Massacre Erba, experts: “False confessions, Olindo and Rosa miss 70% crime scene”

This is what emerges in the defense consultancy, shared by the Milan deputy prosecutor

The confessions are not a ‘queen proof’ and those of Olindo Romano and Rosa Bazzi, definitively convicted of the Erba massacre, are “false”, full of “errors” and “discrepancies”. This is supported by the 12 university professors – internationally renowned experts in the fields of psychology, psychiatry and neurology – to whom the defense of the couple turned and whose conclusions, collected in two substantial consultancies of almost a thousand pages, are shared by the substitute Milan prosecutor Cuno Tarfusser who made a request for revision, now being examined by the top management of the Milanese prosecutor’s office.

In particular, the pool of professors underlines how according to recent scientific studies, “carried out on over 375 people (convicted and acquitted in review, with DNA evidence), have incontrovertibly demonstrated how 25% of these had originally falsely confessed The confession of the innocent is therefore – contrary to what one might think – a relatively frequent event, as demonstrated by the studies on acquittals under review” reads the document viewed by Adnkronos. The planning of the massacre and of the alibi “is incompatible with the psychic structure of the two condemned men” characterized by “significant vulnerabilities”. Yet on 10 January 2007 both confessed to the investigators that they were the perpetrators of the massacre, they confirmed it to the judge two days later, she would repeat it a third time on 6 June 2007. Analyzing the content of the couple’s confessions, they emerge as “they are full of errors, many elements of the crime scene are ‘wrong’ (between 50 and 70%)”.

There are “very many discrepancies” not only between the versions given separately, but also between the versions offered by the same person at different times. The analysis shows how the versions “are not detailed, cannot be superimposed, do not match, are not consistent and are not constant and therefore have all the characteristics of false confessions”. The couple claims “many times that they don’t remember”: Olindo collects “hundreds of ‘I don’t know’, ‘I don’t remember’, ‘it seems to me’, ‘this is eluding me now'”, the same can be said for Rosa. “What are defined as confessions are, in reality, a series of ‘yes’ to suggestions in the form of closed questions formulated by the interrogator”, the experts write. In the confessions “the indicators of sensory and perceptual memories that characterize genuine narration are completely missing” from the analysis carried out using the Flashbulb memory checklist.

“Incontroversially false” is the narrative on the dynamics of the murder of the neighbor Valeria Cherubini. From the version provided by the spouses, she would have been attacked only on the landing, not in the attic where she would die. According to the experts questioned by the defence, “the victim had received a stab wound which had caused an injury to the psoas, a muscle which, if injured, prevents a person from climbing the stairs. Cherubini had also suffered cranial injuries such as to cause a serious brain injury. Neurologically, these two elements make it impossible to climb two flights of stairs.Equally it was impossible for her to be able to shout ‘help, help’ after receiving the head wounds and the deep throat wound that pierced her up to to cut out the tongue”. Facts that would deny the revelations by demonstrating that the condemned tell something they would not have experienced.

Finally, the confessions “do not contain any information that was not already known to the investigators. All the information provided by the two spouses was in the public domain or presented by the interrogators through questions that contained relevant information that simply had to be confirmed or not”. it deals with confessions “encouraged from the outside”: from environmental interceptions before confessing, they deny being the perpetrators and ask themselves several times about who could be the perpetrator of the massacre. “Never, in these environmental interceptions, has an even minimal indication of guilt emerged: on the contrary, there are multiple passages in the free conversation that clearly indicate their extraneousness to the massacre”.

As for Olindo’s writings on the Bible, seized on November 22, 2007 and used as confirmation of the authenticity of the confession, “it should be noted that there are more clearly innocentist writings than clearly guilty ones. Moreover, where datable, they alternate over time (…). The very few guilty writings are to be considered an attempt to ‘enter the part of the guilty'”. The confessions “can therefore be considered, on the basis of the knowledge shared by the scientific community, acquiescent false confessions or those in which the suspects confess to a crime not committed as a result of a basic psychological vulnerability combined with interrogation techniques that we know today to be ‘ at risk of provoking false confessions and for this strongly censored by current international investigative guidelines”. In conclusion, the elements make “from a technical-scientific point of view it is impossible to evaluate the confessions as genuine, given that cognitive and psychopathological deficiencies have been ascertained capable of impairing the psychic sphere and therefore reducing the capacity for criticism and resistance to external influences”.