Mollicone, Franco Mottola: "Perché Tuzzi non disse la sera che aveva visto Serena quella mattina?"

Mollicone, Franco Mottola: "Why didn't Tuzzi say that evening that he had seen Serena that morning?" "Sentence? We also had some doubts because it could have been interpreted that way." News (Rome). "After the appeal ruling, we also had some doubts about how it was written, but since the first ruling was very comprehensive on all points, the second ruling, in what was missing, confirmed the ruling, even in the points that were addressed in the first. It's just that it could have been interpreted that way or the way it was later interpreted in the Supreme Court. We'll address it as we addressed the first ruling; we have to go there, and we will. We'll present everything again. Did you hear Tuzzi? He was carrying out his duties normally, he was an emotional person, but I don't know why he recanted after so many years. If he had seen Serena that morning, why didn't he say later that evening, when he came into work and I was with Serena's father, that he had seen her that morning?" This was Franco Mottola's statement during the press conference in Rome following the Supreme Court's ruling on Serena Mollicone's death. "We're happy to re-trial the case so that the next judge, regardless of his ruling, will have to provide very clear, logical, and scientific reasons for his decision," said criminologist Carmelo Lavorino, head of the Mottola family's defense team. (Marco Vesperini/alanews) Automatically generated transcript Having read the ruling as it was written, we had some doubts as well, and we discussed it with the lawyers, and with all our heart, it didn't speak among ourselves and other things. However, it was still a ruling that confirms the first one, and in the first one it was always very exhaustive on all points. The second ruling could also have referred to things made in that way, only it says what's missing is already there because it referred to what was said in the first trial. I confirm the ruling of what was said in the first one, only that it must be interpreted that way. Instead, it was interpreted differently, as per the request of the Supreme Court. This is where we could have expected it by reading the ruling. However, another part, reading the one that said that it also made use of that other 2-in-1, could have taken into account all the Cansado Messi funnels from the first one together with the one from the second one. That wasn't the case, and we'll accept it and move on. We'll sink Star II as we have the first one. We're here, we have to go, we'll go, we'll propose all the rules we want. defensive everything that needs to be produced to refute their opinions and what they say some points will have to be resolved and we are happy because they had already taken mourning the next judge regardless of what he hears at the fair will have to motivate it very well It's just he will motivate very well and maybe the precise scientific logic inferential then who then will decide to file the appeal the bridges with the perfect or almost perfect sentence So hurry up back to work he was a normal person like all the money we give him I marked normally without problems he was a person However he seemed emotional seen that's how So I don't know why then after so many years because I think that if I see something if in the morning as he said I can I can as he said that in the morning he saw Serena enter the barracks in the evening when he came to start work he found Guglielmo Mollicone and a group of friends they had accompanied to the barracks with me to report that his daughter was not to go home she is the first thing that comes to mind or distinct to say but this morning I saw her here or am I wrong something really instinctive is normal or I go out on duty with my colleague or they are looking for that girl rummaging around for me Here instead he had no reaction When he was born in during the whole service because the colleague from San Giovanni Incarico who was questioned was asked absolutely a the talked about nothing Then they went out with me and we went to Mollicone's house to find some trace something something written somewhere because at the moment it can't be done Tiza goes nothing so tragic I mean and he was there at 0 then after 7 years it comes out I that morning I saw her Do you have an idea of ​​what can be reliable or not to Yes that then beautiful the Porsche speech referring to his question that is during his trial the trial against him because he was an element In his defense he says I have the car the ticket that they found was in the car the car is mine so it came out from the ticket During the trial against him it never came out but we don't know how it came out that he has this true magnat this thing so Eh but this is really a question of reliability And why someone must have advised him to shoot something a bit