Engagement Wishes For A Friend

responses

Salvatore Borsellino

P ore than two months ago on this very blog, I published a post titled "The questions that I wanted to do." The occasion was originated by a series of branched news in the media: a statement of Joseph Ayala on stocks dei magistrati e in particolare dei magistrati di Palermo, che secondo Ayala andavano rivisitate a causa della diminuita pericolosità di Cosa Nostra, che “da oltre 18 anni non uccide più“. Nella sua replica, il presidente della giunta Anm di Palermo, Nino di Matteo, manifestava le sue perplessità relativamente a questa dichiarazione che riteneva, giustamente, “fuori luogo e fuori tempo“. La contro-replica di Ayala che, con la supponenza che gli è consueta, definiva Di Matteo – uno dei magistrati più impegnati nelle nuove inchieste della Procura di Palermo sulla “trattativa” che probabilmente fu la causa scatenante della strage di Via D’Amelio, e pertanto uno dei magistrati più at risk - "a colleague who has begun to take its first steps as a judge until 1993, when that Ayala had already left, but only tempora, the toga to pursue a more comfortable life as a parliamentarian. Except then revive the same gown shake off the dust accumulated in four legislatures, two in the House and two in the Senate, arriving from the Italian Republican Party to Democratic Alliance and finally to the Democrats of the Left.

On this basis I asked him a series of questions defining them as "questions that I wanted to do" but I had to do in front of some episodes and some doubt that continued to plague me with regard to Ayala. The first concerned The Red Diary of Paul, he had disappeared shortly after the massacre and a series of conflicting testimony given by Joseph Ayala on the incident which saw him involved, starring as one of the people who were holding the bag after Paul the massacre. The four different versions, in succession:

That 's April 8, 1998, in which Ayala claims to have refused to pick up the bag that a police officer handed him after removal from the back seat of the armored car of Paul. That
of July 2, 1998 in which Ayala is no longer sure that the man, even if in uniform, was an officer of the carabinieri.
That of September 12, 2005 (in frattempo, a seguito del ritrovamento di una fotografia, è entrato in scena anche il Cap. Arcangioli) nella quale Ayala cambia completamente versione e dice di avere prelevato lui la borsa dal sedile posteriore ma di averla poi affiata ad un ufficiale dei carabinieri escludendo addirittura “in modo perentorio che sia stato l’ufficiale di cui si parla a consegnare a me la borsa“.
Ed infine quella dell’ 8 febbraio 2006, la più confusa nonostante sia l’ultima, nella quale prima sarebbe una persona che “è certo che non fosse in divisa” a prelevare la borsa e poi è la stessa persona, che adesso però è improvvisamente “in divisa“, a volgersi verso di lui e a consegnagli al borsa, che egli stesso, a sua volta, consegna “istintivamente” ad un ufficiale in divisa che si trovava accanto alla macchina.
Le corrispondenti dichiarazione del Cap. Arcangioli del 5 maggio 2005 sono completamente differenti e raccontano di Arcangioli e di Ayala che aprono insieme la borsa e constatano che non c’è l’agenda. Ma sapevano che ci fosse o che ci dovesse essere?

A fronte di queste incredibili contraddizioni mi sembra che sia naturale e legittima la prima domanda posta ad Ayala: come è possibile che un magistrato della sua esperienza dia versioni così contrastanti e contraddittorie di un episodio di cui, come magistrato, sapeva che sarebbe stato chiamato a rendere testimonianza? Come è possible that a magistrate, although already spent a political career, has served to alter or to allow it to be altered the scene of the crime without even bothering to identify or to identify the person to whom the bag was delivered to Paul, not even recall clearly if this person were in uniform or plain clothes?

