The images from the video surveillance cameras speak clearly : the evening of the murder, shortly before dying, Sharon was alone . Yet her murderer had said he had seen her in the company of another person, of whom he had not been able to provide a precise description, who was said to be the perpetrator of the murder. A series of " manifestly false circumstances (...) compared with the truly unequivocal tenor" of the images from the cameras and some details that emerged from the intercepted conversations between Moussa Sangare, in prison for the murder of Sharon Verzeni, and the two witnesses who recognized him , while on August 29 all three were in the waiting room of the Provincial Command of the Carabinieri in Bergamo.
These are some of the elements that led the prosecutor Emanuele Marchisio and the investigators to no longer have any doubts about the thirty-one-year-old who, after trying to provide his version of the facts, broke down and confessed . Initially he denied "having gone, in recent months, to Terno d'lsola", as can be read in the order with which the investigating judge Raffaella Mascarino validated the arrest and ordered the prison. But the story changed when they showed the video that immortalizes him riding his bicycle near the murder. From there a first step with the admission of "having been present at the scene of the crime", indicating, however, as the perpetrator of the murder, another phantom subject, of whom he provided a summary description.
«She reported, in particular» that Sharon «had been in the company of "a friend", with whom she had argued and who had then stabbed her, also threatening him who had witnessed the fact». A version that does not match what was shown in the videos, in which the young barmaid can be seen «walking in absolute solitude for the entire journey before her murder». Another “falsehood” told by Sangare, recently transferred from the Bergamo prison to the San Vittore prison in Milan, for safety reasons (other inmates also threw Molotov cocktails at him), was «the statement according to which he had cut his hair “two or three months” before the hearing». Words that did not convince the investigators, given that the haircut was evidently “fresh”, and therefore had taken place much more recently».
