Judges in chambers to decide whether to acquit or confirm the sentence inflicted on Beniamino Zuncheddu , a shepherd from Burcei who has been in prison for over 30 years as responsible (for Italian justice) for the triple murder committed in the mountains of Sinnai in January 1991.
In the last hearing of the review process in the Court of Appeal in Rome today , the prosecutor Francesco Piantoni asked to acquit Zuncheddu and to transmit the documents for perjury against Mario Uda, Daniela Fadda and Paolo Melis.
THE HEARING – Prosecutor Francesco Piantoni retraces the stages of the massacre and the reasons that led to the conviction of Beniamino Zuncheddu, explaining that the basis of the current proceedings is the evaluation of the reliability of the survivor , in his recognition of the person responsible, and of the pastor Paolo Melis, former employee of the Fadda family, in indicating Zuncheddu as the author of the threats made to Giuseppe Fadda, son of Gesuino (who was later killed in the massacre), in the summer of 1990: "What you do to the cows", took aims with the rifle, "one day it will be done to you." Versions changed over time between January and February 1991: Pinna first says that the murderer had his face covered by a nylon stocking and was not recognisable , then after a few weeks he changes his version and claims that in reality the perpetrator had his face uncovered and therefore it was recognisable. Melis in turn initially said that he had known about the threats because they had been told to him by Giuseppe Fadda, who didn't even tell him who had made them; then on February 20 he changed his story and claimed to have heard those sentences with his own ears. Both, the prosecutor explains in court, had changed direction after the intervention of the Criminalpol policeman Mario Uda.
On the alibi front, Zuncheddu said he had returned from the sheepfold to go to a friend's house . The Court of Assizes held that the shepherd had had time to return to the village, change his clothes, return to Cuile is Coccus, kill the two Faddas and the shepherd Ignazio Pusceddu and return to Burcei around 7.15pm to go to his friend . So there was time to commit the triple murder. However, two witnesses emerge. Who claim to have seen Zuncheddu in town at that time, but the judges of first instance consider the statements too late (they had arrived months after the events) and unreliable. Not credible. So another negative element for the pastor.
On appeal, the territorial court goes so far as to exclude that the policeman Uda had shown the photo of the possible perpetrator (identified as Zuncheddu) to the survivor (Pinna) before it was due, thus making an agreement defined as fraudulent. The judges define the survivor as correct and reliable. He had seen Zuncheddu at Cuile is Coccus. And we get to condemnation . Confirmed on appeal, where the "unholy" agreement between Pinna and the judicial police for the affair of the shepherd's photograph is excluded. Melis is also considered honest. It doesn't matter whether you've seen the episode or not; what matters is that the episode actually happened. Regarding the alibi, the judges consider the witnesses false and compliant . "This is the framework behind the life sentence," explains the prosecutor. Which goes on to analyze the wiretaps, defined as "the theme of this trial". What can we understand from the interceptions? «Uda showed Pinna the photo of Zuncheddu: this is the central element», underlines the PC: «It is out of the question. And he did it before Pinna spoke to the prosecutor." It was discovered in February 2020 when Pinna left the Cagliari Court where he was heard by prosecutor Francesca Nanni and by the Cagliari carabinieri on the episode in the photo. Pinna in the car with his wife says that shortly before "they told the truth and a lot of it". The wife "does not seem to understand the situation". The woman tells him to shut up. He insists: «They wanted me to forcefully say that Mario Uda showed me the photo before. And it's the truth. They really understood it, Mario Uda showed me Beniamino's photo first."
Those that emerged in the wiretaps between Pinna and his wife Daniela Fadda, Gesuino's daughter, are "insurmountable" issues, underlines the prosecutor, for which "there is no alternative interpretation". Convinced Uda, who convinces Pinna, that Zuncheddu is guilty. But the photo is shown first.
The transfer of information between Uda and Pinna "was there", states the prosecutor Piantoni. The famous "fraudulent agreement" denied by the territorial courts therefore occurred : "It's exactly like that." And it held up "for thirty years". And then Pinna was "induced to silence". A «decisive and decisive aspect: Pinna's reliability constituted the necessary step in the conviction beyond any reasonable doubt. But if he lied about the photo, where does this moral loyalty go?". In short, "he lied for thirty years."
