The reasons: “It wasn’t the bosses who made Borsellino’s red diary disappear after the attack”
It was not Cosa Nostra that made Paolo Borsellino’s red diary disappear after the Via D’Amelio massacre. The judges of the trial for the misdirection into the investigations of the massacre that killed Judge Borsellino and five police officers on July 19, 1992, put it in black and white, in the reasons for the sentence of the trial against three policemen, filed today in stationery.
Here is what the judges write in the reasons seen by Adnkronos: “Unless we hypothesize unlikely scenarios of Cosa Nostra members who roam among dozens of members of the police force, it can be considered certain that the disappearance of the red agenda it is not attributable to a material activity of Cosa Nostra”. “Two further logical consequences ensue – write the judges – First, the institutional affiliation of whoever had to materially steal the agenda. The elements in ca,po do not allow the exact identification of the natural person who proceeded with the removal of the agenda without falling into the plethora of logically possible alternatives but there is no doubt that it may have been only someone who, due to the functions covered, could intervene undisturbed in that particular space-time context and knew what was necessary and appropriate to subtract from previous knowledge”.
“Secondly – say the judges of the misdirection process – such an invasive, timely and unfortunately effective intervention in eliminating such an important probative element to reconstruct – not today but in 1992 – the motive for the via D’Amelio massacre certifies the need for subjects external to Cosa Nostra to intervene to ‘alter’ the framework of the investigations, preventing the possibility of effectively investigating the non-Mafia origins of the massacre and, ultimately, revealing their involvement in the Via d’Amelio massacre”. For the judges of Caltanissetta, “the motive for the massacre and the criminal purpose of all the initiatives aimed at deflecting the investigations into via D’Amelio are intimately connected”.
In the almost 1,500 pages of the motivations, the judges then speak of “the presence of other subjects or power groups co-interested in the elimination of Paolo Borsellino with a role in the conception, preparation and execution of the via D’Amelio massacre”. The judges of Caltanissetta speak of “multiple elements which lead us to believe that a role can be envisaged, both in the conception phase and in the executive one, played by subjects unrelated to Cosa Nostra in the massacre, a real turning point in the realization of the massacre strategy of the early years Ninety”. “Even without wanting to take it for granted that we can speak of ‘acceleration’, more or less sudden, it is not random to argue that the timing of the voa D’Amelio massacre represents an element of anomaly with respect to the traditional behavior of Cosa nostra face, as a rule , to dilute the criminal actions over time in the case of institutional targets and this in the logic of curbing the reaction activity of the institutions”.
The judges of Caltanissetta, in the reasons for the sentence of the trial on the misdirection, viewed by Adnkronos, then speak “of convergence of interests in the conception of the massacre in via D’Amelio between Cosa nostra and external environments”. “In addition to the times of the massacre, objectively ‘dystonic’ with respect to the interest of Cosa nostra, there are further elements which lead us to consider the thesis asphyxiated which stops at the recognition of the ‘mafia paternity’ of the attack in via D’Amelio and the its traceability to the massacre strategy deliberated by Cosa Nostra, first of all, as a ‘response’ to the outcome of the maxi-trial and a ‘showdown’ with its historical enemies”.
Eyes focused above all on the disappearance of the judges’ red agenda. “In summary – say the judges – in the light of the testimonies collected, no new elements have emerged that would allow us to unravel the intricate story relating to the disappearance of Borsellino’s red agenda”. And they stick some witnesses heard over the years who “deliver in a framework that is not at all clear, made up of incurable contradictions between the various versions, among other things repeatedly revised and distorted, rendered by the protagonists of the story that do not allow a certain reading of the events increasing the fallacy of any conclusion drawn on the sole basis of the combination of the various testimonies”. THE
In particular, the Caltanissetta judges take it out on the former judge Giuseppe Ayala. “Although I understand the profoundly altered emotional state, the number of version changes made over the years regarding the same story appears inexplicable”. For the judges “the reasons for such a large number of version changes remain unfathomable, moreover on multiple circumstances of the narration”. According to the Caltanissetta judges, Paolo Borsellino, “he felt betrayed by a subject inserted in an institutional context”. (by Elvira Terranova)