CATANIA – “After all that the Messina prosecutor has done on the Syracuse affair, I would have expected everything except to be considered a revealer of secrets or a cover-up of files”. This is the only comment that can be extracted from Vincenzo Barbaro. The Attorney General of Messina, heard as a person informed on the facts by the prosecutors of Perugia in the context of the investigation into Luca Palamara, maintains the strictest confidentiality on details on which there is an ongoing investigation, confirming a penalty that it belongs to the person rather than to the magistrate.
It is the facts and the documents, however, that show the extraneousness of the magistrate and the magistracy of Messina with respect to the leak of news of which, among other things, the former president of the ANM and councilor of the CSM Luca Palamara is accused. And in fact, from a careful re-reading of the available investigative documents and of the Gico report in comparison with the chronology of the events that actually occurred, the Attorney General Barbaro and the Messina judiciary cannot be represented in unjustifiably severe terms, as could lead to the comparison in the title of one of our previous articles, between the situation of the Prosecutor’s Office of Syracuse and that of Messina, which at the time were not comparable in any way, let alone associating them with the term “verminaio”, which with effective journalistic synthesis refers rather well the recent past of the judicial offices of Syracuse and the intricate affair of the Palmara case, too important to remain silent.
But let’s move on to the facts.
Starting from the summits that Barbaro, acting prosecutor of Messina at the time, has with his colleagues in Rome, mentioned by the lawyer. Bitter as occasions in which Barbaro and Palamara would have exchanged confidential information. In reality, in the first, of February 14, 2017, Dr. Barbaro goes to the capital together with his colleagues, the substitutes Antonio Carchietti and Antonella Fradà. In the second, the following March 15, the minutes show that the subject of the meeting, unlike the first, are neither Fabrizio Centofanti nor Giancarlo Longo, but other issues.
However, as shown by an email intercepted to Longo already on March 9, the former Syracuse prosecutor complains that the military of the GDF during a search at his home “would not have considered acquiring a copy of the receipt with the which on 5 January 2014 he would have returned in cash to his friend Centofanti the sums advanced by him with his credit card for the trip to Dubai ». So Longo certainly demonstrates that he already knew about the investigations of the Messina Prosecutor’s Office before 15 March. All the more so since the search of the entrepreneur, during which a copy of the credit card payments was found, with the related reasons, made by him in favor of the Centofanti, Amara and Longo families for the trip and stay in Dubai, dates back to to 20 July 2016. Therefore, Centofanti, even before the start of the investigation in Messina, was aware of the fact that the investigators had learned of his relations with Longo.
Another relevant point concerns the meetings between the Attorney General and Palamara. Barbaro did not need to meet “privately” Palamara on March 15, since, for the whole day of March 16, he had been at the CSM because he was summoned to participate in a refresher course on the organization of public prosecutors, in which Palamara, even, was one of the speakers.
The most important issue, however, is the quality of the investigations by the Messina Prosecutor’s Office. Barbaro could never have said “all crap” or “as long as I was there nothing happened, then De Lucia came and what happened happened.” In fact, from the chats with the colleagues in charge of the file, the determination made by the Public Prosecutor’s Office to arrive at results, also lightening the workload of the substitutes in charge of the investigations. Within about 10 months (October 2016-July 2017), dozens of court files already defined were reopened, the results of administrative proceedings, trials before the Cga, civil trials, tax procedures and promoted by the revenue agency were reversed, of procedures with Superintendence, of dozens of criminal trials, thus legitimizing the subsequent precautionary request formulated by the Messina Public Prosecutor in October.
Finally, there is no temporal coincidence between a meeting with Palamara and Cateno De Luca’s exposure to the CSM. Barbaro learned of the existence of the complaint of the current mayor of Messina from the procedural documents filed in Reggio Calabria following the request for dismissal relating to complaints filed by the same politician. Therefore, only with an application of 20 April 2020, the Pg of Messina asked the CSM a copy of the complaint that was released on the following 5 May; therefore he was able to lodge a complaint about the content of the complaint only at a later date; as well as in the period subsequent to July 2020 he made mention of it in the course of the civil proceedings always instituted against De Luca and others.
So if there has ever been a “verminaio”, this certainly does not concern Dr. Barbaro nor the Messina judiciary.
This post is also available in: English