by Prof. Nicola Picardi
Summary:
1) Reports of the Judicial Police and the authorized searches they conducted
2) Prosecution of the formal interrogations
3) Plurality of potential crimes and how it was decided to deal with them in the preliminary investigation
4) The facts regarding the crime of aggravated theft presented against Paolo Gabriele
5) Articles 46 and 47 of the (Vatican) Penal Code and the accusability of Paolo Gabriele
6) Expert (psychiatric) testimony presented by Prof. Roberto Tatarelli and a second expert, Prof. Tonini Cantelmi
7) Gabriele's responsibility
8) The facts constituting the charge against Claudio Sciarpelletti and his responsibility
9) The prosecutor's request
1) Reports of the Judicial Police and the authorized searches they conducted
In a report presented to this office on February 3, 2012, the director of Vatican Services for Security and Civilian Protection referred to the undersigned prosecutor news disseminated in Italy, on the TV channel La7, in its TV program 'The Untouchables' and other news reports that had appeared in the Italian press on the publication of confidential correspondence related to the case(...), as well as other acts(...)
Since it had to do with serious crimes, the Director presented "a denunciation against unknown persons for the commission of crimes against the State and the authorities of the State, of calumny, and of defamation".
This office immediately began investigations which were not easy, even with the help of the Judicial Police.
Subsequently, the Supreme Pontiff decided to name a Cardinals' Commission with the task of undertaking administratively "an authoritative investigation on the leakage of information and the divulgation of documents covered by official secrecy".
On May 20, 2012, the book by the journalist Gianluigi Nuzzi entitled Sua Santita: Le carte segrete di Benedetto XVI came out in Italy. On May 23, this officer received another report from the Director of Security Services raising suspicions about Mr. Paolo Gabriele, valet to His Holiness, as the person responsible for the aggravated theft of confidential documents which were provided to Nuzzi.
At the same time, the Director requested the prosecutor for authorization to conduct a search of Gabriele's person, home and office. The undersigned authorized the Judicial Police to conduct the said search and confiscation, as well as the forensic analysis of any digital, photographic and cine-photographic apparatus and of the cellular and fixed telephones belonging to Mr. Gabriele.
With a supplementary report on May 24, the Director noted that Page 132 of Nuzzi's book contained a document that could only have been divulged by (...) and requested authorization to search the person and the surroundings used by said person. The undersigned granted the authorization.
In his May 24 report, the Director of Security Services also informed this office that the search carried out on Gabriele yielded an enormous quantity of documents, some of which - being the property of and of strict interest only to the Holy See and Vatican City State - had been published in Nuzzi's book.
With the authorization of this office, Mr. Gabriele was arrested, an arrest immediately validated by the undersigned, who also authorized the Judicial Police to undertake a preliminary review of all sequestered documents.
In a report on May 25, the Director of Security Services made known that a Mr. Claudio Sciarpelletti has continued to be in contact with Gabriele, and again with the undersigned's authorization, the police carried out on the same day another search within the Secretariat of State, particularly the office used by Sciarpelletti.
This search also proved fruitful, with the confiscation of more documents relevant to the case. Therefore, on suspicion of false testimony, real complicity in the crime of aggravated theft of official confidential documents, and violation of secrets, Sciarpelletti was arrested.
On May 26, the undersigned, having interrogated the accused, granted him provisional freedom, while linking this proceeding to the case against Paolo Gabriele.
2) Prosecution of the formal interrogations
Inasmuch as at this point, serious crimes were already configured within the competence of this tribunal, with two men placed under arrest, the undersigned, on May 24, had requested the opening of a formal preliminary investigation according to Art. 187 ff of the Penal Code.
Further investigations therefore took place under the direction of the investigating judge and in the presence of the undersigned prosecutor functioning as a public minister.
