Enzo Tortora: Justice betrayed


ABSTRACT: The complete story which, from the large-scale police operation against the Nuova Camorra Organizzata (1a) (during which Enzo Tortora was also arrested), - through pseudo-investigations, cases of homonymy, the use of so-called "penitents" and various testimonies - brought to the first degree judgement sentencing Tortora to ten years' imprisonment, is hereby analysed. The whole mechanism of the judgement is examined in detail and the testimonies of the different "penitents" are thoroughly analysed, testimonies which are the basis of the whole accusation complex, with a comparison between the trial in which Tortora was involved and the findings of other judicial proceedings.
(Panorama, 27 August 1986)


The edifice of accusations against Enzo Tortora has finally crumbled to pieces. We shall give a partial example of this, "reviewing" - to quote Pandico - the fundamental elements of "evidence" on the basis of which the Xth Section of the Court of Naples convicted Tortora.
In other words, we shall compare the different accusations made by the "penitents" against Tortora, and the evaluation given on these accusations in the motivations of the judgement of the first degree trial of the Court of Naples (first "branch") with the findings of other disciplinary proceedings (and especially in the third and fourth "branch" of the same trial against the Nuova Camorra Organizzata, and in the proceedings started in Milan against Walter Chiari) or with what was reported in official documents.
It is necessary to underline the fact that the 640 persons committed for trial after the investigation on the Nuova Camorra Organizzata (N.C.O.) were divided into three "branches" and judged by three different sections of the Tribunal of Naples. Some of them have been "removed" and gathered into a so-called "fourth branch" and judged by another section of the Tribunal of Naples.
In the premise below, we report the conclusions contained in the motivations of the sentence by which the Court of Naples (first "branch") (1) sentenced Enzo Tortora to ten years' imprisonment for criminal association related to the camorra and drug trade: in the above mentioned judgement the names of the "penitents" that supposedly proved his culpability are listed.

THE JUDGES OF NAPLES: TORTORA IS A CYNICAL DEATH MERCHANT

"Tortora's belonging to the N.C.O. (Nuova Camorra Organizzata) has been proven thanks to the statements delivered by Pandico, D'Amico, Federico, and, above all, Barra, D'Agostino and Incarnato. For all of these charges there have been adequate and convincing elements of proof.
Tortora's activity as a drug dealer (cocaine) has been proved also thanks to the testimonies of Castellini, Margutti, Villa and the accusation of complicity made by by Melluso, evidence that is supported by further confirming elements: at the end of the present exposé we get a picture that allows us to see Tortora's real face, that of a dangerous drug dealer". "Tortora has proven to be an extremely dangerous person, having for years successfully hidden his illegal activities, and his true aspect is that of a cynical death merchant".

Let us therefore examine, in order, the trial positions of the main accusers:

1. Pasquale Barra
2. Giovanni Pandico
3. Michelangelo D'Agostino
4. Mario Incarnato
5. Pasquale D'Amico
6. Giovanni Melluso
7. Rosalba Castellini and Giuseppe Margutti
and the statements issued by the Court of Naples (first degree) on the concrete evidence of the accusations made by the "penitents".

-------------------------------

1. PASQUALE BARRA

IT IS ONLY DURING THE EIGHTEENTH QUESTIONING THAT HE SUDDENLY REMEMBERS THAT TORTORA BELONGS TO THE CAMORRA. CUTOLO SENT HIM THIS MESSAGE WHILE HE WAS IN THE PRISON OF TRANI

Pasquale Barra, a "penitent" whose nick name is "O Animale" (2a), killer of the penitentiaries (the murderer of Turatello and Cuomo, among others), provides lists of supposed members of the camorra during 17 testimonies, a 100 page-long list. It is only during the eighteenth questioning, on the 19th of April 1983, that "examining the lists written by Pandico, he confirms that Tortora, a Rai-TV showman, is without doubts a full-blown member of the camorra". Pasquale Barra "learnt about Tortora's association to the camorra in 1979, while he was in the prison of Trani, because Cutolo sent him this message through the wife of Antonino Cuomo".
"Enzo Tortora met Cutolo in 1978, after the latter had escaped from the criminal lunatic asylum of Aversa, and precisely in the home of Nadia Marzano", where he was "affiliated". The pseudo-ceremony" was attended by Raffaele Cutolo, Giuseppe Palillo, Giuseppe Cacciapuoti and Giuseppe Serra".
"Further explanations were given to him by Cutolo, when they spent a period of twenty days together in the maximum security penitentiary of Poggioreale, in 1979".
"Tortora had become a close collaborator of the NCO for the drug traffic".
Barra later refused to sign and confirm these accusations both at the first degree trial and at the appeal trial.

FIRST FORGERY:
IT IS NOT TRUE THAT CUTOLO INFORMED BARRA IN 1979 IN THE PRISON OF TRANI OF TORTORA'S AFFILIATION WITH THE CAMORRA...FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT BARRA WAS NOT DETAINED IN TRANI BUT IN NUORO

Not only according to the judges of the first "branch", but also according to Public Prosecutor Armando Olivares, at the appeal trial against Tortora and the NCO (2), Barra should be given credit when he states that he was informed about Tortora's affiliation with the camorra through the wife of Cuomo, who told him, on behalf of Cutolo, when he was in the prison of Trani in 1979: "even Barra testifies the charge - Public Prosecutor Olivares says during his final speech - because Barra says that he was informed by Cuomo's wife, who acted as an intermediary between Cutolo and himself, and we know this to be not only possible but rightful..."
All this is false for the simple reason that...Barra was not in the prison of Trani in 1979. He spent the whole of that year in the prison of Nuoro, with short transfers to Naples and Bari. No investigator had bothered to enquire about this until now! (3)

SECOND FORGERY:
IN 1978 PALILLO WAS IN PRISON; NOT AT TORTORA'S AFFILIATION CEREMONY

Giuseppe Palillo could not have taken part in the supposed "affiliation" cerimony of Tortora in Nadia Marzano's home because he was in prison.
Arrested on the 30th of July 1976, since then Palillo has remained constantly in prison to date.

ACCORDING TO THE CARABINIERI THERE IS NO LINK BETWEEN TORTORA AND THE CAMORRA

A report signed by Captain of the Carabinieri Emanuele Garelli - attached to the investigative records (4) - concerning an enquiry on a number of persons (Cutolo Roberto, Marco Medda, Domenico Barbaro, Nadia Marzano, six members of the Palillo family) states that "in any case no connection has emerged between the showman Tortora and the individuals signalled".

ACCORDING TO THE JUDGES, BARRA IS COMPLETELY CREDIBLE

According to the judges of the "first branch" of the trial against the Nuova Camorra Organizzata, "all the statements made by Barra are reliable, and especially those concerning Tortora's affiliation with the NCO, in that they are logical, articulated, supported by evidence and not contradicted by other trial findings".

ACCORDING TO THE JUDGES OF THE THIRD BRANCH, PENITENTS BARRA AND PANDICO ARE UNRELIABLE

In the motivation of the sentence against Tortora, the judges of the "third branch" of the trial against the NCO (5) write that the main accusers, Pasquale Barra and Giovanni Pandico, are unreliable. As far as the statements delivered by Barra on the persons affiliated with the NCO are concerned, the latter "are not the result of a list of names, but come from the confirmative evidence the penitent gives of the lists carefully prepared at least one year before by the Carabinieri of the Naples 1 and Naples 2 unit, even if this is not explicitly said in the records".

BARRA'S LIST OF MEMBERS OF THE CAMORRA CORRESPONDS, EVEN IN THE MISTAKES, TO THE ONE PREPARED BY THE CARABINIERI

According to the same judges of the "third branch": "...the penitent gives the names of supposed affiliated with the Nuova Camorra Organizzata of S.Antimo, reading from the lists prepared by the Carabinieri on 16.1.82, in the same order and often repeating the same mistake in the spelling of a surname"..."the above mentioned person, in order to maintain the personal privileges granted him, had started to make accusations of all kinds, enriched with details that are the fruit of his imagination"...In fact Barra, with his 'revelations', appears to be of no use to the 'ex ante' constitution of the probatory situation, and will be practically ignored in the evaluation of the positions of the single accused".

