PAVIA. His nephew defended him during the trial: his uncle had entered that shop only to buy bread. The accusation of different opinion: the purchase of bread was only a way to disguise the true intent, that is to cover the grandson while he had the money delivered by the cashier, threatening her with a gun.
In court, in front of the college chaired by judge Raffaella Filoni, the second reconstruction took place. And for Remo Piccolo, 44, who lives in Pozzuoli, in the province of Naples, the sentence was taken: five years in prison for having served as a stake for his nephew, Francesco Signorelli, 22, and therefore having had a role in the robbery carried out sign on 10 February 2020 in the In’s supermarket in via Dei Mille, in Borgo. The man is still in prison.
Penalty halved to his nephew
For Signorelli, accused of having materially committed the robbery by gripping the gun (which had later proved to be false) against the cashier and being handed over € 300 in collection, the trial has long since closed with a half sentence: the young man had negotiated two years and a half. The sentence was higher for the uncle, who, according to the nephew’s version, had come from Naples to Pavia to visit him. On the day of the robbery, the family member would have found himself by chance in the same supermarket that his nephew had decided to rob.
The uncle had remained among the clients, for the prosecution with the aim of keeping the situation under control. After the coup, his uncle and nephew had been arrested by the carabinieri.
The defense version
In the courtroom, during his testimony, the nephew defended the family member: «I did the robbery and unfortunately I got into trouble my uncle who had come for a vacation after so many years. I went for a robbery where he was inside. I knew he was going to buy bread. ‘ A version reaffirmed also by the legal defender, the lawyer Pierluigi Vittadini, who in his speech cited a sentence of the Cassation that defines the concept of “stake” and the role that the alleged accomplice of a robbery should have to be indicted. For stoats there must be an “awareness of the role played by each co-author and a willingness to make a contribution”. The simple “connivance”, says the Supreme Court, “is not punishable”. With regard to the presence at the scene of the crime, the contribution “of this assistance to the material perpetrator of the crime” must be assessed and therefore whether that contribution makes the crime easier or safer for the perpetrator.