From Gravina to Perugia, to Garlasco, investigations are often based on clues. After the handcuffs were triggered. And then one wonders: why do the investigators no longer know how to investigate? And who saves us from investigations without evidence but with many shadows?
I went to the archive an old number of Panorama 17 years ago. The cover title was quite clear: «Culpable without a shadow of trial. From Gravina to Perugia, to Garlasco, investigations are often based on clues. After the handcuffs were triggered. And then one wonders: why don’t they know how to investigate the investigators? ». I remember that I asked colleagues to tell the investigations for the death of two brothers who had led to the arrest of his father, but also the investigation against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, and also the one concerning Alberto Stasi for the murder of Chiara Poggi. In all three cases the prosecutors were evident.
Filippo Pappalardo, the father of the children of Gravina who died of hardship at the bottom of the well, It was released and recognized innocent after a year of jail. The alleged co -author of the crime of Meredith Kircher have long been free, acquitted for not having committed the fact, but after spending four years behind the bars. For Alberto Stasi, the judgment is suspended: or rather, it is definitive, because on him a sentence of 16 years in prison passed on a res judicata, but the Pavia prosecutor’s office reopened the case, investigating another alleged murderer, or Andrea Semplio. How is it possible that ten years from a guilt sentence, and 18 from the assassination, is all questioned? The answer lies in that number of Panorama 17 years ago and in a subsequent one, a few months later, who wondered about the scientificity of some investigations.
It was all clear from the beginning: there were no steaming pistols who accused Chiara Poggi’s boyfriend. Only clues, many of whom are not even concordant, but the investigators chose to favor some compared to others and so, after two sentences in which Alberto Stasi was acquitted of any accusation, here comes, following a postponement of the Cassation, a sentence of the opposite sign: 16 years of prison. Little for an heinous crime: perhaps, he observed some reporters, not even the judges believed too much to the guilt of the young Bocconi with an ice eyes, whose only wrong was probably to be reserved, absolutely cold, almost waterproof to the emotions, at least under the eyes of the photographers and the Chambermens sent in large quantities to Garlasco.
Almost twenty years after the crime, however, the prosecutors rewrite the story and accuse another person, “Discovering” also an imprint of the palm of the hand next to the corpse that would be his. Here, let’s clarify immediately: the carabinieri and magistrates investigating the matter have found nothing new. No other reliefs have been made, neither on the Poggi wall nor under the victim’s nails. Both the imprint and the DNA found on Chiara Poggi’s fingers were already all found, that is, acquired by the investigation. There are no unpublished facts capable of making the investigation turn. Only a careful evaluation of those collected in the past which, however, in light of some feedback and some reflections of the investigators who had not been carried out previously, lead to conclusions diametrically opposed to those to whom the Vigevano prosecutor and the judges of Pavia arrived, over a decade ago.
We will naturally see if the clues and evidence lined up by the public prosecutors against Andrea Semve And other possible suspects will hold the examination of the court, admitted and not granted that a judgment is reached. However, the reflections we did on Panorama In March 2008. How is it possible that allegedly guilty -guilty without evidence? In the case of Alberto Stasi there was not only the arrest, but also the sentence, now almost entirely obvious. Still, the law says that it has been condemned if there is also not a single “reasonable doubt”. And in Garlasco of reasonable doubts about the guilt of the main defendant there were many.
The Constitution, article 24, sanctions the right to defense, also ensuring it to the non -wealthy. But in a justice that breaks out the principle of innocence in front of reasonable doubts, how is it possible to defend yourself if you do not have legions of lawyers, experts and private investigators who are able to demonstrate the opposite with respect to what is supported by the investigators? Without the lawyers and experts of his defense, who did not give up even in the face of the judgments passed by res judicata, Stasi would remain the only guilty of the crime of Garlasco. On p. 18 of this number, you can read the stories of those who are put in prison and then, sometimes after decades, it is recognized innocent. So I go back to the initial question: why don’t they know how to investigate the investigators? And who saves us from investigations without evidence but with many shadows?