"HAVING TAKEN A COMMITMENT WITH THE MAGISTRATES...BARRA...IN ORDER TO CONTINUE TO REMAIN OUTSIDE OF..."

"Barra - the judges of the "third branch" say - had also confessed, during the first statements, that the persons affiliated with the NCO were 1400 in 1982 and that he presumed, in his office of "santista", to succeed in revealing almost all the names. Therefore, having assumed the commitment with the investigating magistrates to give a substantial contribution, and hoping to continue to remain outside of a specific prison milieu which had become extremely dangerous for his survival, this selfish impulse must have so strongly influenced him as to induce him to believe that so many peripheral personalities, which he had met in prison, yet to be judged or serving their sentence, marginally concerned by the influence of the NCO, had become members of it or were necessarily part of it".

THE DISAVOWALS CONTINUE: ON THE 24TH OF MARCH 1986, BARRA IS SENTENCED TO 28 YEARS OF IMPRISONMENT BY THE COURT OF PESARO, AMID THE ALMOST COMPLETE SILENCE ON THE PART OF THE ITALIAN PRESS

Pasquale Barra was sentenced to 28 years' imprisonment by the Court of Assizes of Pesaro (6) on the 24th of March 1986 for the murder of prisoner Giovanni Ghisena, perpetrated in the penitentiary of Fossombrone on the 27th of April 1981. The "penitent" Barra had accused Raffaele Cutolo of being the instigator of the murder. The Court of Pesaro not only gave no credit to Barra's "revelations", but sentenced him to a very severe penalty, judging him to be the instigator of the crime, and acquitting Cutolo. (7)

BARRA EXPLAINS HOW HE PERFORMED PHOTOGRAPHIC IDENTIFICATIONS

The judges of the "third branch" add, as regards the unreliability of the two penitents, that if the list of supposed members of the camorra had in fact been suggested by the Carabinieri, "nor can further credit be given to the so-called photographic 'identifications', after Barra confessed, at page 177 of his statement, that in those hasty identifications of tens of people at a time, many of whom were not recognized in the course of personal identifications, concentrated not so much on confronting the physical aspect of the persons portrayed in the pictures with those that he states to remember, as on the correspondence of the persons with those that he had listed or with those that he had confirmed on the lists prepared by the Carabinieri on 16.4.1982, on whose skill in performing identifications he claims to have relied completely".

NADIA MARZANO:"TORTORA COULD NOT HAVE BEEN "LEGALIZED" IN MY HOME IN MILAN BECAUSE AT THE TIME I WAS LIVING IN MADESIMO"

"7 January 1986, Milan - ...In 1978 (the year in which the accusing part continues to state that the honourable president of your party, Mr.Tortora, came to my home to perform tribal affiliation rites) I was not in Milan"..."I remember perfectly well that in the above mentioned year I was in Madesimo in a guesthouse called "Baita del sole" (the address of which I could have provided then and still can now) because my son, who was 6 months old at the time...was suffering from whooping-cough"..."with best regards, Nadia Marzano".
During the investigation and also during the debate, Nadia Marzano asked the magistrates, in vain, to investigate on what she had declared.
The Court of Appeal of Naples, instead, ordered to verify her statements.

THE LETTERS OF NADIA MARZANO DISAPPEAR FROM THE RECORDS. WHY?

The records prove the fact that Barra received some letters from Nadia Marzano. Barra states that Nadia Marzano wrote to him, "declaring herself at his complete disposal in Milan" to trade drugs on behalf of the NCO. Nadia Marzano states that she was forced to contact Barra by a friend of his.
In the course of the first degree trial, Domenico Ciruzzi, a lawyer, denies the existence of the letters in the records. Whereas during the appeal trial it is definitely verified that they were never included in the acts or disappeared mysteriously.
Why? Who was interested in abducting them from the debate?

----------------------------

2. GIOVANNI PANDICO

CUTOLO TALKED TO ME ABOUT TORTORA, A MEMBER OF THE CAMORRA, THE ONE WITH THE PARROT (3a)

The "penitent" Giovanni Pandico, guilty of several murders (he killed two municipal employees who were late in issuing a certificate, and attempted at his own mother's life), was also sentenced to three years of imprisonment for a slander charge by the tribunal of Naples in 1973, and to two years of imprisonment, for slander charges against prison staff, by the Tribunal of Livorno in 1984.
Pandico, who refers to himself as Cutolo's adviser, was questioned for the first time on the 21st of March 1983, and started to provide lists of supposed members of the camorra. He continues to testify until the 30th of March, when, "examining the lists of the members of the N.C.O. (Nuova Camorra Organizzata), he finally drops the name of Tortora.
He claims to have received this information directly from Raffaele Cutolo, boss of the N.C.O., in the course of a discussion which was supposedly carried out in the penitentiary of Ascoli Piceno, "at the latest during the second half of 1981".
"Tortora is mentioned accidentally" in the course of a discussion concerning a stock of drugs, when Cutolo says: "let's not behave like Tortora", "the one with the parrot". Cutolo would have been referring to a "misdeed" committed by Tortora, that is, a stock of drugs worth 50 or 60 millions of lire which "he was in debt of with the organization and especially with Barbaro and Alcamo", a stock which Tortora had supposedly sold but not paid to the N.C.O. during the years between 1977 and 1978.
According to Pandico, Tortora is an member of the camorra "ad honorem"..

ACCORDING TO THE JUDGES OF THE FIRST BRANCH, PANDICO SHOWED A MATCHLESS DEVOTION TO THE CAUSE OF JUSTICE

In the motivation of the sentence of the "first branch", the judges state that "regardless of any critical evaluation of his contribution, it must be acknowledged that Pandico has shown an unmatched concern for the cause of justice, which he embraced with enthusiasm and with a complete commitment, and that he has constantly held a coherent role with the type of person he wanted to represent (that of the pre-eminent member of the camorra, deceived by the degeneration of the organization), without exerting any form of delinquent opportunism."

III BRANCH: PANDICO HAS NEVER BEEN AFFILIATED WITH THE N.C.O....HE HAS GIVEN EXPRESSION TO HIS PERSONAL RESENT

As far as Giovanni Pandico is concerned, the judgement given by the magistrates of the "third branch" of the trial against the Nuova Camorra Organizzata (8) is final: "Pandico has never been affiliated with the N.C.O."..."Pandico has expressed his personal beliefs or his personal resent, which in the course of this proceeding has spared none of the persons he dealt with, including a former defender of his, publicly accused during the debate of being a professional who is willing, if it is necessary, to conduct illegal operations."
"Considering everything, even Pandico appears as a scarcely reliable witness, and his accusations are not very important as far as the formation of the evidence is concerned.

ACCORDING TO THE JUDGES OF THE THIRD BRANCH, PANDICO'S DEFINITION OF A CATEGORY OF MEMBERS OF THE CAMORRA "AD HONOREM" IS A LIE

In the interrogation of the 30th of March, Pandico states that Tortora was appointed "member of the camorra ad honorem" by the Palillo family in September-October 1980. As far as this category of members of the camorra is concerned, the judges of the "third branch", having examined the trial position of Mangianello Felice, state that "even wanting to analyze the core of Pandico's words, to be absolutely scrupulous, the result is the most complete inconsistency and a total unreliability. And this apart from the doubts that could be expressed as regards Pandico's category of members of the camorra ad honorem..."

ACCORDING TO THE JUDGES OF THE FOURTH BRANCH, PANDICO IS AN UNRELIABLE MYTHOMANIAC

"Pandico is unreliable, questionable and ambiguous, and is brought to mystify, being a deviant mythomaniac"; this is the evaluation given by the judges of the "fourth branch" of the trial against the N.C.O. (9).

BARBARO COULD NOT HAVE DELIVERED THE DRUGS TO TORTORA SIMPLY BECAUSE...HE WAS IN PRISON

According to Pandico, Cutolo incidentally mentioned Tortora on the subject of a "misdeed", that is, a stock of drugs worth 50 or 60 million lire which Tortora supposedly received from Barbaro and Alcamo between 1977 and 1978, and which he did not pay to the N.C.O..
The investigations lead to the identification of Domenico Barbaro, whereas all the efforts of the police to identify Alcamo proved useless.
But Pandico (or in the best hypothesis Cutolo) is lying, for the simple reason that Domenico Barbaro had been in prison from 1972 to 1980, and especially in the period from 1977 to 1978, he was in the penitentiary of Porto Azzurro together with Pandico.

