When last August, in Ceglie Messapica, during the “La Piazza” event, I was offered the opportunity to meet with the President of the ANM, Doctor Giuseppe Santalucia and the Deputy Minister Francesco Paolo Sisto, on that occasion, I communicated the my feelings, namely that things hadn’t changed in the slightest since the post-Palamara era.
The President of the ANM specified that it was an isolated case, but two months later, once again, we see that there is very little that is isolated, and that much is shared.
Palamara at the time of the facts, as disputed, would have had an impact on many aspects of the life of the country, dictating the lines to “His”: in fact, one will remember the infamous wiretap which took place with the then Chief Prosecutor of Viterbo, where the lines were dictated guidance on the need to “attack” Salvini at any cost.
To date, Palamara’s “associates” have not yet been traced, but the actions which at the time were ordered by the Chiefs, to date, seem to still find attempts at clear implementation, only the objective has changed. I have always found the Palamara affair similar to the affair of Rudy Hermann Guede, the latter convicted of the complicit murder of poor Meredith Kercher, but imprisoned alone, just like poor Luca. It is undeniable that there is a problem of lèse majesté in the category of Magistrates, in fact sometimes we do not accept criticism, by virtue of a presupposed cultural superiority. We don’t want to be reformed “just now that I have arrived, they have to reform me?!”.
When I told President Santalucia that I would not be surprised if an investigation file on Arianna Meloni “had come out”, in the days when this was being talked about, it was solely because I am a cosmic optimist; in fact, I didn’t believe that anyone could point directly to their sister, to the Prime Minister, yet there is someone in life who always amazes you! The system has been activated, what was previously done in secret rooms, today is done in a different way, but work – obviously – must always be planned for everyone and hence, as for all organisations, the need to talk, to plan .
It makes me smile that, in these hours, someone who has come back down to earth may have done a quick refresh, and rediscovered that to investigate someone you need a real underlying crime, even if their names were Giorgia and Arianna; that to avoid becoming “political opposition” (because Constitutionally the Judiciary cannot and must do so) it is necessary to get elected and engage in active politics, as other illustrious colleagues have already done, because, in that case, at least one has the courage to reply , otherwise it might have the flavor of a conspiracy!
*Pm of the Public Prosecutor’s Office of Santa Maria Capua Vetere
#System #target #Meloni #activated #Tempo
Interview with Expert on Italian Judiciary Reform: The Legacy of the Palamara Affair
Date: October 23, 2024
Interviewer: Annalisa Learned
Annalisa Learned: Thank you for joining us today to discuss the ongoing implications of the Palamara affair on Italy’s judiciary. To start, how would you summarize the current state of reforms since the events surrounding former magistrate Luca Palamara?
Expert: Thank you, Annalisa. The current state reflects a significant stagnation in reform efforts. Despite discussions and promises after the Palamara scandal, many of the same issues persist. The judiciary’s internal politics have not substantially changed, leading many to feel disillusioned about the prospects for true reform.
Annalisa Learned: You mentioned feelings of disillusionment. Can you elaborate on what specific issues are leading to this perception among legal professionals and the public?
Expert: Certainly. There seems to be a culture of resistance within the judiciary. For instance, President Giuseppe Santalucia’s recent statements downplaying the systemic issues as isolated incidents highlights a reluctance to acknowledge overarching problems. This creates a perception that accountability is selective, and many fear that the actions of the past will repeat themselves without significant change.
Annalisa Learned: The notion of accountability is particularly striking. In your opinion, what steps need to be taken for the judiciary to address these concerns effectively?
Expert: Increased transparency is crucial. Implementing rigorous oversight mechanisms and fostering an environment where constructive criticism is welcomed rather than shunned would be a start. Moreover, establishing clear guidelines for political involvement could help separate judicial duties from external pressures. Reform must come from both the legal community and policymakers.
Annalisa Learned: You drew a parallel between the Palamara affair and the case of Rudy Guede in your writing. Can you explain this comparison further?
Expert: Absolutely. Both situations illustrate how individual actions can ripple through broader societal contexts. Guede was left to face consequences alone for a crime that involved many layers of wrongdoing, similar to how Palamara’s associates remain unidentified while the system itself fails to confront its structural issues. Both cases speak to the need for collective responsibility rather than scapegoating individuals.
Annalisa Learned: Lastly, how do you see the Italian judiciary evolving in the next few years? Is there hope for genuine reform?
Expert: There is potential for change, but it will depend on the willingness of legal professionals to engage in honest dialogues about their practices and the commitment of political leaders to drive systemic reform. Grassroots movements advocating for judicial independence and reform may also play a critical role in this evolution. It’s a challenging path, but not an impossible one.
Annalisa Learned: Thank you for sharing your insights on this complex issue. It will be fascinating to see how the situation develops in the coming months.
Expert: Thank you for having me, Annalisa. Let’s hope for a positive change in our judiciary for the sake of democracy.
Interview with Expert on Italian Judiciary Reform: The Legacy of the Palamara Affair
Date: October 23, 2024
Interviewer: Annalisa Learned
Annalisa Learned: Thank you for joining us today to discuss the ongoing implications of the Palamara affair on Italy’s judiciary. To start, how would you summarize the current state of reforms since the events surrounding former magistrate Luca Palamara?
Expert: Thank you, Annalisa. The current state reflects a significant stagnation in reform efforts. Despite discussions and promises after the Palamara scandal, many of the same issues persist. The judiciary’s internal politics have not substantially changed, leading many to feel disillusioned about the prospects for true reform.
Annalisa Learned: You mentioned feelings of disillusionment. Can you elaborate on what specific issues are leading to this perception among legal professionals and the public?
Expert: Certainly. There seems to be a culture of resistance within the judiciary. For instance, President Giuseppe Santalucia’s recent statements downplaying systemic issues as isolated incidents highlight a reluctance to acknowledge overarching problems. This creates a perception that accountability is selective, and many fear that the actions of the past will repeat themselves without significant change.
Annalisa Learned: The notion of accountability is particularly striking. In your opinion, what steps need to be taken for the judiciary to address these concerns effectively?
Expert: Increased transparency is crucial. Implementing rigorous oversight mechanisms and fostering an environment where constructive criticism is welcomed rather than shunned would be a start. Moreover, establishing clear guidelines for political involvement could help separate judicial duties from external pressures. Reform must come from both the legal community and policymakers.
Annalisa Learned: You drew a parallel between the Palamara affair and the case of Rudy Guede in your writing. Can you explain this comparison further?
Expert: Yes, the comparison stems from a shared experience of perceived injustices within the judicial system. Just as Guede was convicted alone for his role in Meredith Kercher’s tragic murder despite broader complicity, the Palamara affair illustrates how certain individuals within the judiciary may evade accountability while others face the consequences alone. This highlights a troubling trend where the culture of protection for some can overshadow the push for accountability and reform for all.
Annalisa Learned: Thank you for your insights. As we navigate these complexities, what do you think is the role of public discourse in driving change?
Expert: Public discourse plays a vital role. An informed and engaged citizenry can serve as a pressure point for accountability, demanding transparency and reform from both the judiciary and political leaders. Additionally, open discussions like this one can encourage those within the system to push for necessary changes, fostering an environment where reform becomes not just a necessity, but a community-driven objective.
Annalisa Learned: Thank you for sharing your perspective on these crucial issues. It’s clear that the road ahead for judicial reform in Italy remains challenging, yet open dialogue is essential as we strive for a more accountable system.
Expert: Thank you, Annalisa. It’s been an important discussion, and I hope it contributes to the ongoing conversation about reform.
