In the provision signed by the investigating judge, particular reference is made to the conduct of Dibenedetto identified as the one who pushed to carry out the stabbing, materially implemented by Abid “as he himself admitted and as shown by the images in the documents”.
From the images of the video surveillance cameras, in fact, “it is clear how Dibenedetto had invited Abid to follow him outside, having noticed that he was armed”.
The reconstruction revealed that the 18-year-old had taken a knife from the bar while his friend and victim were arguing. Once outside the room, “at first Dibenedetto hit Lasala with a fist and a few seconds later he hit Abid with the knife.”
“We are faced with a murder committed due to an external stimulus so slight, banal and disproportionate, compared to the seriousness of the crime, that it appears to be a pretext or an excuse” to “give vent to one’s own criminal impulse or one’s own wickedness” he writes the investigating judge justifying the existence of the aggravating circumstance for futile reasons, ie the denied cocktail.
The judge points out, in conclusion, that the “seriousness of the episode, the manner of execution of the same and the ease with which the crime was committed, lead us to believe that a suitable and proportionate measure is only that of custody in prison”.