Who was Marcello Dell’Utri?

First, we point out that, according to two judgments, canceled or being canceled by the Supreme Court, as it seems, Marcello Dell’Utri was charged to support mafia organizations and activities.

As one of the closest  “political” advisers of Silvio Berlusconi, these news would have to make a stir since its entry into politics, but this did not happen.

In addition, admitted the veracity of witnesses and evidences, it is ‘impressive’ that Senator Dell’Utri has had dealings with mobsters only until 1992, interrupting when Berlusconi entered politics.
Not a “detail”, if anyone considers that, in the world and not only in Italy, many business and relationships have changed since 1990, after the fall of the Berlin Wall, with regard to policy, and the arrest of John Gotti in New York superboss, as on the Mafia.

Elsewhere, there were already Oppositions and Media on the sidelines and the Government Berlusconi was forced to resign.
Elsewhere …, not in Italy, a garantist country, where there are draconian laws for illegal immigrants,  against ‘smoking a joint’ kids and about workers dismissions, as those to reduce future retired rights or to exclude a part of unemployed by social salary.

Yet, at least one question could be put: if Dell’Utri had contacts with the Mafia – without being a ‘consigliori’ or simply a friend – or if had not: who was represented by him when he was in tose places with that people?

Mr. Rapisarda, with whom he worked from 1978 to 1981, years in which he had – as Marco Travaglio wrote – relations with Ciancimino, powerful mayor of Palermo, with Cuntrera-Caruana’s Clan, which controlled cocaine trade, and with Jimmy Fauci, who ran the drug trade between Italy, Britain and Canada?
Or acted on behalf of Silvio Berlusconi since 1963, when he went to Milan to become his secretary? Or, again, was he infiltrated by Mafia since 1974, a time when it was assumed as ‘groom’ Vittorio Mangano, who was arrested in 1980 by Giovanni Falcone for international drug traffic?
Or nothing of that and, then, what else?

Hypotheses, not certainties, in the face of so many temporal and relational proximities those have to be fully clarified and justified, before in politics and after, if necessary, in a court.

Who or what “masters” had Marcello Dell’Utri – if he had – from 1982 to 1992, when, despite having strategic locations Publitalia’80, was caught by the police in the company of known mobsters, as Marco Travaglio reports in his books?

If it was not a gangster – and it seems it was not – for whom Marcello Dell’Utri worked and what was its real function? Incredibly, the issue is not only relevant about the respect of laws, but, principally, it is an historical and sociological question.
And these questions are absent in the media and in social groups.

A mediator, an “ambassador”, a broker? A sure and confident friend of a VIP as Silvio Berlusconi? A competent and clever manager? A ‘free lance’?
Had he a personal (and big) power or he was always an instrument of powerful ‘others’? What was the appeal that led to a prominent man like Silvio Berlusconi to find in Marcello Dell’Utri the confidant of a lifetime and the trustee of an empire?

originale postato su demata

Amanda Knox libera!

Se la vicenda di Amanda Knox non si svolgesse in un’aula di tribunale, potremmo pensare di vivere in un incubo. Purtroppo, è la realtà.

Innanzitutto, il movente, per il quale l’accusa propone il gioco erotico, il litigio dettato dall’odio tra le ragazze, la solita questione di soldi. Praticamente tutto l’ipotizzabile, manca solo la lite tra automobilisti.
Le prove? Praticamente nessuna, visto Amanda abitava in quella casa ed è del tutto ovvio che vi sia una goccia (goccia non litri) del suo sangue su un rubinetto come che il suo DNA sia praticamente ovunque.
Le orme sul pavimento sporco di sangue? Non sappiamo neanche se sono le sue.

Perchè non seguire la pista più plausibile e cioè che, mentre Amanda era semisvenuta a causa dell’alcool, Guedè commetteva il delitto, eventualmente in compagnia del Sollecito?
I processi italiani si basano su prove inconfutabili o sul giusto convincimento del giudice?

If  the story of Amanda Knox would not act in a courtroom, we could mind to live in a nightmare. Unfortunately, it is reality.

At first, the motive of crime. The prosecutor proposes the erotic game, the hate between the girls, the usual question of business. Virtually all that is conceivable, missing only the dispute between drivers.
The evidence? Virtually none, because Amanda lived in that house and it is quite obvious that there is some blood of her (drop, not gallons) on a tap as his DNA is everywhere.

Why the prosecutor does not follow the more plausible track: while Amanda was semiconscious because of alcohol, Guede committed the crime, eventually accompanied by Mr. Sollecito?
Are Italian sentences based on irrefutable evidence or on the conviction of the judge?

originale postato su demata