Italy: Operation Panico – Updates from the hearing of April 4
and new schedule of hearings
Paska and about a dozen comrades were present at the hearing. To start with Paska made a brief declaration saying that his correspondence is being photocopied even though he has not been subjected to censorship by the judicial authorities. So, given the persistence of this annoying further surveillance in his regard, it is import to write to him to reconfirm our solidarity with him and our hostility towards them. He then deposed the digos on the attribution of identity of the conversants in some environmental interceptions.
Then it was the turn of the experts appointed by the court. The coroner basically argued that the bomb disposal expert did not suffer potentially lethal injuries and his life had never been in danger. The expert for the prosecution, despite having insisted on the possibility that if shrapnel from the device had hit other regions [of the body] it could have had lethal consequences, agreed that there had been no threat to life. The defense expert agreed with the declarations of court’s one and, with reference to radiological data, confirmed the distance of the splinters from vital organs, and the absolute non-lethality of the device. The conclusion more or less shared, therefore, is that since there was no danger to life at the most it is possible to speak of very serious injuries.
Then it was the turn of the appointed geneticist and biostatistician for the court that decided not to carry out a new DNA analysis as, according to them, the residual quantity present on the exhibit it was 5 microlitres while the previous analyses performed by the expert of the prosecution were on 15 microlitre samples. Therefore they had only checked the calculations and analysis carried out by the prosecution confirming that the accusatory hypothesis (i.e. that the DNA of a subject they presume is Ghespe was present on the device) was far greater than that of the defence. Anyway they stated that DNA analysis only provides a probability, even if high, and never certainty, for this reason they cannot draw conclusions, this task belongs to the judge. The geneticist for the defence disputed the fact that no new analyses had been made on the small residual sample (which was in effect the subject of the question posed by the court) and that precisely the prosecution, on the contrary, having previously maintained the unimportance of the quantity of material and of the methods of analysis were and methods of analysis were therefore in contradiction with itself. The expert insisted that the presence of 5 alleles out of 7 systems involved the presence of at least 3 donors on the sample (since each individual can contribute a maximum of 2 alleles per system) and that, obviously, increasing the subjects in question would also change the likelihood ratio.
Moreover they questioned that, there being at least 2 subjects other than the bomb disposal expert’s DNA on the exhibit, the other attribute was not necessarily that of the “culprit” and moreover it could have been present by chance, e.g. during transportation. For the record we’re talking about a sample mixture whose analysis involved 7 cells. The day ended with a new schedule of hearings as the expert for the transcripts had been unable to transcribe the vast amount of interceptions and extra experts were needed.
The hearings of 11 and 12 April will therefore be skipped. The next will be that of the 18th, where these interceptions should be dealt with; on the 24th there will be the indictment of the prosecution and the civil parties, while the concluding statement of the defence will be on April 29 and 30 and May 6. May 9 was fixed as the date on which the sentence will be pronounced.
Paska, in good form and smiling, greeted us with a ‘see you on the 18th!’ (at 9 am).
Translated by Act for freedom now!