The case is thorny and continues to embarrass the entire government: more than something does not add up. “It’s sound nonsense,” was the harsh response of Giuseppe Conte the accusations of having lied to the prosecutors of Bergamo about the missing red areas in Val Seriana. The knot concerns the failure to establish the red zones of Alzano Lombardo and Nembro: the prime minister, questioned by the robes in Rome on 12 June as a witness in the investigation into the epidemic, denied having ever seen the document drawn up by the Technical-Scientific Committee dating back to 3 March. The investigation by the judiciary aims to ascertain whether the institutions have been negligent in assessing the Coronavirus emergency in the Bergamo area.
As reported by L’Eco di Bergamo, according to some indiscretions filtered by the corridors of the buildings of justice in Bergamo, it seems that the version provided by the premier on the CTS report is considered reliable: specifically, the prosecutors of the Bergamo Public Prosecutor would argue that there are no elements to do to suspect to investigators that what the lawyer stated does not correspond to the reality of the facts. The magistrates already knew the sequence and timing of the advice received from the experts and, on the basis of this, they tried to understand if Conte had contradicted himself on those delicate passages that led to more generalized prohibitions for Northern Italy and not for the red zone for Nembro and Alzano. But it seems that there have not been contradictions in the reconstruction.
The aid of the prosecutorsIn the eyes of the magistrates, the date on which the Prime Minister was updated on the opinion of the scientists does not take on a primary value: the Prosecutor has the task of establishing whether a crime in the choice not to establish the red zone in Val Seriana. But the prosecutors, between documents acquired and hearings, would have understood that the opinions of the technical-scientific committee were not binding and that the government’s decisions on the matter are – by law – discretionary. As Corriere della Sera points out, they would also be convinced that the political choice, right or wrong, must be judged in politics and not in courtrooms.
In May, the magistrates heard, as people informed about the facts, the councilor for welfare Giulio Gallera and the president of Lombardy Attilio Fontana. “President Fontana awaited the decision of the government to establish the red zone in Bergamo “, said lawyer Jacopo Pensa. The Northern League governor would have explained that by the Region the decision to block the most affected areas of Bergamo” was practically given for certain, so much so that the military was already ready to block the area “, but then it did not arrive also because they were” the days of the highlight of the epidemic, when the management of the emergency was in the chaos“. To remember the words of Maria Cristina Rota, the acting prosecutor of Bergamo, who answered the microphones of Tg3 in this way to those who asked him who was responsible for the decision to establish the red zone:” From what we understand it is a decision governmental “.