police official Dr. Chiacchiera); the others because no evidence emerged indicating a friendship, established in prison between them and Rudy Guede, to make a disclosure [confidenza] likely, about the actual course of events [svolgimento della vicenda].
This established unreliability makes it unnecessary to recall Aviello to the stand – as requested by the General Prosecutor – with the aim of getting a retraction, already given directly to the Public Minister, as the end result would be irrelevant for the purpose of this trial.
If these statements [deposizioni] do not prove to be elements in favor of the current defendants, they cannot also become – as argued by the prosecution – evidence of value against them [valore indiziaro a loro carico]. Whether these witnesses decided to report events, in theory favorable for the defendants, spontaneously or solicited by others is not known; what is certain is that there is no evidence to show that it was possible for the current defendants, arrested a few days after the event [the homicide] and for years confined in prison, to weave a plan of this sort, so the lack of credibility of these witnesses cannot be considered confirmation that the defendants provided a false alibi.