Viareggio massacre: ‘To acquit Moretti, he is not a scapegoat’

Rome, Ursula von der Leyen welcomed in the Campidoglio by the mayor Gualtieri (ANSA)

(ANSA) – FLORENCE, 09 JUN – “We are sorry that engineer Moretti has been taken as a reference to hit, to execute, but perhaps it was convenient this way, perhaps it was much better to focus attention on him rather than on subjects far from us, that belong to distant railway companies, that have never appeared in the courtroom, that are unknown. Moretti is easier to hit, he is an easy scapegoat, that can be hit, that there is “. Thus the lawyer Ambra Giovene, defender of Moretti, to journalists after the hearing in the appeal process bis in Florence on the Viareggio massacre of June 29, 2009 where today he gave a five and a half hour pleading which began underlining “the absolute Engineer Mauro Moretti’s extraneousness to these facts. I know that it is not a pleasure to listen to, but it means telling a procedural truth and dealing with historical data that are the truth of the process “.

The former CEO of RFI and FS was present in the classroom. The lawyer Giovene criticized the setting of the accusations made to “drag the responsibilities of the FS executives” behind “negligent conduct unrelated to the rules” and for Moretti he asked for “acquittal for not having committed the crime”. “The reality of this trial – said the lawyer Giovene – is that there is absolutely no proof of the responsibility of the engineer Moretti but there is more, not only is there no proof of this, but rather there is proof to the contrary. In fact, in 2006, engineer Moretti signed a prescription “on railway safety as CEO of RFI” which was repeated in 2008 by Ansf, slavishly, in the sense that it is the same prescription, which imposed the obligation of traceability of axles with respect to rolling stock that they were not approved by the infrastructure manager but approved by third-party railway companies, such as the axle of the wagon of German origin “. “This – he concluded – is a central element of the process, which has not been considered, it is an element of proof of extraneousness to the facts, so much so that my conclusion is for not having committed the fact and I have included the other element ‘because the fact does not constitute a crime’. I am sorry that a manager of this quality was in some way offended “. (HANDLE).

Source: Ansa

Share this article:

Leave a Reply

most popular