Garlasco’s is not just a case of judicial news that returns to the center of the scene, following procedural developments that would seem unimaginable a few years ago. It is not even, only, a latent collective item that finds retroactive expression for a story matured in a time, remote but not too much, in which the word femicide it had never even been pronounced or conceived. It is not even the high wave of understandable perplexities for investigations and investigations, evidently, conducted with pressure and in “non -sterile” environments for too long. And it is not even mainly an interrogation placed without too many concerns of a defendant who always deserves some exemplary sentence, that is, the journalistic and media system. It is all this, but above all it is a huge question made to the heart of the state of law and the fabric of democracy, of which we are all part and sustenance. Let’s try to understand why.

“Beyond any reasonable doubt”

Those who killed Chiara Poggi, almost 18 years ago, in that dot of low Po Valley forgotten by God who is Garlasco, at this point no one really knows: except, of course, the culprit, or guilty. There is, we all know, a condemned with a definitive sentence, it is called Alberto Stasi, who has always proclaimed himself innocent and who was acquitted twice, before being definitively sentenced to the Court of Cassation, almost ten years ago. The victim’s family lawyers invite you to look there, to that name carved near the sentence of condemnation for voluntary murder, in accordance with the work of the judges, and venture that that trust in the sentence is a tribute due to the Constitution. That constitution that asks to assume all innocent up to a definitive sentence of conviction, to be pronounced according to the code of criminal procedure “beyond any reasonable doubt”.

And therefore, Stasi is guilty following a final judgment, and all the other innocents do not – as they say in jargon – until proven otherwise, but up to a definitive sentence, which can only have exceeded “any reasonable doubt”. A ruling potentially different from what we have is beyond coming, given the state of the new criminal procedure and also considering the times of justice, and without prejudice to naturally sudden turns, unlikely but by definition not impossible. There is therefore a truth proclaimed in court, and however it is so strong that it is the same Italian judiciary competent according to the Constitution that doubts it so as to reopen the investigation, after having repeatedly denied the review of the condemned lawyers.

Because he had been acquitted stasis

Waiting for justice (re) to take its course, slow and sinuous as that of a river late compared to the sea that awaits it, it is worth focusing on all political issues that, thanks to this uncertainty, to this incredible wait, are however clearer and current than ever. A judge expresses well, one of the first who had the case in carrying out his functions, and sent stasis acquitted. Stefano Vitelli, in 2009 judge of the preliminary investigations in Vigevano, commenting today the facts and decisions of that time, says something interesting, tiring, painful, and totally true, if we concern the principles of constitutional democracy: without the certainty of a guilt, being strong and conscious obliges to fulfill. For this reason, it is meant, he acquitted stasis: not because he was sure of the innocence of the accused, but because he is not sure, on the basis of the evidence collected and discussed, of his guilt. This is a delicate and decisive discrimination: to fulfill a doubt, to condemn the certainty to condemn.

At this point of the reasoning, to understand each other, a specific specific is needed. It is normal, it is right, it is really human to feel on the side of the victim and of those who cry it. And yet, the quality of a democracy founded on the state of law is measured mainly not as it knows how to give any consolation to the memory of the victims and their loved ones, but as it can guarantee the defendants, before and after they are judged guilty. To make it simpler: we must not think of Chiara Poggi, or of her loved ones who cry her, we must think about it attributed to the bar for her murder. Imagine that we could be innocent and find ourselves unjustly sentenced. Or that in that uncomfortable, horrible position – that of the accused that everyone wants to see in jail to have the name of a culprit without too much care of the reasonable doubts – could find someone to whom we love. And on whose innocence we are ready to swear. It is difficult, of course, seems superhuman: but it is actually the most human thing in the world.

What is the staple of the story

It is in this context, an even wider and dating back of the eighteen years that separate us since August 2007 in which Chiara Poggi was killed, that this story must therefore be put. Inside this horizon there are today’s journalism and public opinion, which follow different routes compared to the moment when the crime was committed. We think of social networks, on Facebook that was still technically a start-up, albeit successful, and today has the age of Noah. Let’s think about how much water under the bridges of technology and investigative techniques can be passed. We will understand if they are decisive changes in the next few days, in the coming weeks, even in the coming years. And at the same time more or less long we will possibly understand the failure or not of a judicial system, perhaps the errors, or maybe not. The most difficult thing to keep in mind and in the heart will always be the same, the most important: nobody can be condemned, if any reasonable doubt is not overcome. It was valid for stasis, and still applies. It applies to always, and for anyone else. Until the extreme consequence, the one that leads to admit that it cannot be said with certainty who killed a girl in her home, in the middle of a summer. A killer will live forever free, but no innocent – at least – will end up in jail in his place.