Justice
editorials •
Garlasco, Rossi, Bergamini: three cases in which judicial truths come under scrutiny
Three different cases, one common question: what happens when a judicial reconstruction is accepted as the truth and, years later, evidence emerges that contradicts it? The justice system must not be afraid of discovering that it was wrong, but of not wanting to discover it
RIS Carabinieri at the Poggi family’s villa at 8 Via Pascoli in Garlasco, in a photograph dated 27 August 2007 (Ansa)
Three news stories that have emerged in the last twenty-four hours raise an uncomfortable question: how many judicial verdicts can be wrong before anyone has the courage to question them?
The first comes from Garlasco and is sensational. In 2007, the RIS (Scientific Investigation Unit) in Parma found ‘highly cellular’ material on the pedals of Alberto Stasi’s bicycle, traced back to the blood of Chiara Poggi, who was murdered on 13 August 2007. From that trace, a DNA profile attributed to the victim was obtained, one of the seven elements of Stasi’s conviction. Now, however, two control tests on the same material have emerged from the raw data recovered from the RIS archives: both were negative. Those results did not appear in the case files and were not discussed during the five trials. If those tests cast doubt on a piece of evidence used in the conviction, why were they not submitted? If it were established that there had been a deliberate concealment, this would not be a mere miscarriage of justice.
The second news item concerns the death of David Rossi, which took place on 6 March 2013. A new simulation has cast doubt on the suicide theory: according to advisers to the parliamentary committee of inquiry, the MPS manager had attempted to defend himself against an attack and was reportedly restrained before the fall.
The third concerns Denis Bergamini. The appeal trial is currently underway against Isabella Internò, the footballer’s former girlfriend, who was sentenced in the first instance to 16 years’ imprisonment for murder. Yesterday, the Castrovillari Public Prosecutor’s Office also launched an investigation into Isabella’s brother for complicity in murder. Almost thirty-seven years after his death, the case therefore continues to yield new potential suspects.
Three different cases, one common question: what happens when a judicial reconstruction is accepted as the truth and, years later, evidence emerges that contradicts it? We must ask ourselves whether we are dealing with a miscarriage of justice, who was responsible for it and who failed to spot it. The justice system must not be afraid of discovering that it was wrong, but of being unwilling to discover it.