Today’s science will dismantle the three primary pieces of evidence against Olindo and Rosa.

Deputy Public Prosecutor of the Milan Court of Appeal Kono Tarvoser Demands to reopen the issue of the Arba massacre. per page Olindo Romano and Rosa Bazzi, the couple who were finally sentenced for the massacre in Via Diaz, “may have been victims of a judicial error”. The request is the first possible review procedure for the process.

The three main pieces of evidence are disputed

Tarfusser, and analysis of tips and documents provided by Olindo and Rosa’s defense, Take the three main tests upon which the conviction of those responsible for the massacre is based.

The massacre of December 11, 2006

On the evening of December 11, 2006, they were murdered with sticks and knives in Arba at Diaz Road Court.Avila Castagna2 year old son Joseph Marzouk Child’s grandmother Paula Galli And the neighbor Valeria Cherubini. The latter’s husband was seriously injured. Mario Frigerio. Olindo Romano and Rosa Bazzi were finally sentenced to life in prison for the massacre.

defendant’s request

Lawyer Defender Fabio Schembri Ready to apply Application for review of the process to the Court of Appeal of Bresciaresponsible for the request. In recent months he made a close in Milan. theL Tarvoser, in one chapter of 58 pages Born from the defense request (the contents of the review request were disclosed by Adnkronos) in turn requests Process review. For the prosecutor, “two likely victims of a miscarriage of justice are serving life sentences.”

Science advances after 17 years

To the magistrates of Brescia, Tarfuser requested “the examination of 57 technical consultants who have drafted and signed Technical advice on the methods, techniques and investigations they carried out and the results achieved by “and”No additional investigation considered useful and necessary for the purposes of decision-making based on truth and justice.” «Today – the document reads -, More than 17 years later, he learned – If this is recognized in the cancellation ruling – is fortunately able to provide for himself, but above all in combination with many decisive issues in deeds and not in deeds, in any case never evaluated, These scientific certainties are appropriate to make the three pillars of evidence collapse on which they relied on the life sentences of Olindo Romano and Rosa Pazzi ».

What are the three tests?

Kono Tarvoser He questions the three main pieces of evidence on which the conviction is based: Confessions of Rosa and Olindothe Confession of eyewitness Mario Frigerio and the blood spot Found on the doorstep of Olindo Romano’s car. “They’ve matured into it context that defining a patient is an exercise in euphemismwrites the plaintiff.

The “false memory” of the witness

that of a witnessFor the page, that would be “false memory». Frigrio first talks about a stranger with olive skin, then about his neighbor. It cannot be overlooked that this confession was his Crooked upbringingaffected by obvious and serious elements of critical issues which makes the matter highly questionable but, above all, is based on elements which, although present in the records, have not been examined and evaluated by merit tribunals” referring to the alleged “pleasures” in the applications.

blood spot

Valeria Cherubini’s bloodstain on the doorstep of Olindo Romano’s car, for Tarfuser it would be Not evidence of guilt, but of innocence of couples. “The trace characteristics of the blood, as discovered during the analysis, cannot be reconciled with what might legitimately be expected as a result of the previous sampling and references made.” Sample collection and documentation appear to be “extremely deficient in compliance with Common Standards of Reliability and Scientific Verification” and there is allegedly a “scientifically confirmed inconsistency” between the trace found and the trace analyzed.

“Confessions” by Olindo and Rosa

Finally, the doubts about the confessions, or rather the “self-accusatory statements” of Olindo Romano and Rosa Pazzi, which, according to Tarvosier, would be “Acquiescence to false confessions. These conclusions are based on the latest and most advanced scientific data that correspond to criteria that, in the absence of them, make confessions false confessions.

The witness was never heard

after supreme court ruling, Arrived May 4, 2011 Lawyers have been working for a long time – with a group of experts – to try to overturn the ruling that None of the judges expressed any doubts. Defense investigations led to a trace a few months ago, Tunisianand ended up being investigated by the Finance Police and linked to business with the brother of Azouz Marzouk (companion and father of two of the victims), who allegedly offered Alternative leadership: settling scores between rival gangslinked to the drug market, which would have led to the ambush inside the apartment in Via Diaz, where drugs and money were hidden, according to his account.