We return to talk about the Monster of Florence . This time it is the Perugian lawyer Valter Biscotti , defender of Estelle Lanciotti, daughter of Nadine Mauriot, killed in 1985 together with Jean-Michel Kraveichvili, in the hamlet of San Casciano in Val di Pesa, in Scopeti, who submitted a request of summoning all investigations and access to the documents for the crime of 85.
The legitimate interest of the lawyer Biscotti and the family of the victims is to obtain access to the documents concerning the crime of the two Frenchmen . The documents, to date, after 37 years from the crime, have not yet been made available in full: could they provide useful information for the investigation? This is what lawyers and families continue to ask themselves because, many years later, there may be new material to work on.
Several elements to consider, such as the 17 frames present in the Nikon that belonged to the two French victims which could be of investigative interest. The opposite happened with the material relating to the Pacciani trial, which the defenders had requested in May 2022.
The files of the Pacciani Trial, which were not found in the Court of Assizes of Florence but, inexplicably, in other offices, were seriously incomplete, lacking trial minutes, appraisals, inspections and preliminary investigations. Yet, despite the trials, convictions and acquittals, there are still many doubts about this more than 50-year-old affair: who was really the Monster of Florence? Who killed the couples between '68 and '85? Where did the Beretta Caliber 22 go?
Questions have been echoing continuously for decades, both in the corridors of the courtrooms and in the homes of the families of the victims awaiting justice. Some are still waiting for the truth, while others have died without having found it, like Pia Rontini's father. The answer may come from advanced science and technology which, compared to the 1960s or 1980s, has significantly changed and advanced. There are still finds concerning the crimes - still preserved - and which could provide answers, while others have been lost forever because they were destroyed. New investigative scenarios could open up compared to those that have emerged to date. Even a new careful and meticulous study of all the procedural documents could lead to elements that, perhaps, at the time, were not sufficiently considered.
We talked about it with the lawyer Valter Biscotti.
The prosecutor asked for the filing of the investigation concerning the bullet found in the garden of Pietro Pacciani in 1992. An element of evidence which, at the time of the facts, determined his guilt. Why could that evidence have been fabricated? By whom and why?
“It is certainly disturbing as, after many years, it is judicially ascertained, through two consultations, that the cartridge found in Pacciani's garden was artificial. It means that the cartridge had nothing to do with the other bullets found at the murder sites, with such individualizing characteristics as to have come out of a single weapon. The important thing is that Pacciani's first degree sentence was essentially based on the discovery of this cartridge as well as other elements, but certainly, as recognized by the Prosecutor itself, it was one of the individualizing elements to reach guilt ".
Does this mean that someone wanted to frame Pacciani?
“We will not know this and we will never find out. Certainly it is a disturbing fact and this has led me to reason about the fact that those processes, somehow, were technically constructed in a very questionable way. Obviously I do not want to accuse and do not accuse anyone, but certainly there is something wrong with those trials. It is no coincidence that the Attorney General in the Court of Appeal made a very harsh indictment against the first instance proceedings ”.
Why couldn't the monster of Florence be a gregarious killer?
“Being gregarious means that the monster made use of other subjects. I have serious doubts about this, just as I also have serious doubts about the trial of the so-called 'snack companions', such that they can be identified as a kind of association capable of committing those murders, no one knows in favor of who or why what. It was enough for me to listen to Lotti's testimony, which seems a difficult subject to believe, to believe that there are many gray areas in that process. I am convinced that he is a lone killer, the classic serial killer who tries to challenge the police who are investigating and is the typical act of those who commit these serial crimes, launching a challenge to the investigators, which also happened in this case. Not only the breast flap sent to Dr. Della Monica but also the three letters sent to the three prosecutors and who knows, there are probably other challenges that have not yet been recognized because I am convinced that in the documents there are other elements that can be identified not only the perpetrator of the murders but even the key to identifying him ".
From the elements found over the years, it seems that he knew the investigators' moves well. Why do you think?
“It is a suggestive thesis. This is the thesis that Filastò, the defender of Vanni in the trial of the 'snacks companions', supported, right up to the end. He has always maintained that the killer could be someone who could somehow be traced back or at least knew the investigators' moves. Filastò has also always believed that perhaps whoever acted was disguised as a man from the police. There were some elements to suggest such a thing such as the registration document found inside the car of one of the double murders or other elements such as the wallet of one of the victims who had been hit by a bullet hole. . This suggests - according to Filastò - that when the killer approached the car, the occupants were pulling out the registration document or the wallet with the documents as if to show them. This is Filastò's thesis. Somehow it suggests that, perhaps, those who acted were disguised as a policeman or a man from the police and that he could have connections with those who were investigating. We are following an important lead. There is an old report of the Carabinieri of Borgo San Lorenzo which identifies the killer with name and surname, which for now we keep confidential, but has never been the object of attention by the investigators. I refer to the list of suspects, in which Pacciani was later identified: this gentleman was not on this list. Why is not known. There was a clear relationship in 1984 but it is not clear why it was not taken into consideration ”.
In your opinion, with the new technologies and with the elements still preserved, would it be possible to identify a profile and carry out further investigations?
“Of course we will use the new investigation techniques. DNA has been found. It is important to compare them with all the suspects, some have been made and have not been found to coincide. The important thing that needs to be done is an entomological analysis relating to the last of the double murders to show that the murder was not committed on Sunday but a few days earlier, perhaps even Friday. This is to show that what Lotti has declared is without foundation. He said he saw Pacciani and Vanni on Sunday as they killed the French couple. There are strong doubts about these statements precisely because, in my opinion, with an entomological investigation done well, with new technologies, we could have some surprises ”.
In the course of your investigation, however, did you identify a name?
“We are investigating, we are interested in finding out who did it but the most important thing is that we want to access the documents, which we have not been able to do completely. We are waiting for an answer from the Court of Assizes of Florence. When we have a complete knowledge of all the acts we will be able to work more completely ".
Today, in the light of the inconsistencies that emerged on many elements that at the time of the facts were evident, can we speak of misdirection? By whose hand? Especially because?
"More than misdirections, I believe that the killer has indicated some leads or false leads. I have doubts but only at a logical level on the first crime of '68 and the discovery of the bullet in the file. Perhaps this is an aspect that deserves further investigation. more complete. I would not like it to have been a hand to put those bullets in the 1968 file. Perhaps not to mislead but to distract attention and confuse the waters ".
Angelo Barraco