« Even more relevant is that» Pinna «denied having seen the photo before. A proven lie . He denied it for 30 years. As for the distorted face of the killer. First the killer had the nylon stocking, then no longer. And after tens of years the survivor tells his daughter-in-law that he had it but had taken it off after shooting. Never surfaced before. Different versions from each other. He himself said "that he changed his mind after meeting Mario", that is, the investigator Uda. Until the revelation in Rome, in this trial, when he says (last November) that the sock was there. Pale pink in colour. And that he had "trusted Uda's statements".
In the December confrontation here in Rome between him and Uda, also given the "different personalities" of the two, Pinna "handed it off calmly", confirming what he had said in November. His "conviction of Zuncheddu's responsibility" has not diminished, on the contrary: "He is convinced" it was him.
Many passages "cast shadows on Uda's statements" , claims the Prosecutor. One «is alarming: when he excludes that Pinna, before going to the prosecutor, had told him the possibility of recognizing Pinna; then in Rome he says that Pinna claimed to have seen him." In this picture, which throws Pinna's reliability to the ground, the main proof, there remain «motive and alibi. Which are "objectively insufficient" to lead to conviction." Paolo Melis made "an unseemly impression". Three different versions (they tell him about the threats, in fact he hears them; no, he hears them and Giuseppe Fadda tells him the name of the person responsible, that is, Zuncheddu). Nothing is "saved in the process". The collective motive "is not individualized in the slightest."
THE REQUEST – At the end of the indictment the PG asked for the revocation of Beniamino Zuncheddu's conviction , therefore his acquittal , and the transmission of the documents for perjury against Mario Uda, Daniela Fadda and Paolo Melis.
THE CIVIL PARTIES – The lawyer Alessandra Maria del Rio, who protects Luigi Pinna and his wife Daniele Fadda, and her colleagues Francesca Spanu and Rossa Palmas, who follow Maria Caterina Fadda, daughter of Gesuino (the other sister, Maria , passed away a year ago).
Rossana Palmas begins by explaining that there are people "who have lost a father and a brother", pain that adds to that "of an innocent man who spent over thirty years in prison". A great bitterness "for the Fadda family, comforted because a man is bringing to light a truth supported by the family and the whole of Sardinia ".
Just one clarification: «Now justice is being done for the victims of the massacre and also for the relatives of those who for 32 years» believed a version that is proving to be wrong. Therefore: « Revocation of the sentence of conviction and acquittal for Beniamino Zuncheddu, hoping that the true story involving the Fadda family will emerge ».
THE “BAD NOTE” – Alessandra Maria del Rio immediately anticipates that her speech will be the “off note” of the hearing. Because, essentially, he intends to ask for confirmation of the decision made over thirty years ago .
«The sentence is issued on the basis of evidence, yes, but also serious, precise and consistent evidence. The trial is linked to dark moments in Italian history." He talks about the investigating judge Luigi Lombardini, active during the period of the massacre and who committed suicide in 1998: inspector Uda worked assiduously with him.
Luigi Pinna and Daniela Fadda «would almost be the authors of the sentence. But there are no other suspects in connection with the massacre." There is only Zuncheddu. The lawyer explains that three people had gone, before the massacre, to have their weapons "filed". And there was also the lifer, Del Rio implies.
«We cannot listen to wiretaps only from those we like», he continues, underlining that there is also the identikit prior to the identification of Zuncheddu.
Credibility: "Aren't those who say they were afraid credible?" , the lawyer asks. Uda «has undoubted investigative skills. Can today's fear and reliability be considered the same as thirty years ago? We are not trying to understand what the good part is but whether a person is guilty or not. To understand the credibility of texts subjected to this media pressure."
In the first instance there was media fear, to which "today's fear must be added. Pinna said he would have liked to die then because he couldn't take it anymore. He has been afraid for thirty years. While Pinna and his wife were intercepting each other to verify their reliability, two people who had never been compensated, today speak again about their fears and their lives. Of situations that for Pinna were truly threats."
Chapter Melis: «The photo seen before? He only tells Uda that he witnessed the confrontation between Giuseppe Fadda and a boy who Fadda himself told him was Beniamino Zuncheddu ."
