Biot: “I did it for my family” – As reported The Corriere della Sera, Biot has entrusted his words to the lawyer. “I had no political or ideological interest – explained the officer -. I never put the security of the state at risk, I did not provide any relevant information. I have four children, the eldest who does not work, two daughters who study and the youngest who has a serious illness and needs special care. I made a mistake but I did it for my family. I had a moment of great weakness and fragility. I was involved in a mechanism greater than myself. I had a debt that I could not repay “.
Biot’s son: “If he did it, it was to support us” – One of the officer’s four sons defends his father. “The only thing I believe is that if my father did what he did it was to support the family, to keep the house, not to go against the state – explained the 24-year-old -. My sister and I do part works. -time. My father is the only one who can support us. ”
The return to Moscow of the two Russian officials Meanwhile, the two expelled Russian officials, Nemudrov and Ostroukhov, boarded a flight from Fiumicino airport to Moscow. The two officials, escorted by some plainclothes men, would have arrived at the Roman airport shortly before 11, and would have been accompanied on board the plane.
Gip: “Biot has betrayed the trust of the institutions” In the order of the magistrate of Rome against Biot, the “accurate methods of acting are highlighted, such as for example the insertion of the SD card in the medicine leaflet as well as the fact that no appointments emerge from the telephones in his possession or contact the Russian agent “. According to the judge, they are “symptomatic elements of the criminal depth of the suspect who has not set himself any scruple in betraying the trust of the institution to which he belongs for the sole purpose of obtaining profits of an economic nature”.
“It was not an isolated activity” Biot’s, according to the investigating judge, “was not an isolated and sporadic activity”. His were “executive methods – writes the judge – which show in a palm-sized manner the extreme danger of the subject given the professionalism demonstrated in carrying out the aforementioned actions inferable from the several tools used (4 smartphones) and the measures adopted”.
Get the latest news delivered to your inbox
Follow us on social media networks