Morandi bridge collapse, why does Mion gossip?
Reactions, comments and analyzes on the sortie of the former top manager of Edizione (Benetton), Gianni Mion , as a witness in the trial on the collapse of the Ponte Morandi in Genoa
On 14 August 2018, the collapse of the Morandi bridge (or Polcevera viaduct) caused the death of 43 people and forced 566 people to leave their homes. Today there are 58 people on trial including managers and technicians from Autostrade, Spea and the Ministry of Infrastructure.
THE SILENCE OF MION AND THE COLLAPSE OF THE MORANDI BRIDGE
The city of Genoa, squeezed between the sea and the mountains, has always been suffering from space. Its historic buildings have often sacrificed gardens overlooking the sea to build new buildings with spaces for commerce. The lack of space also affected the road system, hence the need to build bridges, just like the Morandi , which overlooked residential buildings. The intense anthropization of the Genoese territory, a feature that would have required even more attention and care, made the disaster of the collapse of the Morandi Bridge even more dramatic. And instead the cure was lacking even when the warning signs were evident. “It emerged that the bridge had an original design defect and was at risk of collapse – said the former manager of the Benetton group , Gianni Mion , heard as a witness during the trial for the collapse of the bridge -. I asked if there was someone who certified the safety and Riccardo Mollo ( former director general of Aspi today one of the 58 defendants in the trial, ed) replied 'we certify it ourselves'. I said nothing and worried. It was simple: either it closed or an external certified it for you. I didn't do anything, and that's my great regret."
PONTE MORANDI: THE MEETING IN WHICH (MAYBE) WE TALKED ABOUT SELF-CERTIFICATION
Gianni Mion , former CEO of the Benetton holding company Edizione, former director of Autostrade per l'Italia (Aspi) and its former parent company, Atlantia, recalled the contents of a meeting in 2010, eight years before the collapse. The CEO of Aspi Giovanni Castellucci, Gilberto Benetton, the board of statutory auditors of Atlantia and, according to the manager's recollections, technicians and managers of Spea Engineering (subsidiary of Atlantia responsible for infrastructure control) also took part in that meeting. At the time of the meeting, Mion was the head of “ Edizione Holding ”, the Benetton family safe. “In a meeting they told me about a design flaw. It created doubts about whether the bridge could remain up – explains Mion -. But we all thought that our Spea technicians did the checks, then it turned out later how they did the investigations. We didn't know at the time everything that came out afterwards."
THE ACCUSATIONS OF THE RELATIVES OF THE VICTIMS OF THE COLLAPSE OF THE MORANDI BRIDGE
After these statements, the relatives of the victims accused him, also blaming his silence for the deaths of their loved ones. “They're right – replied Mion -. But what was I supposed to do, an internal battle?”.
FROM WITNESS TO SUSPECT
From a failed internal battle to a possible judicial battle. The former manager Gianni Mion today risks passing from the witness stand to that of the defendants . This was suggested by some defense lawyers who invited the Court to evaluate whether, in the light of the statements, Mion himself should be considered a suspect. According to PM Mion, he had not been investigated because he did not hold roles in ASPI, however the president reserved the right to evaluate the matter.
THE PARALLEL WITH THE RUBY TER PROCESS
Guido Stampanoni Bassi , lawyer and director of the review Giurisprudenza penali , intervened on the issue on the Foglio . “The legal issue that has arisen is therefore that relating to the power, in the hands of the judicial authority, to review the role in which certain statements have been made – writes the lawyer Guido Stampanoni Bassi -. In fact, the judge has the power-duty to verify whether or not the subject called to make statements is involved in the crimes for which the proceedings are proceeding and if the judge finds that the most appropriate role for the declarant is that of subject involved in the facts ( rather than a witness), he must be considered a suspect to all intents and purposes (with the application of the guarantees mentioned above)". The lawyer Guido Stampanoni Bassi places Mion's case side by side with that of the Ruby-ter trial . According to the reasons for the sentence of the Court of Milan, if indications of crime have emerged against a person, the judicial authority cannot treat him or her as a witness (i.e. someone who, with an obligation to tell the truth, is called to report what he knows) , having, on the contrary, recognized a series of guarantees, including the right not to answer and the right to remain silent). In the Ruby case, despite the fact that multiple indications of guilt had emerged against the defendants b during which Moreover, as the judges recognized in the Ruby-ter case, the failure to register the witness as a suspect does not preclude the judge from subsequently assess his substantial status as a suspect at the time of the statements.
And the newspaper La Verità – in an article by Maurizio Tortorella – writes: “The confession of the super witness puts the Morandi trial at risk. If, after the explosive declarations on the collapse of the bridge, the former CEO of the Edizione company is investigated, his accusations can no longer be used by the prosecutors. A short circuit is looming like in the Ruby-ter”.
PONTE MORANDI COLLAPSE: THE DEFENSE SAYS THAT THERE WAS NO SELF-CERTIFICATION
Meanwhile the defense lawyers, Giovanni Paolo Accinni, Guido Carlo Alleva, Roberta Boccadamo, Marcello D'Ascia, Alessandro Di Giovanni, Filippo Dinacci, Roberto Fiore, Carlo Marchiolo, Riccardo Olivo, Giorgio Perroni, Nicola Santi, Luca Sirotti and Francesco Tagliaferri, deny the sender the accusations made by Gianni Mion. "Given the relevance that was so improperly recognized to such statements, the defenses represent that Mion's statements were found to be completely devoid of objective and verifiable references and made by a subject who proved to be unreliable at the outcome of the examination – they say the lawyers -. What is certain is that Mr. Mion of the 'memorable' meeting did not remember the day, month, year, season or even the participants in that meeting and, at the express request of the defence, he denied any awareness of any risk of collapse. On the contrary, he confirmed that the technical offices in charge had guaranteed the safety of the infrastructure". The defense lawyers, in addition to judging the witness unreliable , recall that "a top figure of Aspi such as engineer Tozzi ruled out that during the so-called 'induction' and in particular in the September 2010 meeting, 'design defects' ever emerged ' or risks of any kind related to the Morandi bridge”. Furthermore, "surveillance on the bridge took place both through Spea and through other third-party companies and qualified experts who have alternated over the years". Therefore, according to the defense, no recourse to self-certification.
This is a machine translation from Italian language of a post published on Start Magazine at the URL https://www.startmag.it/smartcity/crollo-ponte-morandi-perche-mion-sparla/ on Wed, 24 May 2023 12:16:13 +0000.