3) Plurality of potential crimes and how it was decided
not to deal with them in this preliminary investigation
The Judicial Police, with the actions mentioned above, also filed with this office a series of other crimes [possibly committed]: crimes against the State Art 104 ff), crimes against the authorities of the State (Art 117 ff); public insult against institutions of the State (Art 126); calumny (Art 212); defamation (Art 333); aggravated theft (Art. 402, 403, 404); concurrence of more than one person in committing crime (Art 63); aiding and abetting (Art 225); and violating secrecy (Art 159). [All articles cited are from the Vatican's Penal Code.]
Thus, the preliminary investigation presented itself as a complex and most laborious task which was likely to take a very long time.
It was therefore felt necessary to establish an order in dealing with the various charges, and the Investigating Judge, agreeing with the undersigned, decided to give precedence to the crime of aggravated theft if only because there were already two persons detained for such a charge.
In view of the facts defined by law to constitute the crime, having carried out the necessary searches, heard witnesses, interrogated the accused persons, performed all necessary assessments, the undersigned maintains that, in the economy of justice, the formal preliminary investigation can now be closed, limited to the crime of aggravated theft with respect to the accused Paolo Gabriele and Claudio Sciarpelletti, while obviously, the investigations remains open for the other facts that may constitute other potential crimes by them and/or by others.
Therefore, the prosecutor hereby requests the partial closure of the preliminary investigation.
4) The facts regarding the charge of aggravated theft presented against Paolo Gabriele
On May 20, the aforementioned book by Gianluigi Nuzzi was published in Italy. The following day, there was a meeting of the members of the 'pontifical family', about which the Holy Father was informed earlier. Present were Mons. Georg Gänswein, private secretary of His Holiness; Mons. Alfred Xuereb, Honorary Prelate to His Holiness; Sr. Birgit Wansing, the four Memores Domini, and Paolo Gabriele.
Mons. Georg Gänswein, after having noted that Nuzzi's book contained documents that were strictly confidential* [As reported in news items at the time, documents that would never have left the Pope's desk as they were personal and not official, e.g., a bank deposit slip of royalties from his books], asked if any of those present had passed any documents to Nuzzi (testimony of M, one of the Memores).
In the face of negative responses from everyone, Mons. Gaenswein then confronted Gabriele, saying tTwo of the letters published in Nuzzi's book passed through Gabriele's hands because he, Gaenswein, had asked Gabriele to prepare replies, and that the original letters had never left the office.
Mons. Gaenswein continued: "I also mentioned to him a note by Fr. Lombardi about the (...) case, a note which certainly never left the office, either. Having said this to him in front of the others, I said that although those facts did not constitute proof, they did create a strong suspicion about him. In response, I received a decisive and absolute denial [from Gabriele]" (GG testimony).
Testimony from O added that "He (Gabriele) did not just deny any responsibility firmly and decisively, but also asked, with seemingly great wonder, how such suspicions could have arisen in the mind of Mons. Gaenswein". This testimony was confirmed by M, and by another Memores, N.
After his arrest on May 24, 2012, Gabriele, assisted by his trusted attorneys, Carlo Fusco and Cristiana Arru, was interrogated for the first time by the investigating judge. Although he declared that he had "decided to give my collaboration with a view to uncovering the truth", he nonetheless availed himself of the right not to answer some of the specific questions made by the judge, who confirmed his state of detention for the crime of aggravated theft.
Questioned a second time on June 5 and 6, Gabriele answered the questions he had earlier refused to answer. Specifically, with respect to the documents 'owned' by the Holy See which were found in his residence, he said that he had "duplicated the documents by making photocopies in the office [the Pope's study itself] and taking the copies home. At a later time, when the situation seemed to have degenerated, I arranged to copy them digitally and print them out through the computer... I did not take out any original document because otherwise, the absence would have been noted".
The accused added: "Even if the possession of such documents was an illegal thing, I considered it my duty to get them for a variety of reasons.... Beyond personal interests, among which is an interest in 'intelligence', I believed that the Supreme Pontiff was not being correctly informed... Seeing evil and corruption everywhere in the Church, I was sure that a shock, even one from the media, would be healthy in order to get the Church back on the right track. In some way, I thought that in the Church, this was the role of the Holy Spirit, with whom I felt I was infiltrated."
