Among the hypotheses that attempt to explain the mystery of the passage of the gun between the group that supposedly killed in the Monster Signa and there is a proposal by Mario Spezi in his "Hills of Blood". The journalist tells of a Belgian writer named Ethel who would come into possession of a copy of a complaint of theft at home by Salvatore Vinci. The theft would have occurred in June 1974, three months before the murder of Borgo San Lorenzo, the first of the Monster. Ethel is a fancy name, but the person is real, and should correspond to Magdalen NABBA, now deceased English writer who lived in Florence and wrote a book in English The Monster Of Florence that she did not want to be published in Italian.
Returning to the complaint of theft, it must be said that Salvatore Vinci, surveys conducted as part of Track Sarda and journalistic reconstructions is the same Spezi both Cecioni and Monastra in their book, it seemed somehow been the organizer of the crime of Signa, among other things, that procured the gun, free from a relative of Villacidro his home in Sardinia. In addition Stefano Mele, on the order made by the gun, after the first version where it said he threw it away near the scene of the crime, claims to have returned had they given to Salvatore Vinci.
The theft report was not shown what was stolen, in fact, a complaint of theft would seem that most of trespassing. The hypothesis of Ethel, who endorses Mario Spezi, what was in that theft would be reduced by the infamous Beretta 22-caliber cartridge that includes the box with the left after the murder of Signa. Who stole the gun would then become the dreaded Monster of Florence. For the moment let's forget that the character is listed as author of the theft and then future (very unlikely) serial killer, let's concentrate on the fact that enough water is already on its behalf. Who says that the gun was among the stolen items, especially among the things to steal?
It 'hard to believe that Salvatore Vinci took home for six years in a weapon that would have accused of a crime, even with the box of cartridges remaining, further evidence against him. More so that the character is described by Mario Spezi as a very shrewd. Not only that, Salvatore Vinci with his DECLARED implicitly told the Police: "If found the Beretta 22 gauge with which they were killed Barbara Locci and Antonio Lo Bianco tenetemela part because it is mine! .
Let us now turn to the person who allegedly stole the possible future show. In "Hills of Blood" is given a fancy name "Charles", who then also marked the whole situation, but there is nothing that reinvent the wheel, identifying him with Antonio Vinci, son of Salvatore and Barbarina Steri, fifteen in 1974. The boy would react to the trauma of the loss of his mother, perhaps, perhaps killed by her father committed suicide, putting to kill couples with the same gun Signa. This is quite clearly a case of romance, without any evidence. In "Hills of Blood" is looking for some way to strengthen it by invoking some sort of compatibility with the figure of Antonio Vinci known FBI profile, where U.S. experts had traced an identikit psychological monster, very coarse-grained to say the truth. There is no need here to comment on these parallels laughable leggerseli invite the interested reader to the book (p. 241), here I give just one example:
The Americans have made a murderess who usually try to get this type of in contact with the police groped for detecting or otherwise, to pilfer the news. Our guy did the informant of the police.
The coincidences are of this type, the reader may judge for themselves of their minimum thickness. Finally common sense is hard to see in a young man guilty of murder in the first 15 years and 26 last, moreover, described as beautiful and defiant, and not at all iposessuato, despite a formal annulment of marriage impotentia coeundi . The coincidence that from January 1975 to the end of 1980, then in the period in which the dual murders ceased, the character had lived in northern Italy does not prove anything, if anything, we would wonder why he was so fond of the area around Florence, where he enjoyed killing could have done elsewhere.
The very fact that the book ends with an interview with the supposed monster in which serious allegations are dealt with tarallucci and Sardinian myrtle, shows that this is a gimmick to give a sop the reader of the book is at the end without a fault, in which the protagonist must surely have given his consent in question. How can we believe in fact that Anthony Vinci has not exercised the thousand American lawyers willing to represent him for free for a fair share of damages that certainly could have asked for the serious and unsubstantiated accusation? It appears that the United States has circulated his picture with a lot of information: "Here's the Monster of Florence". A real trick, in fact.
0 comments:
Post a Comment