WHO WANTED TO USE PANDICO AT ALL COSTS?

After his "repentance", thanks to an urgent provision of the judicial authority of Naples, Giovanni Pandico is transferred with a helicopter from the penitentiary of Pianosa to Piombino, and from there to the Station of the Operative Squad of the Carabinieri of Naples "Francesco Caracciolo" (10), on the 13th of March 1983. Pandico had already told the judge that he had decided to cooperate with the justice and to give informations concerning the structure of the N.C.O.. This is the reason for the Neapolitan judges' concern for the "penitent" Pandico. But the first formal interrogation of the judges occurred on the 21st of March 1983. Strangely enough, for one whole week no one was concerned with Pandico.
A lawyer, during the debate, filled this inexplicable gap: Filippo Trofino stated that Pandico was supposedly questioned by six judges during that time, three of whom would have considered him completely unreliable and therefore would not have recorded his voluntary depositions. Part of the Prosecution Office of Naples, on the contrary, wanted to use Pandico at all costs.
In spite of the denial of the magistrates, there still remains the mystery of that "gap".
------------------------

3. MICHELANGELO D'AGOSTINO

THE WELL-KNOWN RELIABILITY OF WHOM HAS BEEN REPEATEDLY MENTIONED

The "penitent" Michelangelo D'Agostino, the author of seven murders (he repented half an hour after his arrest, occurred in the course of an armed conflict), "the well-known reliability of whom has been mentioned several times" - state the judges of the "first branch" in the course of their sentence (14 January 1986) - "mentioned a specific episode in which he learnt about the connections existing between Tortora and the NCO". According to D'Agostino, in the course of a meeting held at Caivano, it was decide that Puca, the successor of Casillo in the camorra's hierarchy, would have contacted Tortora for the trafficking of drugs.
D'Agostino "said that Puca had several pocket diaries belonging to Casillo, which he managed to get hold of before Casillo was killed in a bomb attack. In one of these pocket diaries there was Tortora's telephone number, which was written down by some participants of the meeting".

...THE FALTERING RELIABILITY OF THE PENITENT D'AGOSTINO

According to the judges of the "third branch", even the statements delivered by Michelangelo D'Agostino, who accused Tortora after just six months of his "repentance", "are not immune from a critical judgement which underlines their limits and their inaccuracy, and, from a global point of view, their unreliability". D'Agostino is "eager to give a significant, autonomous contribution, also in the Neapolitan large-scale investigation, the importance and the substance of which he learnt about from the newspapers, which reported extensive news concerning the blitz-operation against Cutolo's camorra in the days before the 21st of June 1983, giving much space and importance to the great 'penitents' Pasquale Barra and Giovanni Pandico". As far as his lists of supposed members of the camorra are concerned, the judges state that "more names still seem to result from the recent reading of newspapers concerning some of the arrests carried out in the days immediately prior to the anti-camorra operation conducted by the judiciary of Naples."

D'AGOSTINO RETRACTS: I ACCUSED ENZO TORTORA IN EXCHANGE FOR A LEAVE

During the trial against the Bardellino gang, conducted by the Tribunal of S.M. Capua Vetere, in the sitting of the 14th of February 1986, the "penitent" Michelangelo D'Agostino states that an investigative magistrate of the Tribunal of Naples visited him in the prison of Paliano, and when the "penitent" protested because he had not been able to pray on his father's tomb, asked him to sign the accusation acts against Tortora. The permit was supposedly granted immediately after.
Michelangelo D'Agostino himself is questioned during the debate of the trial against the Vollaro gang, before the 7th penal section of the Tribunal of Naples, and on the 18th of February he states: "I signed the accusation acts against Tortora without reading them. Therefore I don't know whether my statements are true. I have accused many people I didn't know. I did it because they had promised to set me free"..."I have no problems in mentioning the names of these magistrates. They are judges Fontana, Spirito and De Lucia".

PUCA: THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A POCKET DIARY BELONGING TO CASILLO CONTAINING THE NAME OF ENZO TORTORA. I AM A "SANTISTA" OF THE NCO;
IF TORTORA HAD BEEN A MEMBER OF THE CAMORRA I WOULD HAVE KNOWN

Casillo's pocket diaries, mentioned by D'Agostino, one of which supposedly contains the name of Tortora, have never existed. Other two pocket diaries were found instead. The first one, belonging to Casillo, was found after his death (he blew up in his car following a bomb attack in Rome in January 1983), containing the telephone number of a certain Rolando Tortora, sentenced by the judges of Rome as member of the camorra and an absconder. The second, belonging to Assunta Catone, arrested together with Puca in 1983 at Lecce. We will talk about her later on.
In spite of this, the tribunal of the first branch accepts the existence of a pocket diary belonging to Casillo with Tortora's name. During the appeal trial, in the sitting of 10 July 1986, Giuseppe Puca states: "I have never detained a pocket diary belonging to Casillo".
He confirms that the only pocket diaries existing are those recorded in the acts. He has no difficulty, finally, in admitting his role of "santista" (Cutolo's right hand, editor's note) within the NCO, and adds that "if Tortora had belonged to the camorra I would certainly have known about it".

HOW THE ENZO TORTORA AFFAIR, OR RATHER ENZO TORTONA AFFAIR, STARTS

Following the murder of Vincenzo Casillo, Cutolo's right arm, the Flying-Sqaud of Lecce searches the home of a certain Francesco Chironi, finding a "page of a pocket diary with the name of Enzo Tortora, and some numbers, probably telephone numbers, 442168 and 325095". In that home, among others, Giuseppe Puca is arrested, the successor of Casillo in the NCO's leadership, who is believed to be the owner of the pocket diaries. This occurs on the 15th of March 1983, thirteen days before Pandico includes the name of Tortora in his list of camorra members.
The Police Headquarters of Lecce immediately inform Public Prosecutors Di Pietro and Di Persia. From that moment on, the judges and the police force are convinced that Tortora belongs to the camorra. Pandico and Barra, who until then, after ten questionings, had never even mentioned the showman, suddenly "remember" the name of Tortora in the manner explained above, in the sentence of the third branch, that is, "confirming" lists of camorra members submitted to them.
During Pandico's questioning, on the 21st of October 1983, the two judges Fontana and De Lucia are still convinced that those telephone numbers belong to Tortora, because they show the "penitent" the supposed pocket diaries belonging to Puca, receiving strange explanations concerning a secret code by means of which to decode the numbers.
Until then, the investigating magistrates had neglected to verify the numbers in the only logical manner, that is to dial number 442168, hear a Mr. Tortona answer and then dial 325095 to find Miss Marta Antonia Onofrio, engaged to Giancarlo Tortona, Enzo Tortona's brother.
It is only on the 14th of November 1983, after eight months, that it is said that Catone Assunta, arrested in Lecce together with Puca, of whom she had become the lover after having been Enzo Tortona's lover, that the pocket diary belonged to her, and that the name was not Tortora but Tortona. But by then it was too late to repair the mistake, and moreover only Tortora's fame could have supported "an investigation finished without even having properly taken off".
-----------------------

4. MARIO INCARNATO

HE APPEARS COMPLETELY COHERENT AND FULLY CREDIBLE, SUPPORTED AS HE IS BY EVIDENCE, ALSO OF A LOGICAL NATURE

The "penitent" Mario Incarnato, guilty of having murdered several people, number two of the so-called "Ponticelli battery", an armed group belonging to the camorra, on the 16th of January states that in the prison of Novara (he was transferred there from the prison of Poggioreale, where he was supposedly beaten up by the warders of the "special squad" - but no one bothered to check whether this is true, and no one ordered an investigation on the circumstance) he met "Davide Sorrentino, a well-known area-boss of Acerra and preminent member of the NCO"..."who confirmed that Enzo Tortora belonged to the camorra and was affiliated with the NCO" - this is the statement contained in the motivations of the sentence issued by the "first branch" - "Sorrentino's report, as described by Incarnato, appears to be perfectly coherent and fully credible, supported as it is by elements of evidence, also of a logical kind".