As to the subsequent dissemination of the aforesaid documents, the accused declared: "I chose the person of Nuzzi as interlocutor over others [journalists] because of the impression that his book Vaticano s.p.a. had made on me. Nuzzi in turn trusted me because he saw me as someone concerned with giving information without slinging mud or calumniating other persons". [Of course, betrayal of the Pope's personal trust and Gabriele's own oath of office are even more objectionable, but Nuzzi was obviously not concerned with any moral distinctions at all.]
Gabriele then described the ways in which he tracked down Nuzzi and his meetings with him - all on Italian territory - between November 2011 and January 2012, "at first every week, and then every two weeks...Subsequently, our relationship dwindled in intensity".
The accused declared that he turned over documents to Nuzzi several times but "never received any money or other benefits" for doing so. He added that Nuzzi also told him that "it is not usual [for newsmen] to get documentation by paying for it".
Nuzzi also did a pre-taped TV interview with him "with all the necessary precautions so that I would not be recognized", but the interview was only broadcast in part.
Gabriele also said that "I made copies of the documents I turned over to Nuzzi and gave them to my spiritual father B... and that therefore, the papers given to Nuzzi and those to the priest were identical, except for random differences".
He said that "The papers found in my house [and confiscated during the search] were substantially disordered leftovers from the chaos of documents that I had with me."
On June 28, B was summoned as a witness and confirmed that he had received from Gabriele, between February-March 2012, a number of documents contained in a box that bore the papal seal, but whose contents he did not know. In entrusting the documents to him, Gabriele made no conditions, but only said they were very important documents that had to do with the Holy See.
B said he kept the documents for several days and then decided to burn them - "above all, because I knew that they were the fruit of illegitimate and dishonest activity, and I was afraid that they could just as well be used for further illegitimate and dishonest activity".
In the last interrogation of Gabriele on July 21, the investigating judge called attention to the fact that some documents in Nuzzi's book were not among those found in Gabriele's house. The judge asked him if he had provided those documents as well. Specifically, the judge cited the documents reproduced on pages 286, 288, 296, 304-305 and 310 of Nuzzi's book, and document 293 on the question of ICI (the controversial tax that the Italian government is seeking to impose on Church properties).
The accused claimed that he had provided Nuzzi with each of those documents. This appeared to confirm what he said during his second interrogation on June 5 that the documents found in his house were no better than 'disordered leftovers'.
The investigating judge also confronted Gabriele with three objects found during the search of his home which which do not belong to him:
1) A bank check for 100,000 euro made out to Pope Benedict XVI dated March 26, 2012, by the Universidad Catolica San Antonio di Guadalupe[
2) A metal nugget, presumably gold, addressed to His Holiness by Guido del Castillo, director of ARU (???) in Lima;
3) A 16th-century Italian edition of Virgil's Aeneid, translated to Italian by Annibal Caro and printed in Venice in 1581, a gift to His Holiness from the families of Pomezia.
The judge asked Gabriele whether he was entrusted with taking gifts to the Holy Father for storage. The accused said, "Yes. I was entrusted with bringing such gifts to the storeroom. Some of these gifts were used as raffle prizes in benefit events held by the Vatican Gendarmerie, the Swiss Guard, and others. Let me explain why a person who was a 'messenger' for such valuables would not, for example, have cashed a check donated by some sisters, as Mons. Alfred Xuereb knows I had in my hands. Mons. Gaenswein at times made me a gift of some of the items sent to the Holy Father, especially books since he knows I have a particular passion for them. As for the antique copy of the Aeneid, I recall that since my son had started to study the epic in class, I asked Mons. Gaenswein if I could show the book to my son's professor. He said yes, and the book was in my house waiting to be returned". [Except that Gaenswein, according to a news report, claimed he was not even aware that the check, the gold nugget and the book had been received at all! As busy as GG is with a thousand and one concerns during the day, he cannot possibly forget receiving a 100,000-euro check, a gold nugget and a 16th century book! And if you knew any of these unusual items were received, would you not at least wonder whatever happened to a 100,000-euro check that is not reflected in bank statements weeks after it arrived?]
