Ruby ter, judges: “Procedural error to hear Olgettine as witnesses”

One of the passages in the reasons for the acquittal last February 15 for all 29 defendants

The Milan prosecutor’s office has listed in the Ruby ter process, as evidence of the alleged corruptive agreement between the former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi and the Olgettines, “elements which – in the form of clues – were already available to the panels of the so-called Ruby 1 and Ruby 2 trials” and this “proves” in my view of the judges of the court “that in those trials those elements could and should lead to the prosecution of the defendants as substantial suspects”, with respect to which no proof is needed but “there are sufficient indications of the crime”. AND’ one of the passages of the very technical reasons with which the judges of the seventh section of the Milan court explain the acquittal of the former premier Silvio Berlusconi and the other 28 defendants of the Ruby ter case.

The girls who would have received money or other benefits in exchange for silence were not to be heard as mere witnesses, but as ‘assisted’ and this “would have avoided an expenditure of procedural activity which in fact proved to be useless(izable) and set the legitimate premises for drawing the correct consequences in terms of liability” reads the almost 200 pages. “The elements to correctly qualify today’s defendants were in the documents available to the judicial authority even before they were called to sit on the ‘witness’ bench. The two courts valued them in the sentences only in order to actually devalue probative the statements made, also in consideration of the alleged falsehood of the same” it is added.

“But, evidently, it certainly could not have been expected that the subject allegedly paid to make false statements would make the latter to demonstrate undue interference with the procedural activity of which there were already indications. Otherwise, as observed, one would end up to achieve the objective that the rules on the incompatibility of testifying intend to avoid: forcing someone to accuse himself and to indict the subject already improperly questioned as a witness for the statements made in a capacity that he could not legitimately assume”, explain the judges.

“None of the defendants of corruption in judicial documents – it continues – has ever acquired the public office of witness. Not only because all of them were incompatible with this quality because each had been reached by substantial indications of crime since well before the moment in which she made statements, but also because the two Courts (Ruby 1 and Ruby 2, ed) authorized the summons of the declarants at a time well after the date of issue of the ordinance for the admission of the oral tests concerning them”.

Each of the Olgettines, accused of corruption in judicial documents, “before the examination in the two Ruby 1 and Ruby 2 debates had substantially already been reached – the court believes – by evidence of crime in the case of corruption”, an element which leads to the exclusion that the pm Tiziana Siciliano and Luca Gaglio could serve you as witnesses. An “omission of guarantee” that led the judges to acquit everyone.