"One of the most serious misdirections in Italian judicial history“, starring men from the institutions. This disturbing verdict was given by the Caltanissetta court of assizes, which 14 months ago concluded the last trial on the via d'Amelio massacre, the mafia attack on 19 July 1992 in which the magistrate Paolo Borsellino lost his life and five escort officers. The motivation filed yesterday by the court is 1865 pages long and points the finger at i unfaithful servants of the state who according to the judges fed petty criminals, risen to deep throats of Cosa nostra, constructing a false truth on the perpetrators of the attack on judge Borsellino.
That it would have been an important sentence was already understood by the complexity of the device which, on April 20, 2017, sentenced Salvino Madonia and Vittorio Tutino to life imprisonment for the massacre and 10 years for slander Francesco Andriotta and Calogero Pulci, fake collaborators of justice used to put together a reconstruction of the executive stages of the massacre that cost seven innocent people life imprisonment. For Vincenzo Scarantino, the most discussed of the false repentants, protagonist of daring retractions in the course of twenty years of trials, the judges declared the statute of limitations, granting him the extenuating circumstance foreseen for those who are induced to commit the crime by others.
And it is to these "others" that the Court refers in the motivations of the sentence. To those investigators moved by "a criminal purpose", to those who "distortedly exercised their powers". The Caltanissetta court of assizes, therefore, uses very harsh words towards those who conducted the investigations: the reference is to the group that investigated the 92 massacres led by Arnaldo la Barbera, a police officer who later died. It was they who directed the investigation and forced Scarantino to tell a false version of the execution phase of the attack. They would have been the ones to carry out "a series of forcings, which also translated into undue suggestions and the facilitation of an improper circularity between the various declaratory contributions, all radically different from reality if not for the exposure of a common nucleus of information of which conceal the true source.”
But what were the purposes of one of the most sensational red herrings in the country's judicial history? the judges ask. The court tries to put forward hypotheses: how the coverage of the presence of sources that have remained hidden, "which is highlighted - write the magistrates - by the transmission to the false collaborators of justice of information extraneous to their cognitive heritage and later revealed to objectively correspond to reality", and, even more disturbing suspicion, "the concealment of the responsibility of other subjects for the massacre, within the framework of a convergence of interests between Cosa Nostra and other centers of power that perceived the work of the magistrate as a danger”.
