Returning to the “Girl from Palermo” to expose the prejudices of the justice system

Judicial truth, as I wrote in an article in "Il Foglio" on 22 July 2025, presents an intractable problem. This is why criminal proceedings, particularly in complex cases, stage a drama in which the judge also plays a leading role: the drama of judgement, precisely, given that the possibility of error is ever-present. The very theme of judgement constitutes one of the central themes of an excellent recent work of investigative journalism: I am referring to "La ragazza di Palermo" (Ponte alle Grazie, 2026) by the journalist Eugenia Nicolosi, a book centred on the famous and controversial case of the so-called ‘Foro Italico rape’ in Palermo, which, not surprisingly, has attracted considerable media attention but at the same time provoked very mixed reactions among the public (in summary: a 19-year-old woman named Asia allegedly suffered sexual assault on the night of 6–7 July 2023 at the hands of seven young men of roughly the same age inside a dark, abandoned building site; having deemed the facts proven, the competent court sentenced the young men to prison terms ranging from four to seven years). This is a controversial and divisive case due to the existence and persistence of doubts – even after the conviction – as to whether it was truly a case of gang rape, or rather a highly transgressive sexual encounter that was, to some extent, consented to by the young woman in question. Moreover, the young woman herself has more recently lent further support to an interpretation of the incident as consensual, thanks to the broadcast on the television programme "Le Iene" of part of a telephone conversation from the summer of 2025 between her and a podcaster from Palermo: judging by the overall tone of the dialogue, the hypothesis that the multiple sexual encounters were consensual does indeed appear to be corroborated, albeit not in explicit or unequivocal terms; consequently, the boys’ defence lawyers have lodged an application for a review of the conviction, which will be considered in a few months’ time.

The aim of the essay is to set out and analyse the reasons that continue to cast doubt on the matter; in my view, this aim has been fully achieved. The author presents a perceptive and detailed analysis of the case, supported by significant extra-judicial evidence gathered as part of her independent journalistic investigation; at the same time, she raises thought-provoking questions both about various aspects of the factual reconstruction that remain unclear and about the reasoning behind the conviction. It is likely that Nicolosi is correct in pointing out that the judges adopted a prejudicially selective method of assessment by ruling out the evidential relevance of the discrepancies and contradictions detectable in the numerous statements made by Asia herself, as well as the circumstances reported and the experiences of certain individuals who came into contact with her in various capacities. However, in addition to these various elements (including alleged previous sexual assaults which were in fact never proven), the young woman’s credibility could have been undermined by the highly complex, ambiguous and elusive nature of her personality: made even more problematic and unusual – as also noted by psychologists acting as expert witnesses or judicial advisers – by a set of traits and behaviours that were entirely out of the ordinary (ranging from compulsive hypersexuality and habitual promiscuity to constant erotic exhibitionism on social media and marked seductiveness, from drug addiction and conflict with her family to a simultaneous need for reconciliation, approval and affection, etc.), which, of course, are not to be judged from a moral standpoint, but are of potential psychological relevance for an assessment of credibility.

Why, despite all this, did the court not take seriously the possibility that the sexual relations with the seven boys might have taken place within a different context from that typically associated with rape? This question raises a fundamental issue of a more general nature: that of the prejudices and cultural factors which influence – whether or not the judges are aware of them – the judicial reconstruction of facts open to multiple interpretations. This is a crucial point on which the essay explicitly focuses, offering an explanation regarding the Foro Italico case that seems quite plausible. Namely, the members of the trial panel were probably influenced by this prejudice: that a young woman barely of legal age cannot freely consent to having sex with multiple partners in a degraded setting such as an abandoned building site. However, this preconceived notion – one might still suspect – may, conversely, have prevented the judges from adequately understanding the psychological experiences of the young defendants: who may have acted without any real intent to rape, but by interpreting, in good faith, the girl’s previous sexual provocations and her seemingly inviting behaviour as a voluntary willingness to engage with them (after all, their educational background, young age and social background were not circumstances likely to prompt them to exercise particular caution in ascertaining the extent to which that willingness was genuine).

In truth, this legal case too seems to confirm a need that should perhaps not be overlooked: I am not the only one who believes that the professional training provided by the School of Magistrates should include psychology courses, taught by experts, aimed at fostering in magistrates the ability to become aware – so that they themselves are able to subject them to critical scrutiny – of the prejudices (social and personal) and psychological mechanisms likely to influence the decision-making process. Is it too much to expect judges to possess this capacity for self-reflection?

There are other reasons to appreciate the essay. Whilst by no means lacking in feminist sensitivity, the author tends to problematise, without ideological dogmatism or intellectual hypocrisy, the concept of a woman’s free consent: recognising the objective difficulty of grasping, particularly in court, the complex and ambiguous interpersonal dynamics that often render the boundaries between spontaneous consent, induced consent and genuine dissent fluid and uncertain. Another reason for appreciation, by no means a minor one: Nicolosi, as a journalist, has the honesty to criticise – and indeed to engage in self-criticism – the prevailing tendency of today’s media to simply parrot judicial accounts and, more generally, to go too far in pandering to dominant social conventions and beliefs. Without delving, with an independent investigative spirit, beneath the surface of reassuring stereotypes and official truths. This is something I feel this book has, on the contrary, succeeded in doing.