“That film does not tell about Yara, here are the mistakes that have condemned Bossetti”

“That film does not tell about Yara, here are the mistakes that have condemned Bossetti”
“That film does not tell about Yara, here are the mistakes that have condemned Bossetti”

On the evening of November 26, 2010 Yara Gambirasio, 13, disappears in mysterious circumstances from Brembate di Sopra, in the province of Bergamo. The 13-year-old’s body was found in an open field in Chignolo d’Isola on the morning of February 26, 2011. On the body there are evident signs of stab wounds and other injuries attributable to blows with a bar. On June 16, 2014, he was arrested for the murder Massimo Bossetti: his nuclear DNA is comparable with that of “Unknown 1” found on the victim’s clothing during the investigation. On 1 July 2016, the mason from Malpello, 44, was sentenced to life imprisonment. The penalty is confirmed by the Court of Cassation on 12 July 2018.

Bossetti has always professed innocence, claiming to be a stranger to the affair. His lawyers, lawyers Claudio Salvagni and Paolo Camporini, have been fighting for years to gain access to the “discarded“, that is to say, “secondary finds“which, according to them, could prove the innocence of the patient. Three times the request to examine the reports was rejected by the Bergamo Court of Assizes.” We have appealed to the Supreme Court for the fourth time. We believe it is right that the defense also has access to those traces to be able to examine them “, the lawyer explains to our editorial staff Claudio Salvagni. Then the lawyer comments on the movie “Yara” to be released on Netflix from November 5, 2021: “It does not correspond to the true story”.

Salvagni lawyer, have you seen the film “Yara” by director Marco Tullio Giordana? If so, what do you think?

“No, I have not seen it because I believe it is not faithful to the real narrative of the story, although the director claims to have consulted the documents. We of the defense have not even been consulted, at least it would have been useful to have a 360 degree view. of the whole procedural process. I believe that it is an absolutely partial reconstruction of the story in which the protagonists are neither poor Yara nor Massimo Bossetti. public”.

We come to the procedural matter. Could you tell us what are the “scartini” that have been talked about in recent years?

“They are the briefs, leggings and all the other artifacts they found on the victim. From those clothes the experts took fabric stamps from which the DNA of ‘Ignoto 1’ was extracted and subsequently attributed to Massimo Bossetti. process we asked to see these finds but we were never allowed “.

Where are those artifacts kept?

“Those extracts were kept in the San Raffaele laboratory in Milan, in the custody of Professor Casari who, in the first instance hearing, declared they were available for further investigations. Instead, in subsequent sentences, it emerged that they were completely exhausted. that the sentence passed unjustifiable we asked and obtained to be able to see those extracts. Immediately afterwards the Public Prosecutor’s Office ordered the confiscation of the samples kept at the San Raffaele in Milan. So it is not true that ‘they were finished’ but they were there. Prosecutor of the Republic defined them as ‘scartini’ forgetting that precisely here the finds were considered good and valid to infer the DNA of Unknown 1 “.

So that’s not secondary evidence?

“Absolutely not. The word ‘scartini’ was used to diminish its significance. But if they served to sentence Massimo Bossetti to life imprisonment, it means that they were not so irrelevant”.

Why were you denied access to the exhibits?

“We submitted the request to be able to examine the finds on November 26, 2019, almost two years ago. We were authorized the next day, November 27, 2019. Then, when we asked to know how to carry out the examinations we were at We were authorized, we were told that our application was “inadmissible.” Basically, we had been authorized but we couldn’t know when to take these exams. We appealed to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court judges accepted the request. , on May 19, 2021, we returned to the judge of the Court of Assizes of Bergamo. The Court once again declared our request ‘inadmissible’ with arguments – in my opinion – very questionable “.

Why do you think they are important?

“The whole process revolves around the identification of DNA. If that identification is wrong, there is an innocent person in prison. So we must start with a contradictory examination between the parties that can ascertain the exact development of the DNA of the Unknown 1 . We ask to do those tests because we believe that there has been a mistake. It is enough to change a DNA allele that changes the identity of the person to whom it was attributed “.

So the postulate “Bassetti = Unknown One” is wrong? If so, why?

“Yes and it is wrong for two reasons. First of all because, from a procedural point of view, the defense must be allowed the exams in order to defend their client. Secondly because that exam could be vitiated by an error”.

Could there have been an error?

“Just by reading the data that emerged, from a paper exam we highlighted at least 231 anomalies in the DNA test. If this is not enough to have to repeat an exam, then I would not know what else needs to be done”.

Which of these “231 anomalies” are the most relevant?

“For example, you have to be sure that the machine was perfectly calibrated to detect the entire sequence of alleles on the genetic code. If this were not the case, the machine could have returned a DNA that does not correspond to Bossetti’s. But then there are many. others, very specific, which could have distorted the result. I repeat, we are talking about 231 anomalies “.

Do you confirm that other DNAs were found during the investigation?

“In addition to the DNA of Unknown 1, on the cuff of the sleeves of the victim’s jacket, a decoded profile of the one who belonged to poor Yara’s gym teacher was found. In that case, the Prosecutor justified his presence, believing that it was normal. Then other genetic traces were found in some hair formations attributable to one or more DNA that could be investigated “.

Have these “other” genetic traces ever been profiled?

“No, there has never been any investigation. In short, we know that there are other DNAs but we don’t know who they belong to.”

The “famous” trace 31G20 was devoid of mitochondrial DNA but there were 24 markers corresponding to the Bossetti profile. How do you explain it?

“Trace 31G0 for the investigators was the best in terms of quality. It is a pity, however, that it lacked mitochondrial DNA, a fundamental element to complete a person’s genetic profile. In the traces attributed to Massimo Bossetti, there is never mitochondrial DNA. first thing that comes to think is that there has been an error “.

Can you explain us better?

“If the cell is made up of these two components, the nuclear and the mitochondrial DNA, and if the mitochondrial DNA can never be split from the nucleus, why is it missing in Bossetti’s case? If there is no scientific explanation then it means that that DNA is not correct “.

What will be the next move, do you plan to file a new appeal?

“We have already filed an appeal with the Supreme Court for the fourth time. We hope it is the right one and that we will finally be given the opportunity to access those finds to be able to examine them”.

NEXT Betty White, the ‘Golden girl’ actress of American TV, was about to turn 100