How do you interview a sentenced to life imprisonment? A feminicide, a man who, according to Italian justice, would have stabbed and let a 13 -year -old girl die of hypothermia. The answer is simple: it is not interviewed. Because there is no right way to do it. If you let him speak, he will inevitably paint himself as a victim and manage to manipulate who knows how many people. If, on the other hand, I hinged it, try to ridicule the answers or to make it fall into contradiction, you are no longer doing your work as a journalist: at that point you are the one to go to the wrong side, transforming the executioner into a victim. In both cases, he will come out winner. This is exactly what happened yesterday in Belve, in his spin-off “True Crime” (because yes, we really felt the need for yet another product of this type, right?).

Bossetti paper

Francesca Fagnani, perhaps in an attempt to relaunch a program that is slowly losing enamel, the Bossetti card has been played. And he got what he wanted: visibility. Today everyone talks about it on social media. But unfortunately for her, not in the desired way. In fact, many criticize it for not letting Bossetti speak, for having shown themselves prevented. Prevented against a man definitively sentenced to life imprisonment for a brutal femicide? It is never, for heaven’s sake. By now the court is that of social media, where it is decided if someone is guilty or innocent based on personal sensations. What are three degrees of judgment and millions of euros spent by the state, in front of a “in my opinion it was not he”?

The “conspiracy” of the web

Yet Massimo Bossetti has been sentenced beyond any reasonable doubt. His DNA was found on Yara’s body in several points. And here the hypotheses are two, and only two: either it was he who killed her, or, as many argue, is the victim of a gigantic conspiracy. “Someone wanted to fit it,” the web detectives write safely. Too bad they don’t explain why, if Bossetti really wanted to frame, he had to set up such a complex plan, which lasted years, with over 20,000 DNA tests. The simplest scenario – and therefore the most likely – is that Bossetti is lying. But this would be boring. Remember: the True Crime must entertain. This conspiracy climate is fueled by numerous influencers, who have all the interest in keeping media attention high on these cases. The “Guru del True Crime” have learned very well to capitalize on unresolved mysteries. What if those mysteries have already been resolved? Simple: they will propose to the most compelling scenario. The conspiracyist one, of course.

The interview with Bossetti also arrives at a particular moment, in which the investigations on the murder of Garlasco were sensationally reopened. And this game to all the condemned, even those in prison with overwhelming tests against them. But let’s clarify one thing: between the murder of Chiara Poggi and that of Yara Gambirasio there is an abyss. In the first case there were two acquittal sentences and no overwhelming tests, if not the lack of blood traces on Stasi’s shoes. A clue, which, however strong, cannot be compared to finding DNA on the body of a girl, DNA of a person that she did not know and who, moreover, does not even have an alibi. They are two different worlds: in the first the doubt has a margin, in the second, for the data available today, these are unfounded speculations, legally and logically. It is therefore not a question of “culpolists” and “innocentists”, as Aldo Cazzullo wrote on the courier. It is a question between guilty and conspiracy theorists.

The interview with Belve is of absolute gravity

And the interview with Belve has done nothing but strengthen the latter. When Bossetti interviewed was Netflix, a private company whose only goal is to generate profit, I criticized the choice, but the severity of this interview is even higher. Because here we talk about Rai, a public service, which should protect the memory of the victims, and which instead ends up giving voice and strength to the lien of the executioner. Shame.