The preliminary hearing judge of the Caltanissetta court David Salvucci has sent to trial the police officers Giuseppe Di Gangi, Vincenzo Maniscaldi, Angelo Tedesco and Maurizio Zerilli, accused of the crime of obstruction of justice: they are alleged to have lied when testifying as witnesses in the trial on the obstruction of justice of the investigations into the massacre on via D'Amelio which ended on appeal with the statute of limitations for the crime of slander for three of their colleagues : Mario Bo, Fabrizio Mattei and Michele Ribaudo.
The first hearing in the trial is set for December 17.
The four were part of the "Falcone-Borsellino" investigation group created within the Palermo Flying Squad to shed light on the Capaci massacre of 23 May 1992 and the Via D'Amelio massacre of 19 July 1992, in which the magistrate Paolo Borsellino and five of his escort agents died: the Sestu policewoman Emanuela Loi, Agostino Catalano, Vincenzo Li Muli, Walter Eddie Cosina and Claudio Traina.

The police officers, according to the prosecutor Maurizio Bonaccorso, lied on some points and were reticent on others. Bonaccorso during his discussion spoke of "absolute bad faith", also contesting the "too many I don't remember" during their depositions.

"I can only take note of the referral to trial that we must accept by forcing ourselves to continue with the celebration of a trial that could certainly have had a different outcome. We remain convinced of the non-existence of the crime of obstruction of justice that my clients are accused of ", said the lawyer Maria Giambra, legal representative of the police officers Angelo Tedesco and Maurizio Zerilli.

"It is precisely the very structure of the indictment and the content of the conduct charged - Giambra added - that give the measure of the groundlessness in law of the accusation hypothesis. The defendants are accused of having made false statements or omissions during the trial of Mario Bo and two other defendants, but in reference to the investigations into the massacre of via D'Amelio. But the diversion is a fact that occurred, was consummated and has already been examined in the proceedings in other proceedings such as the Borsellino quater. How could they have divert those investigations if the diversion had already been discovered? At most, it could have been assessed whether the conduct could have constituted the crime of false testimony, which in any case in my opinion did not occur since the statements made by my clients had no content of falsehood and the 'I don't remember' were not reticences aimed at omitting the truth but the fruit of a period of almost thirty years".

(Unioneonline/D)

© Riproduzione riservata