INCARNATO RETRACTS: THEY FORCED ME TO ACCUSE TORTORA, THEY FORCED ME TO ACCUSE HIM AFTER EIGHT MONTHS

During the trial against the Vollaro gang (11), the "penitent" Mario Incarnato literally states: "I confirm none of the things I declared previously". To the President's question, on why he had given a false testimony, he replies that all those things had been told to him by the carabinieri of the Napoli 1 group, and adds: "also as regards what I told lawyer Cesare Bruno, none of it is true, I made it all up". Asked why he had accused Cesare Bruno, Incarnato answers: "because he was an important name, everybody accused him, so I accused him as well..., the judges wanted Bruno to be accused, they visited me in prison every day to induce me to accuse Cesare Bruno, I accused him when I was in Paliano, I was at the limit, I couldn't bear it any longer, and in the same way they forced me to accuse Tortora, they forced me to accuse him after eight months".

AT THE HOTEL PASTRENGO RICCIO AND MELLUSO WERE PLANNING TO ESCAPE

Questioned for the first time during the sitting of the appeal trial of Naples in July 1986, Mario Incarnato states that Melluso is a liar. He specifies that in the Pastrengo Carabinieri Station, called "Hotel Pastrengo" for the privileges granted to the prisoners who "cooperated" with the justice, the "penitent" Luigi Riccio, guilty of many murders, boss of the "Ponticelli battery", had asked him to strengthen Melluso's accusations against Luigi Moccia (on behalf of whom he supposedly delivered the drugs to Tortora), in order to allow Melluso to remain in Naples in the Carabinieri station and thus try to escape together with Riccio. Luigi Moccia is in fact the only Neapolitan member of the camorra who is mentioned in the "confessions" delivered by Melluso, which are all staged in Milan, and which therefore allow to assign the territorial competency of the trial to Naples instead of Milan.
There is an element of evidence to support this attempt to escape on the part of Riccio and Melluso, who shared the same cell: Riccio's brother in law was arrested by the Carabinieri for having attempted to smuggle a saw inside the Pastrengo Station.
----------------------

5. PASQUALE D'AMICO

CUTOLO TOLD ME THAT TORTORA IS FINE WHERE HE IS
FOR THE COURT, THIS IS A VALID ELEMENT OF EVIDENCE

The "penitent" Pasquale D'Amico, guilty, among other things, of having murdered and then "impaled" a prisoner of the penitentiary of Poggioreale who was part of a rival gang, on the 14th of October 1983 in Naples states that during a trial in which he was accused along with Raffaele Cutolo, the following sentences were exchanged between him and the camorra boss: "my friend, I never legalized Tortora. How can you explain all this? Does he really belong to us? Cutolo answered: don't worry about it, Tortora is fine where he is, and while saying this he pressed my arm, as if to reassure me of the fact that his arrest was fair, because it corresponded to Tortora's responsibilities". The court which convicted Tortora at the first degree trial states that "in conclusion, in any case, the penitent is simply reporting a circumstance of which he had been informed by Cutolo, it is true, but only in a very general, indefinite and unverifiable manner,
but immediately after adds, with praiseworthy coherence, that "D'Amico's accusation can be considered a significant element of evidence against the accused".
----------------------

6. GIOVANNI MELLUSO

MELLUSO STATES THAT HE GAVE TORTORA OVER TEN KILOGRAMS OF COCAINE. ACCORDING TO THE JUDGES OF NAPLES, THIS COMPLICITY CHARGE IS WELL-CONSTRUCTED, LOGICAL AND VOID OF CONTRASTING ELEMENTS

The "penitent" Giovanni Melluso on the 8th of February 1984 states that he was charged with being a drug courier on behalf of Francis Turatello's gang. He declares the existance of a photograph portraying him together with Tortora, but this picture has never been shown because it was supposedly torn.
Melluso says he gave the cocaine to Tortora in successive stages: the first one "between the end of 1975 or the beginning of 1976" in the surroundings of Milan, "I cannot remember exactly whether near Legnano or Melegnano", for a total of one kilogram of cocaine; the second one, "after about one month from the first", "on the road leading to Cinisello Balsamo", also for a total of one kilogram; the third, "between the end of the winter and the beginning of spring of 1978", in a club called "Derby" in Viale Monterosa, this time a quantity amounting to 5 or 7 kilograms, "upon order of Luigi Moccia"; the fourth during the winter of 1978, I think it was in October", "in Loreto square or Coreto square", a quantity amounting to 2 and a half kilograms.
Melluso also tells the court about another exchange of drugs and money, which would have occurred toward the end of 1976 in Milan, in the office of a certain Cacciola, a lawyer. According to Melluso, the drug operation was attended, apart from himself, Turatello and Tortora, even by Calvi and Pazienza!
According to the judges of the "first branch" these are, in synthesis, the episodes of which the complicity charge made by Melluso consists of. It is an articulate, logical accusation, void of contradictory elements. It has been in fact ascertained that in all four these occasions Melluso was free; furthermore the complicity accusation was spontaneous and repeated.
There are also objective elements of evidence, consisting in the ascertained acquaintance between Melluso, Turatello and Tortora".

MELLUSO STATES THAT HE GAVE SEVERAL KILOGRAMS OF COCAINE TO WALTER CHIARI. ACCORDING TO THE JUDGES OF MILAN HE IS DELIBERATELY LYING

In March 1984, the Investigation Office of the Tribunal of Naples gave the Prosecution office of Milan, competent for that territory, a copy of the statements made by Melluso concerning the supposed drug dealing activity of Walter Chiari, Patrizia Caselli and a certain Cusumano Antonino. Against these people, Melluso made accusations before the judges that are absolutely similar to those concerning Tortora: purchase and sale of considerable quantities of cocaine, giving a detailed account of the encounters with the two actors. With a sentence of the 29th of July 1986, the investigating judge acquitted the three accused.
He motivated the sentence in the following way: the enquiry "has proved in a clear and evident way that the accusation is groundless. Melluso is deliberately lying when he accuses the above mentioned persons"...Secondly, the preventive assiduity with other collaborators of the justice appears highly suspect, for the reasonable possibility of there being a mutual influence, and in the specific circumstance made evident by the fact that the first input to the investigation was provided precisely by that Andrea Villa whom Melluso refers to to explain the reasons for his decision to cooperate with the justice"..."From the accusations Melluso addresses against himself and his supposed accomplices, we get a picture of rare poverty of arguments; worse than logical incoherence and incongruity, capable of irreversibly overwhelming the accusation, in that it is obscenely bare".

ACCORDING TO THE JUDGE OF NAPLES THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT MELLUSO WAS WORKING FOR TURATELLO, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT HE WAS WORKING WITH SOMEONE FROM MILAN

According to the judges of the "first branch" of Naples "there is evidence that Melluso was working for Turatello, and that his specific task was that of providing drugs to people from the show business, whom it is ascertained that Melluso was acquainted with".
The investigative judge of Milan instead writes that: "The prelude is in itself unlikely: Francis Turatello, boss of a tough criminal gang with preminent criminals as members, people who had become known for sensational actions as well as for the virtual monopoly of every criminal activity, would have chosen, in 1975, a 'nice' young man of 19 (Melluso, editor's note), charging him with the delicate task of transporting kilos of cocaine around the peninsula, and even assigning him the responsibility of 'shifting' the drug sale into the show business milieu"..."It is difficult to understand what sort of relations Melluso had with Turatello, given that the former will not go beyond the confession of an aggregation, refusing to give significant names, facts and circumstances which, if told - of course, known facts! - would have conferred to his accusation another sort of credibility".

ACCORDING TO THE JUDGES OF NAPLES, MELLUSO IS CREDIBLE,
FOR THE JUDGE IN MILAN MELLUSO HAS DEVISED THE MOST INCREDIBLE PLOT BASED ON SLANDERS A MIND EXPERT IN TRIAL FRAUD COULD EVER CONCEIVE

"The accusation of complicity made by Melluso against Tortora is fully credible", states the court of Naples.
The investigative judge of Milan instead, who conducted an enquiry on the facts stated by Melluso, has a different opinion: "Such being the findings of the investigative operation, we can in all honesty say that Giovanni Melluso, taking as a pretext the incidental possession of the photographs shown to the investigative judge of Naples, has devised the most incredible plot of slanders that a mind expert in trial fraud could ever conceive".

