Now how, it is said, it is cassation. There are no new tests, nor conspiracy, nor alleged pressure, able to rewrite the history of the Erba massacre, the appeal in the Court of Cassation confirms the decision of the Court of Appeal of Milan which a few months ago had declared the request for revision inadmissible. Rosa Bazzi and Olindo Romano (in the photo in an Ansa repertoire image of 2006) They remain guilty beyond any reasonable doubt, as the Court of Appeal had already decided on the request for review. The interviews on TV are chatter in the ether and do not have the right of citizenship in the classrooms.
To be tranchant, the reasons could be summarized, with which the request for revision of the trial for the couple of spouses sentenced with a final sentence for the Raffaella Castagna, her mother Paola Galli, her two -year -old son Youssef and neighbor Valeria Cherubini were killed on 11 December 2006 on 11 December 2006. No new test capable of reopening a case kept open mostly on television.
“The application is manifestly inadmissible”, the Court of Appeal had written, “exhausting itself in the repetition, in the light of the new acquisitions (which, as we have seen, such are not) and in the perspective of the falsehood of the test, of complaints already developed in the previous degrees of judgment and in the execution accident”.
Because the Court set the hearing before rejecting
The text of the reasons for the Court of Appeal, on March 25, 2025, counted in the Court of Cassation, begins with a “frame” which explains in the method the functioning of the review procedure, clarifying on the basis of which rules the Court of Appeal of Brescia has decided to set an hearingin which he then declared the requests for revision inadmissible, made by the Tarfusser Cuno then in the staff of the Milan Public Prosecutor’s Office, as a deputy prosecutor, by the two defendants and their legal guardian: “The revision procedure”, writes the Court of Appeal, citing the letter a judgment of the United Sections of the Cassation, “develops in two phases: the first is the evaluation – which takes place without a notice to the defender or Ali ‘accused of the date of the hearing set for the Council Chamber – of the admissibility of the relative application and aims to verify that the same has been proposed in the cases provided and with the observance of the laws, as well as that it is not manifestly unfounded; The second is, however, consisting of the real review judgment aimed at the assessment and evaluation of the new tests, in order to establish whether, alone or joined to those who had led to the affirmation of the conviction of the condemned, they are such as to demonstrate that he must be acquitted. In this second phase – which takes place in the forms envisaged for the hearing – the Court is allowed to re -evaluate the conditions of admissibility of the application and to reject it without taking on the evidence indicated in it and without running the judgment of merit “.
This is exactly what the Court of Appeal of Brescia did, which in the same way had acted, in the face of other well -known and recent revision instances. In this case he explains that he has acted like this, being in front of four different instances with a lot of material to be evaluated, considering that he had to take the other parts to speak, also because Francesca Nanni, head of the general prosecutor of Milan: “In transmitting the request of dr. Tarfusser “had expressed his opinion by recognizing” absence of novelty and decisiveness “in the” evidence placed at the foundation of the appeal, coinciding with those indicated by the convicted “.
Two non -legitimate requests
The Court of Appeal of Brescia rejected the request of the deputy prosecutor by writing: “Before even if lacking in terms of the novelty of the test, (…) inadmissible due to lack of legitimacy of the proposer”. In short, he was not titled to advance it, he did not touch him since he had not had delegation from the prosecutor General. , Precisely this fact had among other things already procured him in recent months a disciplinary sanction, the censorship by the appropriate section of the CSM, for having deposited the application by going against the rules of assignment of the files of his office in the registry of the Prosecutor General, who, contrary to the form and in substance, transmitted it to Brescia “disconnecting”, writes the sentence, “the content and asking that it was declared.
The same fate suffered in the audit hearing, the request of the guardian of the two condemned: being “accessory to that of dr. Tarfusser “was declared” inadmissible for inadmissibility of the main instance “.
x
That of Olindo and Rosa not admissible for the substance
Instead, the request presented by Olindo Romano and Rosa Bazzi is judged from the point of view of the procedural rite, however, declared “inadmissible under the double profile of the lack of novelty and the unsuitability to overturn the judgment of criminal responsibility for the evidence of which admission is requested”: In short, the tests are not new and are not suitable for overturning the sentence to the life imprisonment of the two. The extraordinary nature of the revision, which is not a fourth degree of judgment, explains the Court justifies itself only “in the presence of new elements, strangers and different from those of the defined process, survived or discovered subsequently or acquired and not assessed, not even implicitly, in the judgment on res judicata, provided that it is able to lead to a reversal of the guilt of guilt”. None of these two needs is satisfied according to the judges by the request for Rosa and Olindo.
Even when there are new tests for the review, they must have “a high degree of reliability and be suitable for overturning the affirmation of criminal responsibility contained in the sentence of which the revocation is invoked”. The different technical-scientific evaluation of already known elements “can constitute” new test “only if based on new scientific acquisitions, such as to provide not achievable results with the previously available methods and provided that these are accredited and shared technical applications within the reference scientific community”.
Because an interview does not apply as testimony
And here comes a beautiful wanded to those who, widespread malcostume these days, try to use TV, in as a springboard to invoke the revision of the processes. “Since part of the tests whose defense today requests the acquisition are represented by interviews made to newspapers and television newspapers, to these preliminary considerations on the notion of” new test “, must be added that The nature of the document of the paper and audiovisual supports of these interviews does not apply, in the opinion of the Court, to give them the test of proof admissible in the procedural seat».
Unlike the witness heard in court, an interviewed on TV – In this case, an interview with the Hyenas of the consultant Claudio Cetti had been attached to the requests for requesting the revision -: “He does not have the obligation, criminally sanctioned, to tell the truth and makes no commitment in this sense. On the contrary, it is certainly conditioned by the vehicle and the advertising that it guarantees and generally tends to please the interviewer and place himself in a favorable light, abandoning himself to assumptions and expressing personal opinions that would not be admitted in the procedural seat. No garrison, beyond the ethics of the interviewer, is foreseen to protect the authenticity and freedom of his answers and the correctness of the questions, which can well be, with a view to mere investigative journalism, suggestive, insinuating and insidious. The topic applies to all the interviews proposed by the defenses in the request for review and in the subsequent memories, even more so for those to subjects who have placed in the first instance hearing, whose testimony cannot be falsified by uncertain or apparently in contrast responses with what was declared in the procedural headquarters deputy, offered almost twenty years after the facts and by the testimony made at first instance, outside of an euia of justice. “Sacredness” proper to the process, without the obligation of truth “.
Nothing new has scratched the sentences
Nothing presented as “new tests” that according to the applicants they should have scratched the judgment on a final He convinced the judges to question the pillars that led to life imprisonment, essentially based on three elements examined in the degrees of judgment: the confessions made regardless of by the two sentenced; the results of the scientific evidence that detected the presence of the blood of one of the victims on the battacco of their car; The reliability of the recognition by Mario Frigerio, wounded and survived eyewitness, then disappeared in 2014, which the judges recognize as “shiny and very precise witness”.
Not only that: “Beyond the absence of novelty that characterizes, as illustrated above, the majority of them, the evidence proposed by the applicants”, concluded the judges in declaring the request inadmissible “also, focus on contour or ambivalent data, which, even added and evaluated together with the tests already acquired, are not able to incrure the evidentiary compendium on which the judgment is founded condemnation ».