5) Articles 46 and 47 of the Vatican penal code and
the problem of Paolo Gabriele's accusability
Preliminarily, at this point, the problem was Gabriele's accusability. It is well-known that to charge someone, in penal law, means attributing the violation of the law to a specific individual -someone who is, or is presumed to be, capable of being penalized.
A juridical association is an act of authority whereby the judge attributes the violation of a penal precept to a specific person, thus triggering exercise of jurisdiction in order to ascertain the truth with respect to the case, its circumstances and the chain of causality, in order to decide whether there is a basis for the State to exercise its punitive power.
Art. 46 of the Penal Code provides, in this respect, that "a person is not punishable if, at the time he commits the crime, he was in a state of mental infirmity that robs him of his conscience [discernment between good and bad] and real freedom for his own acts".
Nonetheless, the law continues, whenever the judge, "considers it dangerous to set an accused person free,... he must turn him over to the competent authority who will deal with him as the law provides".
Moreover, this has to do, as well, with an outstanding principle. In the Pontifical State, the 1832 regulation on crimes and penalties by Pope Gregory XVI established, in Art. 26, that "commissions and omissions contrary to the law are not to be considered crimes if they are the result of a state of occasional insanity or committed during a period of mind alienation or of continued madness".
Before that, Art. 64 of the Napoleonic penal code of 1810 stated: "There is no crime or offense when the accused was in a state of insanity when he committed the act, or he was seized by a force that he could not resist".
The formulation used in the current penal code is preferable to these precedents, in the first place because the reference to mental infirmity and to the consciousness of the accused about his acts and his very freedom to act, allows a more complete evaluation of accusability, or as it is often said, an assessment on two levels: one is empirical and linked to the idea of mental infirmity; the other, a more properly normative criterion linked to the accused's consciousness about his actions and his freedom to act.
Linking the idea of the consciousness of action and the freedom to act to mental infirmity also leads us to consider psychic disturbances or simple passions without clinical relevance = even if they could somehow affect one's freedom of action - as not sufficient to exclude accusability as long as they are not found in a definitive state of illness.
The accusability of a person, as understood in the present concept, is substantially the state that he is in, as Art. 46 says, "at the time he commits the offense" because that is the time he must be held responsible for.
The principles established by Art. 46 of our penal code find substantial correspondence with the great models of penal legislation in the 20th century. For example, Section 51 of the German penal code, requires, as a prerequisite to accusability, a state of consciousness and of psychic sanity that allows free exercise of one's will, and Art. 81 of the current Italian penal code provides that a person is accusable of a crime if he has the capacity to intend to carry out a criminal act and to want to do it.
It is well known that with these criteria, there developed between the 19th and 20th centuries, an impressive theoretical elaboration that transformed accusability to one of the most arduous and debated problems of penal law, becuase it is closely linked to the question of the nature and function of punishment itself.
In the judgment of this office, beyond the various schools of thought, the solution to the problem of accusability cannot be considered separately from the peculiar character of various systems.
In the Vatican system, the basis must be sought in Article 1 of Law XXI dated Oct. 1, 2008, on the sources of law, in which "the Vatican juridical system recognizes in canon law its first normative source in canon law as well as the first criterion for normative reference".
In turn, canon 1322 of the Code of Canon Law establishes that «qui habitualiter rationis usu carent, etsi legem vel praeceptum violaverint dum sani videbantur, delicti incapaces habentur» - Those who habitually lack the use of reason, even though they appeared sane when they violated a law or precept, are deemed incapable of committing an offense.
Even if they had violated the law during a lucid interval, they must always be considered not accusable, and not simply presumed to be not accusable. Moreover, it is also an outstanding principle of canon law to link any penalty with the ethical objective of rehabilitating the culpable.
In substance, in a radical situation where there is a lack of reason, it cannot be a human action, because there is no freedom of intention and of will, which is to be understood as the capacity for self-determination.