ANOTHER CASE OF HOMONYMY. BUT THIS TIME THE ACCUSED DOESN'T END UP IN THE PENITENTIARY OF POGGIOREALE.

The investigative judge of Milan acquits the third accused, Antonino Cusumano, because the offence has never been committed. The carabinieri of Naples, who had already distinguished themselves during the "maxi-blitz" of June 1983, had identified Cusumano, accused by Melluso as "Cusumano Antonino, son of Francesco and Accomando Giuseppa, resident in Milan, via Filippo Turati 46". From the investigations carried out by the prosecution office of Milan, it turns out that Antonino Cusumano is an honest teacher, who is guilty only of one thing, that of having the same name as another Cusumano, a well known criminal. Luckily for him, this time we are not in Naples, and he manages to avoid a few months in Poggioreale awaiting further enquiries.
On this subject, the investigative judge of Milan states: "This is a circumstance in which the inaccuracy of the intervention of the police force of Naples should be stigmatized; the latter should have carried out the investigations using maximum zeal and rigor".

NINE MONTHS IN PRISON TO DISCOVER THAT GIUSEPPE PECORELLI WAS INNOCENT

After having spent nine months in prison, Giuseppe Pecorelli is acquitted for lack of evidence; Pecorelli is a young man from Nolano who was sent to prison following the revelations of a "penitent". He had been accused of having participated in a mafia execution years ago in the troublesome prison of Poggioreale. The investigations revealed that at the time the young man was not in prison, and was in fact only 13." (12)

EVERY WORD UTTERED BY MELLUSO HAS BEEN PREPARED
IN THE PRISON OF CAMPOBASSO

"BRESCIA 10 February 1986 - Dear Mr. Tortora, the person writing to you is the former member of the camorra Catapano Guido (13)...I spent two years in prison together with Melluso as we are both penitents, Pasquale D'Amico was there too, I shared the cell with Melluso for six months in the penitentiary of Campobasso, and I am well aware that the accusations against you are slanders; He is a penitent built piece by piece, I spoke with him many times about the accusations he made against you, and he very clearly told me that the only time he saw you was on T.V. Every word of his against you was prepared in the penitentiary of Campobasso. Before confronting you, he had prepared all those devices to give more credibility to his accusation"..."Melluso was extremely worried in the days before the confrontation with you, he said that on the subject of a delivery in which he stated he had met with you, and which he had included in the records of the trial, he was in fact in prison in Sicily, and he was afraid of being contradicted in the court-room..."

I GAVE A KILOGRAM OF COCAINE TO TORTORA BETWEEN THE END OF 1975 AND THE BEGINNING OF 1976.
IMPOSSIBLE, BECAUSE MELLUSO WAS IN PRISON!

Melluso states that he gave a kilogram of cocaine to Tortora "between the end of 1975 and the beginning of 1976".
This is simply impossible, because Melluso was in the prison of Sciacca from the 19th of November 1975 to the 6th of April 1976.

THE DATES OF THE DELIVERIES DO NOT CORRESPOND: IT IS OBVIOUS, THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SAYS, IT IS THE PROOF THAT THERE WAS NO PREVIOUS AGREEMENT!

During the confrontations and in the motivations for the appeal, the defense lawyers dispute the statements by Melluso concerning the dates and the circumstances in which he supposedly gave Tortora the drugs. In some cases they prove that the statements made by Melluso are false, for the simple reason that Melluso was in jail. To these remarks, the public prosecutor, Armando Olivares, replies in his final speech using the following arguments: "we checked which were the periods in which Melluso was free and which ones he was in jail, and if there had been an agreement, an induction even"..."it would have been much easier because it would have been sufficient to use a computer to know exactly which were the periods of detention and which were the periods in which Melluso was free, and Melluso could have specified exactly in which days he met Tortora".

TORTORA SUPPOSEDLY MADE USE OF COCAINE. WHY WAS A MEDICAL EXAMINATION REFUSED? TORTORA SUPPOSEDLY SOLD KILOS OF DRUGS, MAKING BILLIONS OF LIRE. WHY DID NO ONE INVESTIGATE ON THIS FORTUNE?

Tortora is accused of having possessed and sold over ten kilograms of cocaine. In particular he is accused of having used cocaine "to ease the pain he suffered from owing to the after-effects of a surgical operation".
Why did no one, in spite of the requests on the part of the defense, neither the Court of the Tribunal of Naples, nor that of the appeal court of Naples, order a medical expertise to check whether Tortora presented the lesions in the nasal mucose membrane which are typical of this kind of drug-addiction, or whether there were traces of drugs in his blood?
Why did no one provide to investigate the many billions of lire Tortora reportedly cashed through the sale of over ten kilograms of cocaine?

SGANZERLA RETRACTS: MELLUSO WAS NOT A DRUG DEALER WORKING FOR TURATELLO

In the course of the debate of the "fourth branch" of the trial against the N.C.O. (14), the accused Roberto Sganzerla (15) states: "I had said to Mr. Fontana, that is, I had supported a thesis that strengthened the accusations made by Melluso, saying that Gianni Melluso was a drug dealer hired by Francis Turatello. I made this up in agreement with Andrea Villa and Melluso. Because what were I and Andrea Villa guilty of? Mr. Fontana and Mr. Di Pietro needed informations to collect on the show business milieu"..."Melluso was reluctant, he was unsure whether to cooperate or not to cooperate. He knew nothing"..."Mr. Fontana and Mr. Di Pietro said: 'all right, go out and discuss it among yourselves'. Me and Andrea Villa and Gianni Melluso discussed the matter for two hours in the little courtyard of the prison of Paliano"..."Me and Melluso agreed to give this version...but it is false"

SGANZERLA: THEY WANT ME TO RETRACT EVERYTHING

On the 14th of May 1986, Roberto Sganzerla sends a letter to Enzo Tortora, in which, among other things, he states that "from the day in which I stated in the court that me, Villa and Melluso reached an agreement in Paliano to make Melluso's version more credible, they are urging me by all means to retract
everything. Now they sent me to the penitentiary of Pescara in a completely isolated section, where they send the worst offenders"..."I am asking you if it is fair that I have to live in these conditions for having said the truth that day in court, and given that, unlike Melluso, I have no magistrates willing to help me, I don't know what to do. The only thing I could do is write to the judges of Naples and tell them that I never met Melluso in Paliano"..."What should I do according to you? To go mad in a place like this or to tell them I made everything up?"

MARRA: THE PENITENTS CONSULTED ONE ANOTHER TO INVOLVE INNOCENTS

In the course of the debate of the "third branch" of the trial against the N.C.O., on the 25th of September the "penitent" Mauro Marra (16) accuses the other "penitents" of having decided many complicity accusations after a meeting. In particular he explains how in the penitentiary of Campobasso in 1984, while the investigation stage was still in course, the "penitents" had the possibility to consult one another, and mentions Catapano, D'Amico, Melluso, Auriemma, Dignitoso and Barra.
On the 15th of November 1985, in the course of the debate of the "fourth branch", he repeats his accusations of false testimony against the other "penitents", stating that "some of them have taken agreements to involve innocents".

ALSO ACCORDING TO THE JUDGES OF THE THIRD BRANCH ...THE DISSOCIATED CAMORRA MEMBERS HAVE COLLECTIVELY DECIDED THE ACCUSATIONS

Analysing the criteria according to which the investigative magistrates have used the dissociated camorra members, the judges of the "third branch" state, on the subject of the photographic identification, that "methodological prudence would advise that, in such cases, either the correct names and faces of the persons to be accused are included in a list of other names or other photographs, or that, remembering the name or the face of the accused, the accusing person is asked to provide a clear answer, with details concerning the remembered or recognized person.
In the method followed by the investigative judge, both cautions were ignored, on the contrary, each penitent has been put in the best of conditions to accuse all the persons without distinctions; of these persons, moreover, every penitent knew they were people already accused by Barra or some other dissociated criminal before him. In some cases the penitents consulted one another on the single statements, in view of further statements to deliver to this or that investigative magistrate, reaching agreed-upon accusation statements, or more often, 'protecting', by means of significant confirmations, the type of accusation propositions previously made against certain accused by other dissociated criminals before them".

