Cassation acquits three former officials and ex-senator in State-Mafia negotiations
The Court of Appeals of Palermo, according to the Supreme Court, has “reversed the poles of the circumstantial reasoning,” as “the exclusion of possible alternative hypotheses cannot make up for the lack of certainty of the evidence.” This is stated in the motivations of the verdict of the Supreme Court in the trial of the State-Mafia negotiation. The motivations were deposited today. The Supreme Court confirmed the acquittal in the trial of the alleged State-Mafia negotiation of former Ros Mori officials Subranni and De Donno and former parliamentarian Dell’Utri. According to the sentence, the Court of Appeals of Palermo “did not observe the criterion of beyond reasonable doubt as a method of ascertaining the fact.” “The argument that ‘no one else could have’ is logically and legally wrong, as the refutation of alternative explanations of a fact cannot make up for the radical lack of positive evidence of the fact itself,” as stated by the Prosecutor General at the Supreme Court and the defendants’ defenses. “The fact that only Mori could have revealed the information regarding the Mafia’s blackmail and the internal split within Cosa Nostra, without having previously proven, beyond reasonable doubt, that this reserved information was not previously known to the Minister, constituted exclusive knowledge of Mori, and had not been reached by the Minister through different and autonomous channels.” According to the Supreme Court, the appeals judges “failed to prove that this confidential information was not previously known to the Minister, constituted exclusive knowledge of Mori, and had not been reached by the Minister through different channels.” “The knowledge of the internal split in Cosa Nostra between the straggist wing and the moderate wing would not have been exclusive to Mario Mori, but would have been acquired in qualified investigative environments.” The Supreme Court concluded that the trial “opted for a model of reconstruction of the criminally relevant fact conducted according to a historiographical methodological approach.” “Even when the criminal judge must deal with complex factual contexts of historical-political relevance, the ascertainment of the criminal process remains limited to facts subject to the indictment and must be conducted in strict compliance with the epistemological rules dictated by the Constitution and the code of procedure, first and foremost beyond reasonable doubt.”
Trattativa Stato-Mafia: ecco perché la Cassazione ha assolto tre ex ufficiali e l’ex senatore Dell’Utri
Sicilian news
Tutte le Notizie in Italiano
SIGDS