This is all "de relato" testimony that must be substantiated by "intrinsic and extrinsic" evidence. The testimony of the Gravianos in Palermo next Friday would close the circle definitively, if they decide to collaborate.
Two investigations have been archived in the past due to the maximum terms for investigation. The decrees of archiviation did declare that further evidence had been gathered against the Berlusconi-Dell'Utri group but insufficient to call for a trial. Those cases have apparently been reopened or will be reopened when it becomes opportune for investigators to do so. By this I mean that at times investigators prefer to wait and see if further overridng evidence emerges rather than officially reopen a case. By doing so this avoids the immediate application of some of Berlusconi's draconian pro-mafia legislation designed to hamper investigations once they are officialized. It is for this reason in my opinion that the Florentine procura has not proceeded against Berlusconi. He can simply simmer in his own oil.
Some testimony has been covered by top secrecy as often has been the case in the past.
If Berlusconi felt he was so damned innocent, why doesn't he serenely affront a trial or trials rather than do everything possible to prevent trials and investigations?
I was thinking that even if both would be a high crime, a key difference is whether Berlusconi and Dell'Utri merely suggested targets on request from the mafia for a bombing campaign devised by the Gravianos (or Giovanni Brusca himself), or suggested the bombing campaign to the mafia in the first place. It does seem from the auto-translated quotes that Pietro Romeo is implying the second. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