"PENITENT" TASSINI: RICCIO, INCARNATO AND MELLUSO WANTED ME TO MAKE STATEMENTS AGAINST TORTORA TO SUPPORT THEIR OWN STATEMENTS"

The "penitent" Michele Tassini, who testified on the 14th of May 1986 before the Tribunal of Naples in the trial against the Giuliano gang, stated: "TASSINI - I sent a letter to the Public Prosecutor of Naples, Cedrangolo. Someone in Paliano wanted me to deliver statements against Tortora to support their own statements against him. PRESIDENT - Who were those penitents? TASSINI - Riccio, Incarnato and Melluso, the one who accused Tortora, the one whose nick name is Gianni Handsome. In the letter I sent to Cedrangolo, I only made the names of Riccio and Melluso. It was Melluso who was more deeply involved in this affair."

PENITENT D'AMICO: AS A FATHER OF FIVE CHILDREN, I CAN NO LONGER REMAIN SILENT...MELLUSO IS A BIG LIAR"

"Dear Mr. Tortora, the person writing to you is the penitent Pasquale D'Amico"..."the only thing I want to tell you is that I have a burden on my conscience, and as a father of five children, I can no longer bear it, in other words, the fact that Melluso is a liar and that he never met you, he told this to me and to other penitents, and that he agreed to accuse you with Andrea Villa in the penitentiary of Paliano..."

SANFILIPPO (17) "THE PENITENTS KEEP THE MAGISTRATES IN THEIR GRASP"

"BELLUNO - 29 November 1985 - Dear Mr. Tortora, first of all I beg you to forgive me for having accused you unfairly"..."I tried to convince Pandico, Melluso and the others of the monstrosity we were committing, but in vain. They threatened to kill me, and forced me to reconfirm the accusations against you, forcing me, among others, to say that you were plotting an attack against the Public Prosecutor Diego Marmo, to be more credible in the reconfirmation of the accusations. Then they had me transferred from one prison to the other, because the judges they are collaborating with (so to say, because Justices Fontana, Di Pietro and Di Persia are perfectly aware that you are innocent, but Pandico, and Melluso and the others keep them in their grasp), do all they tell them to do, precisely because they accused Enzo Tortora"...
Salvatore Sanfilippo

VALLANZASCA: MELLUSO HARDLY KNOWS TURATELLO

During the confrontation with Renato Vallanzasca, in the sitting of 4 July 1986 of the appeal trial, Melluso acts as if he knew no significant details concerning the milieu and the very person of Francis Turatello.
For example, he ignores the name of the "Derby Club", a club which on the contrary, Vallanzasca states is extremely well known to the criminals that station there often. It must also be said that the club is precisely the one in which Melluso states he gave the drugs to Tortora. He also ignores the fact that Turatello has a tattoo on his wrist.

EPAMINONDA: MELLUSO NEVER WORKED FOR TURATELLO

In that same sitting of the 4th of July, Angelo Epaminonda, successor of Turatello as mafia boss in Milan, repented after his arrest, and believed to be extremely reliable by the magistrates of Milan, literally states: "Melluso never worked with Turatello". "I can say so because I had a preminent role in the gang". "I exclude that the NCO conducted cocaine traffic in Milan, and in any case, I would not have allowed it".
--------------------------

7. GIUSEPPE MARGUTTI
AND ROSALBA CASTELLINI

WE SAW TORTORA SELLING DRUGS IN A STUDIO OF ANTENNA 3
THE DEPOSITIONS OF MR. AND MRS. MARGUTTI ARE TRUE AND CORRECT

Rosalba Castellini and her husband Giuseppe Margutti tell the magistrates that on the 3rd of November 1979, during a "party" organized by the Unicef and aired by "Antenna 3", they were in a corridor of the Tv studio. "At a certain point, the accuser realized"..."that the elastic of her panties had broken, and that the garment was about to slip down". They therefore went into a deserted office and behind a desk "the woman took the garment off to try to repair it. In that moment, they heard footsteps and saw a man coming in, whom they immediately identified as Enzo Tortora, who stopped near a chair and put a plastic bag on it. After a few seconds - the accuser says - other people came in and discussed with Tortora, who took out a packet from the plastic bag and tasted the powder with the tip of his finger, after having made a tiny hole in the bag. Then he nodded, and the person with a briefcase in his hand opened it and took out several bundles of bills, which he gave Tortora".
The Margutti spouses denounced this episode only three or four years later, and precisely on the 15th of July 1983, after Tortora's arrest. They specify that they had talked about the episode previously with Verderame and Formaini.
According to the court of Naples "it is an ascertained fact that Tortora is a drug dealer, considering the truthfulness and the accuracy of the depositions of Margutti and Castellini".

THE CARABINIERI OF MILAN ARE UNHEEDED AND MOCKED: THEY HAD WARNED THE JUDGES OF NAPLES THAT MARGUTTI WAS A WELL-KNOWN SLANDERER

The investigations carried out by petty officer Gianfaldone ascertain that "Margutti has several penal precedents for fraud and slander (condemned twice, the first time in 1968, he was sentenced to one year and four months of imprisonment, the second time, in 1982, to two years and two months)", and that Margutti, before going to the authorities, had contacted the offices of a magazine to sell the exclusive rights of the story. An on-the-spot investigation ascertains that there were several rest-rooms accessible to anyone immediately after the bar, in which Mrs. Castellina could easily have mended her garment.
In the condemnation sentence against Tortora, the Court is visibly annoyed by the investigations carried out by Gianfaldone, who had attempted to warn the magistrates of Naples about Margutti's personality: an exhibitionist, a mythomaniac and a cheat. He is mocked by the Court and called "incomparable Gianfaldone".

CLERICI: MARGUTTI AND HIS WIFE COULD NOT HAVE ENTERED THE STUDIOS

Italo Clerici, director of the Antenna 3 studios, in the sitting of 8 July 1986, confirms he had invited Margutti to attend the party for the Unicef, but he excludes that the painter and his wife could ever have moved freely around the corridors and in the other Tv studios, because he himself had given precise orders to the personnel in that sense, to avoid guests from hampering the work in the offices.

WHAT MARGUTTI SAYS IS FALSE. HE NEVER SPOKE TO ME ABOUT THE TORTORA EPISODE

Giuseppe Margutti, in a letter addressed to Justice Fontana, dated 16 July 1984, states he had talked about the Tortora episode with Lawyer Verderame and the chief porter of the newspaper "La Notte", Enrico Formaini.
Summoned by the public prosecutor, in the course of the sitting of the appeal trial of the 15th of July, Enrico Formaini contradicts Margutti, saying that he knew him and talked to him many times, but never about Tortora.

ACCORDING TO THE JUDGES OF MILAN, MARGUTTI IS AN EXHIBITIONIST

On the morning of the 28th of April 1986, Giuseppe Margutti gives the porter of the apartments where Verderame lives (according to a possible witness on his side) a hand-written note that reads: "You must immediately give me back my 20 million, I see no further reasons for your keeping them as a precaution. I want them today, or else I will go to the police and tell them everything, that way they will get the names of those who took the 50 million given by the gang Tortora belongs to in order for me to retract".
Verderame immediately brings an action against Margutta for slander and extortion.
The sentence of the tribunal of Milan acquits Margutti from the extortion accusation and gives the papers to the Public prosecutor for the slander charge, because his blackmailing note does not concrete the offence of extortion, but denies any credibility to Margutti. "Verdirame has nothing to do with the affair of Margutti's retraction. The sum of twenty million is consistent for anyone. As a consequence, Margutti's behaviour had no serious possibilities of success, lacking a sufficient scope to determine the convince the offended part to a considerable disbursement". "According to the Court, Margutti's initiative against Verdirame should be understood in the context of a certain craving for celebrity which the public opinion believes Margutti to be affected by, perhaps to satisfy a craving for fame repressed by the mediocre level of the newspaper"..."having ascertained the temporal contiguity of these facts with the appeal debate against the NCO, Margutti is probably looking for new forms of publicity and celebrity".

