Gian Carlo Caselli

"The solution to the case in question, when referring to the specific nature of the case, has a mandatory path: it must focus on a member of the anti-mafia pool, it must focus on the structure that heads this pool. The pool of magistrates of the Palermo investigation office was able to equip itself (first and foremost culturally), thus creating a new, close-knit structure that spread professionalism. It should not be forgotten that this was an open structure, in the sense that it professionally trained magistrates who, before joining the pool, had never dealt with these issues and who, thanks to the pool, achieved a very high level of competence. Ultimately, by operating in this way, the pool of investigating judges at the Court of Palermo achieved significant results, based on identifying the characteristics of the new mafia. These were the first results after years, decades and decades of substantial impunity. In some speeches, there was talk of rewards, in particular rewards for protagonism, as a criterion not to be followed, and the history of protagonism is a bit like the history of when women wore veils. At that time, all women were beautiful, but when the veil fell, differences began to be noticed. Something similar happened with the judiciary. When judges did not cause any ‘trouble’, when they were not inconvenient, they were all good and beautiful. But when they began to take on a specific role, to show signs of vitality, to demand to exercise control over legality even towards previously unthinkable objectives, that is when the accusation of protagonism began. Meanwhile, those judges who back down (as happened both in Turin during the trial of the historic leaders of the Red Brigades and in Palermo during the recently concluded trial of the Mafia) risk nothing at all, and no one protests or criticizes them. Other speakers have referred to rewards in the sense of a career that would run along “privileged” paths for those judges who have had certain professional experiences. But it is inconceivable, even somewhat scandalous, to speak of privilege in reference to the judges in Palermo, who live in conditions that are well known to all and which, if anything, represent a heavy penalty. In the case of the fight against the Mafia, these interests are the interests of democracy, which makes this second (non-sectoral) view entirely justified. For these reasons, I am opposed to the committee's proposal."

"The Mafia is indeed a criminal organization, and it is indeed a problem for the police and public order; but it is not only that. It is a much more complex phenomenon, characterized by a dense network of relationships with civil society and various segments of institutions. This has led to a web of interests and a network of alliances, collusion, and complicity that have always made the mafia a dangerous factor in the possible corruption of politics, the economy, and finance (with all the risks that this entails for the orderly development of a democratic system). It is therefore reductive to consider the mafia as a group of a few hundred violent and ferocious outlaws."

"The “fight against the mafia” (everyone knows this, or should know it) cannot be carried out solely through police and judicial repression. Focusing the strategy to combat mafia crime exclusively on technical investigations, and not also on political and cultural aspects, is inevitably doomed to failure in the long run. The actions of the police and magistrates, however methodical, committed, and professional they may be, can only have a profound impact if they are complemented by a “revival” of the social context. Keeping our guard up, mobilizing public opinion, raising awareness, and isolating the mafia culture are absolutely essential complements to investigative action."

"No gang of gangsters has ever lasted more than 20 or 25 years. The mafia has been around for 150 years. How can this be explained? On the one hand, by its control of the territory, the main factor that distinguishes it from common organized crime. On the other hand (and I would say above all), by its “external relations.” That is to say, the intertwining of relationships, business deals, and interests with elements of politics, institutions, public administration, and the economy. I emphasize that these are “elements,” distorted and deviant elements."

"When we found ourselves dealing with these characters, or rather, with these problems—because initially these characters did not exist—we knew very little. As time went on, and only as time went on, we began to understand a few things. For example, that a terrorist group can, unfortunately, easily become powerful. In the sense that all it takes is a mixture of certain ingredients: ideological fanaticism, a certain ability to organize, exploiting the myriad opportunities for camouflage offered by a large city, organizing by diversifying tasks between regular and irregular members, organizing by seeking connections with civil society at various levels. These capabilities are enough to be able to strike hard, even with a terrorist group that is not very large in number. All this—we discovered over time—was what the Red Brigades were. All this made the Red Brigades dangerous, especially from a political point of view: it is not so much their military danger—for which, in my opinion, a large number of members is not necessary—as their political danger deriving from their connections, or potential connections, with sectors of civil society and the intellectual world that the BR had at that stage, and which made them a very serious political problem."

"(About the veracity of the two meetings between Giulio Andreotti and Stefano Bontate) The latest denialist performance, rather than talking about innocence in general, focuses on a specific fact: two meetings between the defendant Andreotti and Stefano Bontate (head of the Cosa Nostra mafia) mentioned by Pif in the television series La mafia uccide solo d'estate (The Mafia Only Kills Only in Summer), broadcast every Thursday on Rai1. In Il Foglio on May 12, Maurizio Crippa argues—in summary—that Pif “tramples on the facts” because “it is written in the judgments” and “sealed in the Cassation ruling” that the accusatory statements relating to the two alleged meetings were not "supported by adequate evidence (...) In short, there were no (...) and the Andreotti who met Bontate never existed.“ Too bad for Crippa that the Court of Cassation has ”sealed" a very different truth. On page 169, the Court of Cassation confirms what the Court of Appeal had already established, concluding that Andreotti "had met with the mafiosi; he had interacted with them; he had instructed them on how to behave in relation to the highly sensitive Mattarella issue, even if he ultimately failed to get them to follow his instructions; he had gained their trust to such an extent that they discussed even very serious matters (such as the assassination of President Mattarella) in the confident knowledge that they would not be reported; he had failed to report their responsibilities, particularly in relation to the Mattarella murder, even though he could have provided very useful information in this regard." All this is stated after mentioning on page 156 that there had been two meetings between Andreotti and Bontate “concerning the problem represented by Piersanti Mattarella,” the second of which took place in the spring of 1980 (the date until which the crime attributed to the defendant was recognized as having been committed). At this point, it is difficult to understand how one can deny that the two meetings between Andreotti and Bontate took place, and instead accuse those who mention them of being “slanderers and defamers.” The fact is that the two meetings with Bontate took on considerable probative significance for Andreotti's criminal liability, which was recognized until 1980 by the Court of Appeal and definitively “sealed” by the Court of Cassation. Therefore, denying these meetings is a bit like reiterating without any basis – once again – that Andreotti would have been acquitted."

"I am the only Italian magistrate to whom Parliament has expressly dedicated a law. A law contra personam that has deprived me of a right: that of competing, on an equal footing with other colleagues, for the position of National Anti-Mafia Prosecutor. Leading figures from the center-right have publicly stated that my exclusion was intended as “compensation” for Senator for Life Giulio Andreotti, whom I had unjustly “persecuted” with the investigation I opened against him when I was Chief Prosecutor in Palermo. The truth has been turned on its head. That investigation, in fact, led to a ruling by the Court of Appeal of Palermo, later confirmed by the Court of Cassation in a definitive and unchangeable manner, which considers the crime of criminal association with the Cosa Nostra to have been “committed” and “concretely recognizable” on the part of the defendant until the spring of 1980. The ruling is not a conviction because it acknowledges that the crime is time-barred, while for the charges after 1980, the senator for life is acquitted on the grounds of insufficient evidence. These are the facts. Yet, a certain political class had no doubt about who should be compensated and who should be punished."

"Gian Carlo Caselli, Un magistrato fuori legge, Melampo Editore, 2005. ISBN 888953334X"