“Welcome to hell,” Claudio Campiti wrote on his blog, denouncing the alleged shortcomings of the superapartment where he lives. There was resentment in his home, an unfinished ruin where the outskirts of Rome blend with the hills of Rieti, that almost a year ago – Sunday, December 11 – turned into a crime spree. The 57-year-old man grabbed the gun and 9-caliber Glock he had bought from the shooting range and entered the gazebo of a bar in Fidene, where the Valle Verde consortium was gathered, shouting “I will kill you all.” Settlement on the shores of Lake Turano. Campiti closed the doors and headed to the table where the board members and auditors were sitting: he pointed his gun and fired at point-blank range, killing Sabina Sperandio, Nicoletta Golisano and Fabiana De Angelis. The fourth woman, Elisabetta Silenzi, died a few days later due to her injuries.

The deadly attack was only interrupted when the gun jammed and one of the bystanders approached Campiti, grabbed his arm and blocked him until police arrived. Campiti will appear in court on February 5 for what appears to the prosecution to be an “elaborately organized murder plan”. But during the preliminary hearing on Monday, November 27, something special happened that needed to be told.

I must admit, not because a short circuit has arisen between the state bodies, on the one hand, demanding conviction through the prosecutor, and on the other, demanding acquittal through the state prosecutor’s office. However, there was no political opportunity to guide the government not to oppose the payment of compensation to the victims of a murder for which the Ministries of Internal Affairs and Defense appeared legally responsible for not inspecting the weapon used in the massacre. The removal of the Glock from the famous shooting range in Rome would not be an isolated incident and the Ministries of Defense and Internal Affairs would have to take action.

But let’s take a step back to understand better. The funeral of one of the victims was attended on December 16 by accountant Nicoletta Golisano and her friend Giorgia Meloni, who also became the first female prime minister in more than a month. It was clear that the Fidene massacre would come to light. Therefore, the preparation of a multiple murder trial in which state agencies were in the dock perhaps would have required more thought or even a full trial phase, such as a preliminary hearing. It was really appropriate that the State Attorney’s Office did not want to prosecute the confessed murderer.

Less than two hours passed between the start of the trial at 10 a.m. on November 27 and the judge’s retreat to his chambers: Campiti refused to appear in the courtroom, where only ten people were present, in the presence of prosecutor Giovanni Musarò. lawyers of civil parties. Among those present was the attorney general appointed by the government. Contrary to what the note from Palazzo Chigi proved, the defense attorney could have sought the acquittal of the defendant. More precisely, as we read in the minutes: “The lawyer requests a decision not to proceed, citing a request expressed in the previous hearing.”

Here is the short circuit between the prosecutor’s office, which requested the indictment, and the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office, which tries to prevent the Ministries of Defense and Internal Affairs from paying compensation to the victims. “It is a situation that is unacceptable for the family and morally screams revenge,” explains lawyer Massimiliano Gabrielli, one of the civil party’s lawyers. It’s as if he says: If I have to pay compensation, I will acquit him.”

So how can this happen? We tried to add to the strangeness of the story the assumption of error: perhaps a slip dictated by the Byzantineness of the courthouses. However, when we re-read the minutes, even with people who have practiced law, we are left with questions that we do not want to give very simple answers to. “Perhaps it would have been more appropriate to insist on the request for dismissal as civilly responsible and leave the rest to Justice…” explains criminal lawyer Alberto Donini. “Thus, probably – continues the criminal lawyer – the fuss arising from what in reality seems like a paradox would have been avoided. The preliminary hearing, in addition to being a ‘barrier’ to access to alternative rituals, also has the function of preventing a trial from taking place. judgment may be made in cases where it does not allow us to formulate a prediction”.

However, in the current case, the Chief Public Prosecutor’s request for acquittal is even harsher, as it is quite clear that a trial will be initiated if the crime is confessed and there is clear evidence.

In short, if we want to find an easy metaphor, it is an own goal at the opening whistle. All the more so because Campiti’s assistant lawyer, faced with the overwhelming evidence and confession of his client, joined prosecutor Giovanni Musarò in the prosecution’s request.

And this would indeed be another oddity, making the attitude of civilian leaders even more paradoxical. Lawyer Donini explains to us that it is technically legitimate and correct, but at least rude.

In fact, the strongest defense of the defendant surprisingly comes from the State Prosecutor’s Office: The lawyer supports the acquittal of Antonio Trimboli when questioned by judge Roberto Saulino in defense of the ministries led by Piantedosi and Crosetto. join.

But if the accusations against Campiti appear to be eminently well-founded, how can the State, which is the guarantor of the security of its citizens, resort to the acquittal of a murderer, even if only as a formality, to avoid paying compensation to the victims? Even worse, if those responsible for the failure to recover the gun stolen from the shooting range’s armory on December 11, 2022, chose to skip the preliminary hearing and go directly to trial.

Unless, of course, the government wants to continue to defend the lobby that continues to deregulate the proliferation of weapons in civil society, as we have documented many times in these pages. Weapons that increasingly stain the news pages with blood.

Announcing the parliamentary question, MP Francesco Emilio Borrelli commented to Today.it: “Even if what the lawyers are doing is technically correct, from a human perspective it is a terrible thing.” “In the face of a massacre, as in this case, there must be solidarity and absolute guilt of those who are objectively guilty. There is no doubt that there is a criminal here who wants to be acquitted with bureaucratic words or interpretations of the law. This gives an idea of ​​the monstrosity of the incident.”

For the state, there is already an “appeal” date next February 5, when Avvocatura’s lawyer will be officially summoned to the courtroom to respond to the claim for compensation for the victims before the first high criminal court. Lawyers for the intervening parties state that the families expect the State to ensure justice regarding liability for the safety of the shooting range and to pay compensation immediately, “avoiding unacceptable positions in the courtroom and clearly erroneous press notes.” In terms of the moral role of the government and institutions, this is an opportunity for justice and compensation for the mistake made before the country.

Continue reading on Today.it…