MARGUTTI'S LAST RETRACTION

An interview by journalist Benedetto Mosca with Giuseppe Margutti was aired by RETE A in March 1986. MARGUTTI: "...I was in the tribunal when this guy, a journalist, no, a photographer, I can't remember his name..and he gives me this version of the facts: that that day Tortora was supposed to receive money from...I don't know...from Switzerland, but I'm not sure...he was supposed to receive some money which he obviously did not want to share with Renzo Villa, because Renzo Villa was the Antenna 3 partner...He didn't see these two people here in his studio, because he would have been forced to provide explanations concerning that money...and he didn't want to give explanations because that money did not belong to Antenna 3 ...This is the version this guy gave me"..."Tortora comes in and takes the money, and gives this...this white package...and he told me they were documents, folded into four parts...with metallic points...when the other guy took it from him and pierced his finger with it and...you know, when you pierce your finger it's instinctive to put it in your mouth".."the person who took it pierced his finger and put it into his mouth. That was what brought to the conviction that 'it was drugs'.
--------------------

8. THE JUDGES

ALL THESE ACCUSATIONS HAVE BEEN SUPPORTED BY ADEQUATE AND CONVINCING ELEMENTS OF EVIDENCE. A SUPERB INVESTIGATION: BARRA AND PANDICO HAVE ENABLED THE ARREST OF HUNDREDS OF UNSUSPECTED CAMORRA MEMBERS

According to the judges of the "first branch", all the accusations have been supported by adequate and convincing elements of evidence".
Prosecutor Di Pietro (18), after having confirmed that the arrest of Enzo Tortora occurred uniquely on the basis of the accusations of Barra and Pandico, in 1983 (19) said: "Barra and Pandico have enabled us to arrest hundreds of persons who would never even have been suspected. Some of these are now in jail serving life sentence for the offences committed."

WIRE TAPPING, POSTS, CONTROLS, SHADOWING? COLONEL CONFORTI: ...NOT AS FAR AS I KNOW..I EXCLUDE IT..NOBODY ASKED US TO..

"PRESIDENT - have you ordered and carried out investigations by means of wire tapping of these people? COL. ROBERTO CONFORTI (20) - Not as far as I know...I exclude that there has been a similar request...I do not think that the Force has ordered telephone interceptions for these persons...I exclude that there have been enquiries, by means of posts and controls, even if occasional...we have never ordered a shadowing service..."
Colonel Conforti has been questioned during a debate in the trial of the first branch concerning the report of the Carabinieri, bearing no date and no signature, which read: "Enzo Tortora, a well-known show man, is supposed to be involved in the sale of drugs": PRESIDENT - Then, he said, it is said that he is involved in the sale of drugs; this "is supposed", from whom would you have known this? CONFORTI - From the things that the dissociated criminals were telling the magistrates. LAWYER - Therefore, it is the summary of the statements of the dissociated camorra members?...this information was given after the 28th of March (date in which Pandico was questioned), and is the summary of the facts declared by Pandico? CONFORTI - I confirm it fully".

FOR THREE MONTHS, FROM PANDICO'S ACCUSATIONS TO TORTORA'S ARREST, THERE HAS BEEN NO POLICE INVESTIGATION, NO WIRE TAPPING, NO SHADOWING, NO PATRIMONIAL ENQUIRY AND NOT EVEN A SEARCH IN TORTORA'S HOME. WHY?

On the 28th of March Giovanni Pandico first mentions Tortora. Until his arrest of the 17th of July 1983, for approximately three months, no police investigation concerning Tortora is carried out, no wire tapping, no shadowing, no patrimonial enquiry, not even a search in Tortora's home when he was arrested. Why? On this subject, we will refer to the forgery committed by Assistant Public Prosecutor Lucio Di Pietro, who states, in an interview to "La Repubblica" (4a) that "my colleague Di Persia and myself, the police and the Carabinieri, have worked four or five months...to identify the persons mentioned by the penitents, to seek evidence, to perform photographic investigations, to go through thousands of unfinished old investigations by the judicial police".
If these investigations have really been performed, why are they not in the records? For example, what were the findings of the objective verifications which, according to the well-informed Adriano Baglivo of the Corriere della Sera, were carried out in Lugano on Tortora's supposed export of capitals? (22), Baglivo writes: "Objective verifications are being carried out. Some officials of the Guardia di Finanza (5a), aided by experts in 'hidden deposits', are presently in Lugano to check on certain financial operations, following the statements by the penitents. Pandico underlined that 'Tortora's task within the organization was that of selling the drugs and taking the money abroad'. "If these investigations have been carried out, what results have they yielded?

...EVIDENT GAPS OF AN INVESTIGATION THAT WAS CONCLUDED EVEN BEFORE REALLY TAKING OFF

According to the judges of the "third branch", the debate verification has not being merely formal, "but aimed at filling the evident gaps of an investigative phase which was concluded before really getting started". In one passage, it is said that "in the enthusiastic awareness of having succeeded in penetrating the obscure and well covered realm of the N.C.O., police investigators and enquiring magistrates have ended up by giving a very strong credit to the words of the dissociated camorra members, neglecting or reducing to minimum the controls that could have, and should have, been performed on the hundreds of confirmative statements". Concerning the motivations of the sentence, the "Court" states, on the subject of certain trial positions, that: "They appeared symptomatic, almost emblematic, of the detached ruthlessness with which the dissociated members of the camorra have delivered their statements, which have too often been accepted without questions, and without the necessary controls"...According to the Court, the position of Antonio Barone is emblematic of the wrong consequences which can result from a non-critical acceptance of the words of the dissociated former camorra members, and by too a hasty analysis of the trial findings which should represent the evidence"..."The position of this accused is another vivid example of the results which can come from the passive acceptance of the dissociated members' words, of their unexpressed but unquestionable resolve to appear as precious collaborators of the enquiring magistrates, even if they know nothing directly and simply refer to other people's testimonials."

DISREGARD ON THE PART OF THE MAGISTRATES FOR RAFFAELE CUTOLO AND HIS LEADING GROUP, FOR THE BUSINESS OF THE CAMORRA AND ITS CONNECTIONS WITH THE POLITICAL MILIEU

Analysing Pasquale Barra's position, the judges of the "third branch" write, in the motivations of the sentence, that "if the explanation that he gave on the reasons for his dissociation is true, it his likely that having decided to cooperate with the justice, he believed that the magistrates would have been eager to hear about major facts, such as things referring to the person of Raffaele Cutolo and his leading group. On the contrary, he was confronted with a request that went beyond his real knowledge, that is, the request to confirm or reveal the whole staff of the N.C.O, beyond the limited knowledge the Carabinieri had of it..."
Why were the magistrates not interested in revelations concerning the N.C.O:, its "business", smuggling, allocation, drug traffic, connections with the administrations of the Naples area, the "third level"? In 90% of the interrogations, the magistrates asked the penitents two types of questions, concerning assassinations and Enzo Tortora. Why are they interested only in the "executors" of the camorra, the killers, and with such insistence in Tortora?
Perhaps Tortora's fame, and the scandal aroused by his arrest could have covered the inconsistency of the maxi-blitz. "To fill the evident gaps of an investigative phase concluded even before really starting"?
But apart from suppositions, there is an unquestionable fact: behind the commotion created by the mega-trial, and thanks especially to the name of Tortora and the sensational statements referring to a final defeat inflicted to the camorra, the latter has been able to re-create, completely undisturbed, new agreements between the different clans, and to reorganize itself, There is no doubt that following the mega-blitz which affected the N.C.O. only very slightly, the camorra has turned Naples into one of the largest centres of drug traffic, and has consolidated its control over the allocations relative to the reconstruction of areas destroyed by the 1980 earthquake.

THE MAXI-DRAGNET WHICH WAS SUPPOSED TO DESTROY THE NEAPOLITAN CAMORRA: ALREADY AFTER THE FIRST DEGREE TRIAL 55% OF MISTAKES

The imponent investigation on the N.C.O. had lead to a total of 856 arrest warrants. 144 of all persons arrested turned out be homonyms of supposed camorra exponents accused by the "penitents" and freed during the first 40 days of the investigation. 65 "suspects" have been acquitted during the investigative phase. 259 accused have been acquitted (107 fully acquitted) during the four trials. 22 accused have been eliminated. 349 have been sentenced.