The second question concerns the meeting of 1 July 1992 and Paolo Borsellino, Nicola Mancino, the newly appointed interior minister in his study of the interior ministry. Ayala is not directly involved here, but has acted as a witness on his own initiative before involuntarily charged and then discharge, saying he had shown before Mancino's agenda Annotated, July 1, meeting with Paolo Borsellino, and then completely changing version, saying that you have to have seen an agenda with no record and arguing like this show that there had been no meeting. My request was to clarify this fact and explain why he had provided to support the first version and later denied and if these pictures had suffered stress from someone.

The last question was simpler and involves only an ethical issue, namely whether it was appropriate that a magistrate on duty, that he himself participated, as the sole protagonist, a performance fee, which speaks the period he spent together with Giovanni Falcone and Paolo Borsellino: that is, if considered appropriate to the commodification of memory of the two judges killed and his friendship with them.
I think it was that most legitimate questions from those who have devoted the last part of his life in search of justice and truth about a massacre which, eighteen years later, almost nothing is still unknown and for which, like all the massacres of the state, have followed false leads and complicit silence of all kinds. For more than two months these questions have not been worthy of any response, but a few days ago there has been a new fact.

A group of boys members of the Movement of 5 Star Bologna thought to occur at the theater where she went on stage, for a fee, the spectacle of Ayala and, moved by the desire to seek an answer to my questions and intention to inform the public about the most controversial passages that concerned the testimony of Ayala about what happened on the day of the massacre in via D'Amelio, sought to solicit responses from these same Ayala. And so the responses from Ayala finally arrived.
But there is a problem, and is not indifferent: the answers have nothing to do with the questions and, indeed, it seems designed to circumvent, avoid responding. During dell’intervista, visibile su You Tube e riportata da diversi siti sulla rete, Ayala comincia dapprima ad accusarmi, accompagnando le sue affermazioni con evidenti gesti ed espressioni allusive del viso, di essere “una persona che soffre di gravi problemi mentali“, “un caso umano“, e poi, non ancora appagato, aggiunge, e lo ribadisce più volte accompagnandolo con quella mimica che gli proviene dalle innegabili doti di affabulatore e di intrattenitore, che il rapporto tra me e mio fratello sarebbe lo stesso che intercorse tra Abele e Caino. Se ne deduce, dato che ovviamente Paolo non può essere altri che Abele, che io sarei evidentemente paragonabile a Caino, cioè all’assassino di suo fratello.

At this point, as well as Mr. Ayala called to answer before the law of his claims by producing certificates that attest to my mental illness and making the names of other people, as claimed during the interview, sharing his diagnosis , I just have to ask him two more questions and add to those already in the queue. The first concerns a statement made during his interview, namely that he did not even know the existence of this red diary of Paul. Maybe he did not know the color, but the fact that Paul, not inclined to use computers, take the hand of his notes on calendars or address books, Ayala has repeatedly spoken with me personally, and therefore could and should assume that his bag might contain something important enough to require a greater care than to entrust it to the first person in uniform or not, that he had found nearby.

In any case, since in an interview July 23, 2009, reproduced in a book published by the Anti-mafia millennium, Ayala says, "it is likely that the agenda was inside the bag and that has been made to disappear", I ask him how do you reconcile this claim on that which it says he does not know the existence of an agenda of Paul and what elements have to say that it can be made to disappear. In this respect, I ask again, hoping that he understands that this is a provocative question and further ramblings of a mentally ill person, in case you do not have elements that are able to prove that I was to steal the red diary of Paul. I think that is an act attributable to a person perfectly comparable to Cain.

An eventual thesis in this direction could be supported by a tation of the Supreme Court that suggested that the red diary at the time of the massacre, despite the testimony in this sense, the wife of Paul, he was in his bag. This means, as Paul was so jealous of his agenda this to take with him, which could avergliela subtracted only one of his relatives narrow, as, for example, a brother, who, although comparable to Cain, could not, because of the close family relationship, do not enjoy his confidence, albeit misplaced. Ayala for one last question: if, as magistrate, asked and obtained permission to enter from the CSM, as protagonist in shows for a fee. As a politician could do it without problems, as a judge I think is necessary, as well as appropriate.

ilfattoquotidiano.it