Any attempt to reconstruct the whole affair has always had to deal with an enigma until now remained unsolved: what they were links between the first of the eight double murder, that of Signa in 1968, probably made by a group of people who revolved around the dead woman, including her husband Stefano Mele and later made by the Monster?
Barbara Locci and Antonio Lo Bianco had been killed by the same .22-caliber Beretta, ever found, with which it had subsequently been made seven double murder of the killer in Florence, testified the cartridge cases found at crime scenes, all marked unequivocally the same footprint with a striker. The victims were always educated couples in the intimacy of a loving relationship, but the motive was very different: in the first case it was jealousy or interest, and this had been sentenced the husband of the woman killed in other criminal instincts of a maniac but could not be Stefano Mele, in prison in 1974 and later host of an institution controlled.
For years the so-called Track Sarda tried to find the explanation in the idea that Stefano Mele had an accomplice who would later manifest manic behaviors killing other couples with the gun remained in his possession. But years of stubborn investigation did not lead to any results, if not to convince investigators that the crime of 1968, fixed at the time with only the condemnation of the woman's husband, had instead been made by a group of persons belonging to its environment family, including him and also an ex-lover of Barbara Locci, Salvatore Vinci. The motive was probably to be found in the desire to get rid of a woman with her libertine behavior discredit the entire group. But if the monster was not among those people, who had taken the gun to kill again couples years later with manic mode?
To solve the riddle of the passage of the gun someone thought it well to deny the problem: even a Signa in 1968 would have done the Monster in his first, and then Stefano Mele and others were unrelated to the fact. It was the view of Roger Perugini, for example, who wrote in his book "A man apparently normal" (p.79):
Advance at once that I took the liberty to consider the murder of 1968 as a clerk by the same hand even if that fact had already been sentenced Stefano Mele, husband of the woman killed. This is because, after all, do not believe in fairy tales: including that of a gun being found by accident (along with ammunition) from a stranger passing through. That's because, if you see some tiny mania, using them to kill seven other couples in love.
pity then that the detective, accusing Pacciani, invented an improbable story in which Miranda slipped Bugli, ex-girlfriend of peasant Mercatale for which he was killed in 1951, that twist of fate, lived just Lastra a Signa, a village of Barbara Locci .. It would be Pacciani was therefore, rejected by his ex once went to see her, out of anger to kill the two lovers apart. Nice story, but without any evidence that the votes a minimum, as all the accusations against Pacciani theories, moreover, always and only based on mere suspicion without any real feedback.
But even among those who believe in the innocence of Pacciani there are those who reject the attribution of the crime of Signa Stefano Mele and his companions, such as Nino Filastò, lawyer Mario Vanni. According to him even that far-off double murder had manic motivation, as demonstrated by manipulation of the corpse of a woman who was taken from a prone position on the seat beside the man and reassembled pulling up her pants down and covering her bare legs with her dress. It would therefore have been the monster in his first murder to kill time. The lawyer brings many elements to support its argument, but this is not the place to discuss them, because their interpretation in a slightly different lead away to a workaround that the writer believes that most likely, and perhaps in a next post will be shown.
also give the Monster Signa's murder certainly would solve the problem of the passage of the gun to his roots, because it denies. Unfortunately the reality does not allow it, at least that can be deduced by logic, Signa because the husband of Barbara Locci there, and it is quite likely that with him there were other people. I do not want to dwell on the reasons already known, like the fact that the dress the woman (and pull up his pants with him) seems to be the act of a husband who is ashamed to find it half-naked on her lover, or the details of the scene Stefano Mele showed that the crime of knowing (arrow remained on, the number of shots fired, the White sfilatasi shoe from the foot). I would rather deal with Natalie, son of Barbara Locci and Stefano Mele, as we know, was in the car who was sleeping when her mother was killed.
According to the theory that attributes the Monster Signa also the crime of the child would have covered more than two miles of dirt road in the dark of a moonless night and then ring the doorbell of Francesco De Felice, who asked for help, telling of the crime and to have arrived there alone. Already it seems hard to believe that even a child of seven years has managed to take nearly two and a half kilometers of rocky road alone in the dark of night without a moon, even without injury, especially at the foot of which had only socks. The fact that these appear to be dirty is certainly explained by the moments in which he was placed on the ground, both for the fatigue of the crew on the long journey for the final phase in which it was made to find the door of De Felice. It also seems strange that, having witnessed the murder and he made that terrible journey was very quiet at the moment he reappeared. But all this has already been said and written many times. I would rather draw the attention of the reader two elements overlooked.
The first concerns the subsequent statements by the child, who were always hesitant, but in any case to contradict those of the first hour while asserting that he would accompany his father asking him to mention his presence. Try to read here. There are those who surrender to give importance to these statements, found it impossible to distinguish the truth from the lies and fantasies, but the writer is not agree. Ignoring other elements that were called into question other people and that could have resulted from pressure from family or revision of the child, focus on two main versions, either alone or with his father. Which one would be a lie? If you mention the presence of the father may be justified by the assumption that the child was explicitly told not to mention that fact to prevent the involvement, the story as the presence is justified if it was not the truth? Why Natalino would tell a lie like that?
The second element relates to the statements of Francesco De Felice, who, when he heard the doorbell, looked at his watch 2:00 and saw that it was the exact, not a minute more nor a minute less, as the minutes of the Police reported here. Possible that of all the times in which the child could reach the house where he played just happened to be the more round? A very suspicious coincidence, explained well with an agreement between those who had committed the crime he had to return home before the alarm and an accomplice in the latter visited the child, " you play the child at 2 " , observed agreement too literally. As it happens, next to the house of De Felice was one of Silvano Vargas, a friend of Salvatore Vinci, who also gave him the false alibi for the night of the murder, and who could play the role required. Other homes closest to the site of the killings were rather neglected.
that by becoming bigger, Natalino Mele has never told the truth is fully explained both by the trauma and the desire to keep for himself the terrible things that would still put in the center of attention not required.
The mystery of the passage of the gun and then remains in all its inexplicably, the reader But keep in mind that Conan Doyle had Sherlock Holmes say in "The Sign of Four": E Limina the impossible, what remains, however improbable, must be the truth .
0 comments:
Post a Comment