A sensational and courageous sentence for some, disconcerting for others, the one that overturned the first instance judgment of the trial on the state-mafia negotiation. “A sentence announced” he told us in this interview Frank Cimini, journalist already at the Manifesto, Morning, Apcom, Tmnews and currently author of the blogustiziami.it, “Since the two most important alleged culprits, the former ministers Mannino and Mancino, had already been acquitted.
On the other hand, the handcuff journal (Daily fact, ed) had already said: the road to culpability is uphill “. Decades of public money spent in a trial that had no evidence from the start, he told us again, “a media hoax that wanted to reconstruct history, not to worry about any criminal offenses, also because evidence never existed”.
Why, in your opinion, the judges overturned the first instance judgment?
The handcuffs newspaper had already said that the road was uphill to obtain the guilt of the defendants. There had already been the Mannino sentence, with his acquittal, despite an attempted appeal to the Supreme Court to call into question what was established by the Attorney General. There was also the acquittal of Mancino, so there was no possibility of obtaining guilt, at most alternative judgments such as the fact does not exist, he did not commit the fact, the fact does not constitute a crime.
In short, there were clear signs that this sentence would come, is that right?
It was understood by virtue of these acquittals that those who conducted this investigation were aware from the beginning that they did not have the so-called smoking gun, that they had no evidence. The magistrates have turned into historians in quotation marks, to focus on a historical reconstruction that would replace the evidence they did not have.
Many on social media complain that with this sentence the State has cheated us once again, because it was in collusion with the mafia but the culprits were acquitted. Aside from the missing evidence, did this trial have a serious foundation?
The problem is that we can think of all the possible evil of the Ros or of how certain investigations are conducted, but let’s remember that the Prosecutor’s Office from the beginning, since the crime of “negotiation” did not exist, had invented that of a “crime of threatening the body politic or administrative of the State “. In the end, only the two Mafia members were sentenced.
Therefore? What does it mean?
It means that Dell’Utri has never committed anything, much less this pseudo-crime, and for the others there is no crime. The fact that they entered into dialogue with Vito Ciancimino was because they hoped that through him they could arrest fugitives.
They were doing their job, you mean, you mean that?
The negotiation with Ciancimino, which was a sort of investigative interview like the ones that policemen and carabinieri usually do, was a way to look for people who could collaborate with them. There was no threat to the state and there was none do ut des, I give you and you give me. What could they give him in return?
What the prosecution focused on is that the state had negotiated with the mafia to stop putting bombs, given that it was in a period of massacres. What the state would offer nobody knows, but this has been debated in court for years and years.
Yes, but even if that had been the case, they would have negotiated a little to avoid the massacres, a little to get information on the fugitives. In all of this, I see no threat to the state.
So why embark on this process?
It was mounted because certain magistrates wanted to change the political history of the country by focusing on the role of Berlusconi, on the money laundered by his father’s mafia. A narrative in which perhaps there will also be some truth, but as the inspectors of the Bank of Italy, used as witnesses, admitted, there was no evidence that Berlusconi had started his career as an entrepreneur by laundering mafia money. Also because many bank documents were no longer available.
In short, a trial that had to find imaginary culprits, can we say so?
A narrative that maybe could also be true, like the famous “papello” (a document containing Riina’s requests to the institutions, ed) which has never been found. When you go to court, you need the supporting documents, the evidence. Nothing has been proved here of this narrative beyond what can be said at the bar. There is a very oriented part of public opinion, convinced by a threshing media that lasted thirty years. Something similar to the so-called mystery of the Moro case, on which careers have been built and books have been written that have sold millions of copies, but all based on nothing, because there have been six trials that say that there was no one behind the Red Brigades . We are a country where the mother of conspirators is like the mother of idiots, she is always pregnant.
What remains of decades of trial?
The first instance sentence was the fruit of all this threshing advertising carried out by the great investigator Ingroia, who proclaimed himself heir to Falcone and Borsellino, then we saw the end he has done. We can hope that this sentence marks a discontinuity with the past, that we begin to think more correctly. Historical reconstructions cannot influence criminal responsibility.
A sentence that confirms the need for justice reform?
The reform of justice, we keep repeating it, you can’t do it because politics is under blackmail, you can’t do it.
A sick judiciary?
Unfortunately, any topic we talk about, it always gets there, the judiciary still has immense power and uses it. There is also the media element: in addition to separating the careers of prosecutors and judges, those of prosecutors and journalists must also be separated.
Can we say that justice has won and not justicialism?
Let’s say that a big hoax has been unmasked, a media hoax that has been going on for years with the competition of newspapers, TV and magistrates. It should have already emerged in the first instance, but evidently those judges have not heard it.
— — — —
We need your input to continue to provide you with quality and independent information.
© REPRODUCTION RESERVED