The identikit was brought to light «by Mario Uda before Melis's declarations and Luigi Pinna's revelations . You can see the hair, that sort of artichoke on the head that you can't understand what it is. I think that fear may have pushed Luigi to say then that he was afraid. The one that made him say enough today. I believe that he saw the person responsible and that Uda showed him the photo first, but that Pinna recognized him anyway. He said it in the trial: he thinks he recognized him. It's not lying. He saw the murderer and that's where the identikit was born: not of a sock."
Would Inspector Uda have forced someone to name others? "Why? Conjectures. Murgia kidnapping? Giuseppe Boi", convicted for that kidnapping, "was absent from the life of the Faddas until the massacre".
Motive? «We don't just have one source talking about it. There are more. The conviction of Daniela Fadda and Luigi Pinna also comes from the contacts that their sister Maria Fadda has with Mario Uda. It was Maria Fadda who took him to the companies of his confidants. Whose identity Uda has the right not to reveal. At the time there were no earphones: we went to listen to people."
Daniela Fadda «reads the newspaper and is afraid of things that wouldn't scare us. Many aspects to evaluate. Pinna said he was afraid of being arrested: if you don't know how the law works it could happen. Also given the media attention. Whoever has to pay will pay one day, but in the meantime we don't ask ourselves why the possible perpetrators of that massacre were not intercepted. It could have been done then too: those clues given by Libero Fadda were clear.
In short, «Pinna's changes of direction are not reliable. I believe he saw the killer's face and recognized him in Zuncheddu . Incorrect recognition? But he looked, he has full credibility." Then the lawyer returns to the panel. « Only in case of conviction. I don't feel like asking for absolution ."
THE DEFENSE – Lawyer Mauro Trogu, Zuncheddu's defender: «There is only one page in the documents», explains the lawyer, «but it is significant. When the president of the court turns to Pinna, hesitant. The president urges the witness to respond by pointing out all the people in the room. People, the president explained, who wanted justice. And he asks the witness to take due responsibility. Well, today we all have a duty to play our role. In November Pinna assumed his responsibilities, unlike others. So our duty to make the right decision is even stronger ."
But “what is justice? I will try to give my contribution by reiterating what is established and what is not established. And I will ask them to ascertain something else: what cannot be ruled out happened. The story is so dramatic that it deserves as many answers as possible."
And again: «The sentences reflect errors in the approach to the people who acted in those years. Decisions with logical and formal rigor. But giving the witnesses' words the right meaning, the result would be different."
THE CONTEXT – As regards the context of the massacre, «it is not easy either in the mountains or in court. We had been arriving here for ten special years. Torn apart by the clash resulting from the Manuella case, with the arrest of three lawyers accused of having participated in an association dedicated to drug trafficking. Upon revelation of a repentant. In the trial the repentants faltered. One confessed to having been pushed to make accusations by some magistrate, some lawyer, perhaps by the order. In 1987 the disciplinary procedure on the magistrate ended with his conviction for having kept a defense witness in the corpse for four months. In 198 there is the new code of criminal procedure. Judge Lombardini loses jurisdiction over investigations into kidnappings and his network of informants, some with criminal convictions, others on the edge of legality, are acting like mavericks. Among them Giuseppe Boi, convicted for the kidnapping of Gianni Murgia. The massacre arrives and the prosecutor is one of the two magistrates who had previously been subjected to disciplinary proceedings ."
OLD STYLE INVESTIGATIONS – Trogu recalls the book written by Uda in which the former Criminalpol inspector explains what investigative methods were followed at the time, the 1980s and 1990s. Behaviours, the lawyer makes clear, overcome today by current techniques, which are very different. So, what led to "this terrible miscarriage of justice?"
RELIABLE OR NOT? – The “central” issue is whether Pinna «is reliable or not». The lawyer's implicit answer is negative. And explain why. «When a witness tells us a fact, we must ask ourselves whether he perceived it adequately. You can also remember something you didn't perceive. And if it was not perceived, the memory is not reliable. Could Pinna see and recognize who had shot? No". Question of position and light. The appeal sentence describes a scene that places the killer in the center of the room. But due to the position of the shooter and the victims, the killer «is unequivocally in the dark. Pinna himself speaks of a woman's shape and pantyhose on the murderer's face”.
THE VERSIONS - Pinna also offers various versions. First he tells the police that the killer has pantyhose on his face; then after 20 days his memory in front of Uda is enriched and he talks about high boots with crossed laces, a rubber sole, and there is the identikit. And then there is the recognition before the prosecutor conditioned by the exhibition of the photo by Uda, when Pinna stores the image of Zuncheddu without however providing particular details".
