Prosecutors in Florence have revived (without evidence) the mafia allegations against Berlusconi

In the end, the Florence Public Prosecutor’s Office succeeded. In their closing speech at the trial against Salvatore Baiardo – which took place in record time – the prosecutors went so far as to accuse the late Silvio Berlusconi and Marcello Dell’Utri of ‘still serving the interests of Cosa Nostra’. This is not the charge at the heart of the proceedings, in which Baiardo stands accused of slander against Massimo Giletti and of aiding and abetting, aggravated by collusion with the Mafia. It is, however, the most sensational and surreal passage: through the aggravating circumstance alleged against Baiardo, the Public Prosecutor’s Office is reviving the theory regarding the alleged links between ‘Il Cavaliere’, his long-standing associate and the Mafia. This comes just five months after the Florence investigating magistrate dismissed, yet again, the charges against Berlusconi and Dell’Utri that they were the instigators of the Mafia massacres of 1993–1994. Nevertheless, the prosecution appears unperturbed and even goes so far as to describe Berlusconi and Dell’Utri as two individuals who are ‘still of use’ to Cosa Nostra.

According to the Florentine public prosecutors Lorenzo Gestri and Leopoldo De Gregorio, Baiardo is alleged to have discredited state witnesses such as Gaspare Spatuzza and Fabio Tranchina, as well as the journalist Massimo Giletti, by ‘failing to acknowledge the existence of allegations against Berlusconi and Dell’Utri, who are still active within the organisation’ – a line of inquiry which the Florence Public Prosecutor’s Office was investigating as part of its probe into the terrorist attacks. So here is the new development: not only the revival of the old theory regarding the alleged external instigators of the massacres, but the assertion that ‘Il Cav.’ and Dell’Utri continue to represent an asset for the mafia organisation.

A very serious allegation, for which the prosecutors have provided no evidence. What links are still said to exist? What benefits would Cosa Nostra have gained? Through which intermediaries and by what means would Berlusconi and Dell’Utri have continued to serve the interests of the Mafia even after the unproven (this too) agreement regarding the bombings of 1993–1994? No one knows. There is also an obvious contradiction in the motive attributed to Baiardo. According to the prosecution, the former ice-cream vendor from Omegna first claimed and then denied the existence of a 1992 photograph, said to show Silvio Berlusconi with Giuseppe Graviano, in order to prevent incriminating evidence against ‘Il Cavaliere’ from coming to light. In this way, he is said to have ‘misdirected’ the investigations into Berlusconi and Dell’Utri ‘to benefit Cosa Nostra’. Yet it is the prosecution itself that maintains that the alleged pact entered into in 1993 was not honoured by Berlusconi. If this is the case, why would Cosa Nostra have continued to protect him? 

In other words, if the wave of terrorist attacks was conceived by Cosa Nostra partly to facilitate Berlusconi’s political rise and the founding of Forza Italia, in exchange for political concessions (the easing of the ‘41 bis’ regime) – concessions which were never forthcoming in the decades that followed – what interest would Cosa Nostra have had in preventing compromising reports from emerging about the alleged links between Berlusconi and Graviano? No one knows.

The prosecution appears to be breaking the deadlock by taking the argument a step further, namely by claiming that Berlusconi and Dell’Utri continued to be an asset to the Mafia. But this would need to be proven. If the pact hypothesised by the investigators in 1993 had not yielded the expected benefits for Cosa Nostra, what would be the reason for continued protection? What evidence would show that Baiardo intended to safeguard that interest?

Yet another mountain of unanswered questions for a public prosecutor’s office that has long seemed to be operating in a realm of fantasy justice.

The result is a process in which, in order to support the case against Baiardo (represented by lawyer Roberto Ventrella), an even more serious allegation is being levelled against two people who are not facing charges (one of whom has since died) and whose alleged links to Cosa Nostra were once again denied in the decision to dismiss the case five months ago.

The trial of Baiardo, for which prosecutors have finally sought an eight-year prison sentence, thus risks becoming yet another opportunity to keep alive the theory regarding the links between Berlusconi, Dell’Utri and the Mafia. Without offering any evidence to support this theory and even further escalating the scale of the prosecution’s case.

More a psychiatric case than a legal one.