THERE CAN BE NO DOUBTS, OR ELSE YOU MUST DISPOSE OF MELLUSO
I REGRET BUT YOU HAVE TO CONVICT TORTORA

The conclusions of the Public Prosecutor Armando Olivares in his final speech at the appeal trial: "Ladies and Gentlemen, at this stage I must tell you that there can be no doubts as to the fact that Tortora is involved in the drug traffic. There can be no doubts because if there were, then, on the basis of the most traditional principles for the acquirement of the evidence of our juridical tradition, you should dispose of Melluso completely and tell us why Melluso lied and why he lied only on the details, why he was able to formulate the evidence in that manner"..."If you are unable to do this, and I repeat, on the basis of the principles of our juridical tradition, then I regret but you must convict Tortora for drug trade"..."Therefore the fact that Tortora was affiliated or not makes no difference, what does make a difference is that Tortora was connected to th Nuova Camorra Organizzata. It appears that he even went to Ottaviano. Someone states this and this is the reason for the territorial competency, I don't see the reason why he shouldn't have gone, given the fact that his was an extremely lucrative activity and this is enough for you to confirm Tortora's responsibility also for the affiliation with a mafia-type organization"..."I ask you to convict Tortora for both charges against him, allowing for extenuating circumstances with a reduction of the penalty to six years of imprisonment and a 30 million lire fine".

A SLANDERER OF THE TYPE OF MELLUSO

"The preliminary investigation carried out by the representative of the Public Prosecutor and by this G.I. (Tribunal of Milan), aimed at finding elements of evidence to support the accusations of Melluso and to therefore ascertain his objective reliability, has proven, in an unquestionable and evident way, the groundlessness of the accusation: when accusing the present defendants (Walter Chiari and Patrizia Caselli), Melluso is deliberately lying. It has been neglected to examine the motivations, the reasons that induced Melluso to accuse the defendants for a series of argumentations, the first being that such an analysis was useless for the present decision". Melluso "forced this judicial office to many useless investigations. Concerning which, and the effect they will produce on certain "penitents", Melluso's involuntary exclamation when it seemed clear that this office was not ready to passively accept his deliberate lies is extremely relevant: 'Since I have the impression that you do not believe the things I'm saying, I must point out that persons whose name I prefer not to say told me that...you are attempting to discredit me with the Chiari affair, so that the thing will weigh on Tortora's appeal trial. They say that you are friends with Lawyer La Valle. This surprised me, also because in all the trials I have attended, my statements have always been proved to be true'. In all the trials except this one, probably, and beside this, a slanderer like Melluso is not allowed to act with a provocatory bias or to question the authority of this Prosecution Office of Milan.

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT: THERE IS THE CERTAINTY THAT AN ORGAN OF THE JUDICIAL HAS HAD THE INTENTION OF DAMAGING THE MAN AND THE POLITICIAN

On the 9th of December 1985, the European Parliament unanimously rejected the authorization request to proceed against European MP Enzo Tortora, accused of having offended a magistrate during a sitting. The facts refer to the sitting of the trial against the N.C.O. of the 26th of April 1985, when the pubic Prosecutor stated: "your client has become a member of parliament thanks to the votes of the camorra". Following this, Tortora shouted: "This is an indecency". In the motivations of the decisions of the European Parliament, the following is also stated: "the fact that an organ of the magistrature wants to incriminate a European MP for having protested against an offence committed against his person, and his electors, and, ultimately, the Parliament he belongs to, not only points to a 'fumus persecutionis': in this case there is more than the simple suspicion, there is the certainty that the origin of the penal action was the resolve to harm the man and the politician"..."In this occasion we wish...to repeat the expression of our indignation as regards a patent questioning of the parliamentary institution such as the one behind the request to revoke the parliamentary immunity."

NOTES

-----------
1. Motivations of the sentence of the first branch of the trial against the N.C.O. deposited on the 14th of January - Tribunal of Naples, 10th penal section composed by: Luigi Sansone, President; Gherardo Fiore, Extensor Judge; Orazio Dente Gattola, Justice.
2. 5th Court of Appeal of the Tribunal of Naples, Antonio Rocco, president, Luigi Morello, a latere judge, Antonio Ricci, a latere judge.
3. According to the prospects of the Ministry of Justice, Pasquale Barra is transferred on the 5th of December 1978 to the penitentiary of Nuoro. On the 19th of January 1979 he is taken to Naples to be retransferred to Nuoro on the 30th of January 1979. On the 28th of February he is again transferred to Naples and from there to Nuoro on the 18th of March 1979. On the 28th of April he is transferred to Bari for judicial reasons and from there to Naples on the 2nd of May 1979, to return to Nuoro again on the 13th of May of the same year. Another transfer to Naples on the 9th of July, returning to Nuoro on the 31st of the same month. On November 14 he is again transferred to Naples and back to Nuoro on the 27th of the same month. He remains in Nuoro for the rest of 1979, and is taken to Naples on the 9th of January 1980.
4. Sheet 532 of the 2nd main volume.
5. Tribunal of Naples - Eighth Penal Section composed by Giampaolo Cariello, President; Mario Saccone, extensor judge; Emilio Migliucci, Judge; sentence of 13.11.85.
6. President Fiore, Public Prosecutor Monaco
7. IL MATTINO, 4 April 1986.
8. Tribunal of Naples - Eighth Penal Section composed by Giampaolo Cariello, Presdient; Mario Saccone, extensor Judge; Emilio Migliucci, Judge; sentence of 13.11.85.
9. Tribunal of Naples - 5th Penal Section made of Francesco Serpico, President, Luigi Esposito, Judge, Salvatore Sbrizzi, Judge.
10. The way in which Pandico was transferred from the penitemtiary of Pianosa is reported by journalist Bruno Rubino in the book "Parola di Pandico" (7a), JN, Naples 1985. According to Rubino, "In the Francesco Caracciolo Carabinieri Station, only a few metres from the train station of Mergellina, Assistant Public Prosecutors Lucio Di Pietro and Felice Di Persia were waiting for him". There is however no evidence of this.
11. 6 February 1986, Tribunal of Naples.
12. "La Stampa" (8a), 25 March 1984.
13. The "penitent" Catapano Guido is charged with criminal association in the trial against the NCO.
14. 22 November 1985, Tribunal of Naples, Serpico president.
15. The "penitent" Roberto Sganzerla is charged with criminal association in the trial against the NCO. He was acquitted for lack of evidence.
16. The "penitent" Mauro Marra belonged to a group of Pasquale Scotti, a camorra exponent. Guilty of several murders, he is one of the accused of the trial against the NCO.
17. The well-known "penitent" Salvatore Sanfilippo was convicted to serve life sentence for various offences.
18. Assistant Public Prosecutor Lucio Di Pietro started, together with Assistant Public Prosecutor Felice Di Persia, the investigation against the NCO. Once formalized, the investigating magistrates were Giorgio Fontana, Angelo Spirito and Raffaele De Lucia.
19. "La Repubblica", 30-31 October 1983, interview by Giampaolo Pansa.
20. Interrogation of Colonel Roberto Conforti during the debate of the "fourth branch" of the trial against the N.C.O.
21. Interview by Giampaolo Pansa on "La Repubblica" of 30-31 October 1983.
22. Corriere della Sera (9a), 2 October 1983.

Translator's notes

(1a) Nuova Camorra Organizzata: New Organized Camorra, a criminal organization lead by Raffaele Cutolo.
(2a) "O animale": the Animal. The nick name refers to the cruelty and pitilessness with which Barra executed his victims.
(3a) For several years, Enzo Tortora conducted a popular T.V. show called "Portobello", also featuring a talking parrot.
(4a) La Repubblica: Italian daily paper.
(5a) Guardia di Finanza: one of Italy's three police forces. Specifically charged with investigating financial offences, smuggling, etc.
(6a) "Pandico's word".
(7a) La Stampa: Italian daily paper.
(8a) Corriere della Sera: Italian daily paper.