The survivor then sees the investigator in the newspapers and begins to be "uninformed." And «constant external reminders lead to involuntary changes in memory. In an evolution of similar testimonies, the most technically reliable statement is the first, the closest to the event: the one that has the least possibility of being conditioned".
The witness accumulates details of which he "becomes convinced". And he remembers things that he didn't remember immediately after the events. Elements that "he had never talked about before". This is why we must "believe the first depositions, to believe that Pinna was sincere at the time".
THE FEAR – Regarding the survivor's fear, used by him to justify his step back on the pantyhose that was first there and then not, “there was no mention of it in the weeks of investigation after the massacre. He was sick but didn't show any fear. So why does the version change? Because he has a different concept of justice than ours. As a simple person, he sees justice in the police force before him. He believes that if a policeman tells him that a person had threatened his brother-in-law and did not have an alibi, he thinks that the right thing is to bring the culprit to justice. The concept of justice that the assize court talks about in the sentencing is not the same as that of Pinna. The right thing to do was not to release a person identified as guilty", continues the defense.
THE BASIS OF THE CONVICTION – «To deny that Pinna was influenced, the Court of Assizes of Cagliari explains in the sentence that it should be considered that Uda fraudulently showed Pinna the photo of Zuncheddu before the meeting with the prosecutor: well, that's exactly what which we have ascertained", underlines Trogu. As if to reiterate that the basis for the conviction has fallen. Uda, however, denies that it really happened. So why would Pinna be more credible this time than a former inspector? «When Uda speaks in Rome he does so as a man of institutions. So he said. Uda knows very well how investigations are done. He goes to the Faddas' house and records the conversations, giving an account of all the results obtained in those first days. Some are surprising. Relationships emerge between Gesuino Fadda and Giuseppe Boi that no one has ever talked about and whose existence Boi denied here a few weeks ago . There is talk of serious arguments that were later settled, except that Fadda, in the vicinity of the massacre, would have complained about Boi's dealings with kidnappings in the sheepfold area. Uda writes this in the report delivered to his manager. But that note is not in the prosecutor's file, so the defense did not know about it. And when the lawyers at the time hypothesized the link with the Murgia kidnapping, they were accused of being too imaginative. Will it be true or not? It doesn't matter, but no. It could have been categorically ruled out that way. It had to be considered plausible and capable of supporting a reasonable doubt."
THE MOVEMENT – For Trogu, «the agro-pastoral motive is plausible but not exclusive» . Regarding the threat that was allegedly uttered by Zuncheddu to Giuseppe Fadda, it is said that it is «sufficient to know whether it occurred or not. But if you put it into context, a threat made towards a single person from a hundred meters away in the midst of vegetation is one thing; it is another thing for Zuncheddu to intervene in defense of a 17-year-old boy who is seen coming towards Giuseppe Fadda in two other people and with a billhook in his hand". In fact, the threatening scope "depends a lot on the way in which it is pronounced".
DOUBTS – Why should Uda have «induced Pinna and Melis to accuse Zuncheddu? Because at that moment that case probably had to be closed like that, due to internal reasoning in his office. Maybe he wasn't so convinced of Beniamino's guilt either." The lawyer goes so far as to question the many often informal meetings Uda and Pjnna had: "He knew he would be attackable on that front." Perhaps «he wanted to give the judges the opportunity to save Zuncheddu. But for the Court it would have been to certify a suspicion that was too serious: that of the "transfer" of information from Uda to the survivor".
But – underlined Trogu – «judges do not deal with doubt. Faced with poorly managed evidence and without objective verification, the judge must stop." The same goes for Paolo Melis, on whom one cannot place the slightest reliance. He made unreliable statements. And the motive against Zuncheddu is definitively wavering."
“ASSOLVE HIM” – «Zuncheddu's alibi exists», concluded Trogu. Therefore, «in this sentence, in addition to the operative part, one should look for what happened at the time of the facts. Such episodes can only be a warning if light is shed around them. Revoke the conviction with a sentence that explains what I said. Acquit Zuncheddu for not having committed the crime."
After Trogu's intervention, shortly after 6.30 pm the judges retired to their chambers.