Chapter IV - Trial of the first instance

From 3 April 2001 until 18 June 2002, it was the beginning of the trial, which was overemphasized by the local press and TF3. in a crowded and hot courtroom. The worst nightmare began : on my left there was my family  and best friends, various plain-clothes policemen masked in the public, the "vidocq" alias Tiberti , the two accused , Sergio Casillo and Jeanine Iotta who were sitting near their lawyers , as they were not on detention, or more precisely,  Casillo obtained bail paying 1million Euro, and Mrs. Iotta was free !. An important aspect : anything were registered and stenography had not been used. Everything was handwritten, and it was not possible to read all trial steps , and take down notes. Judge J.C. Labouz  was the presiding judge and the prosecution  presiding  figure was S.P. Auter D.. Even from the start reading of the prosecution side, something  clashed , a general background was perceived . The judge appealed witnesses we had summoned : Notar P.L. Aureglia , Dr. F. Squarciafichi and lawyer R. Alberti ; invited to go out of the courtroom, they entered one by one to testify.  Il S.P. Auter D., in the style of Bernardo Guy of the Inquisition period, started to testify with a stream of infamous declarations with the purpose of "depicting" the person, everything agreed with judge Hullin’s score, like the worst criminal who was devoted to crime, in conformity with the French Ordonnace Criminelle in 1670. If he could have only the possibility "ad eruendam veritatem" the torture. Tucking up his gown’s sleeves ,getting excessively hot, he went coolly on with  "falsehood", and, even though denied through documentation and explanations, his behaviour remained accusatory. On the next day the newspaper Nice Matin declared that I fought with "tooth and nail" and that I took down notes about everything ! Suddenly I heard clamours which were coming from outside the courtroom. My wife had been arrested. She had been summoned by judge J.C. Hullin. The arrest appeared on television in that same day, of such action there were consequences for over 45 days . The purpose to strike me was obvious ! He had no reason to summon her on that day as she was always available . She spent the night in "garde a vu" and the following day the Examining Magistrate refused to meet her ; even the  Consul General Mario Piersigilli asked for the reason of such behaviour, but he never had an answer. Such violence demonstration is not worth mentioning. It was simply the confirmation of a police and judicial power. It’s curious to underline that witness who offers charges, can avoid giving evidence. So it was what  N. Curti did (who worked at the Credit Foncier in Monaco) even though she was disproved by J. Iotta , her superior. She absconded the hearing depriving confrontation. At lawyer Bertozzi ‘s exhaustive conclusion, who discussed each point through documentation, we didn’t get any answer : the ear-splitting silence of falsehood. At the conclusion D. Auter regretted not having the possibility to condemn me for recycling, as there was not any proof, and asked for a sentence of 5 years and for processual expenses . For those who knew the fact and did nothing, he asked for a lecture and for exculpation. This trial concluded on the same day, and it didn’t give grounds for suspicion of its conclusion . It must be underlined the were taken in consideration the processual handling to prove that it was doubtless pure fury "ad personam" In fact in the French criminal proceeding , the various reference letters of the accused party which showed very well his personality. It was not casual that I had  never been condemned , but everything was omitted to stimulate other charges. The sentence had been fixed on 9 July, after three weeks, 443 detention days, 464 days were necessary to know if right exists. On 9 July, in a crowded courtroom, over 10 plain-clothes policemen stood among people, and even though they were masked in the public, they were well recognizable. Judge J.C.  Labouz, pronounced the sentence, discharging the two bankers (confirming Judge Duchaine’s declarations ) condemning me to four years and paying a penalty of 25,000 Euro, without reading motivations ! Motivations would have been given later. After reading the verdict, we didn’t have any words for such  "power arrogance", starting from mistakes, to mystification of the truth of facts and documents . It was the confirmation of falsehood plans. A foregone conclusion ! They couldn’t recourse to « justice », but they must only refer to Hullin’s inquiry built according to falsehood and to Auter’s indictment based on defamation. Such verdict was a real juridical derision, and the confirmation that without any  proof, the facts  justified the detention of a person . Once again theorem was applied : « to imprison, to create proof, to pack a Judgement. It’s interesting to read all the mistakes, manipulations and plans which came out from such verdict. Everybody was fully satisfied, perplexed and disgusted for such a manifestation of power. The fight to obtain truth and justice would be go on in the following hours after presentation of a demand appeal.