The concept of free will - which has come to be identified with will as intention, since according to St. Thomas, "willing and choosing have the same power" - is the first prerequisite for accusability. "Tunc actus imputatur agenti, quando est in potestate ipsius, ita quod habeat dominium sui actus", St Thomas continues. An act can be imputed to the agent whenever it is in his power to have dominion over his actions.
Therefore, even lucid intervals in a mentally infirm person would only be momentary attenuations of his metnal illness, and as such, cannot be the basis for accusability.
It follows that the Vatican juridical system principally follows the classic theory which was sovereign for so long and still has numerous authoritative advocates, under which the basis of accusability is the freedom to act, free will.
... A penalty, insofar as it is punishment, presupposes that the man being punished was fully conscious of his act and was free to choose to do it. In other words, it presupposes that he consciously chose to do something bad, although he had the possibility to choose to do good, preferring vice over virtue.
This freedom to choose (or to elect) is defective in persons who do not have enough intellectual development or are affected by serious psychic abnormalities: they are not truly free, and therefore, they cannot be punished.
Thus, penal responsibility finds its basis first of all in the moral valuation of the act, and more precisely, in the consciousness and freedom to commit something wrong. When freedom, without being actually restricted, is considerably limited (as in those who are mentally half-infirm, some categories of minors, drunks, etc), then the penalty should be equitably reduced.
On the basis of the above considerations, and especially the fact that the mentally infirm cannot be punished becuase they cannot be accused of the crimes they commit, one cannot, however, exclude the possibility that setting them free could represent a danger for the community and themselves.
That is why Art. 46 of the penal code obliges the magistrate to evaluate even the risks posed by the offender in order to establish the right balance in the relationship between him and the community, thus defending society from eventual possible harm.
It is within this normative framework that the investigation of accusability followed a triple direction. First of all, to ascertain whether Gabriele was mentally ill, and whether he had consciousness of and freedom for his acts, both at the time he committed them and subsequently; or whether his state of mind was such as to "greatly diminish his accusability".
In the second place, the investigation had to evaluate whether he could be considered a danger to society.
And finally, to establish whether he is suggestible and capable of criminal initiatives directed externally.
NB: Because Section 6 of the Prosecutor's summation reports the outcome of the procedures taken to make sure that Gabriele was competent to be accused (and thereefore stand trial) under existing Vatican penal provisions, I am adding it here instead of starting Part 2 of this summation with it.
6) Expert psychiatric testimony presented by Prof. Roberto Tatarelli
and a second expert, Prof. Tonini Cantelmi
At the Council Chamber on June 6, 2012, after an interrogation of the accused, Paolo Gabriele, the prosecutor requested. in accordance with Art. 208, 211 and 213 of the Penal Code, that the investigating judge order a psychological and psychiatric expert examination of the accused. His lawyers joined in the request made by the undersigned in order to ask, in turn, authorization to propose their own expert.
On June 9, the investigating judge named as the official expert Prof. Roberto Tatarelli of La Sapineza University in Rome, assisted by Dr. Paolo Roma, a clinical psychologist. The second expert named, acting for the accused, was Prof. Tonino Cantelmi, of the Pontifical Gregorian University, assisted by Dr. Martina Aiello, psychologist and physiotherapist.
The experts were asked to determine the following:
a) Whether Paolo Gabriele,in the period 2011-2012, and at present, was and is in a state of mind that would have deprived him of consciousness of his actions and his freedom to act accordingly.
b) Whether Gabriele at present can be considered a danger to society ['socially dangerous' is the literal translation from teh Italian, but 'danger to society' is the English idiom].
c) Whether Gabriele is a suggestible subject and capable of criminal thinking by himself and/or directed by others.
The experts' examination took place in three clinical conversations. After the third, they also proceeded to administer various mental/psychological tests, carried out by Dr. Roma who described the testing protocols she used as well as her psycho-diagnostic analysis in an appendix to the report of Prof. Tatarelli.
Prof. Tatarelli, on the basis of the careful proceedings executed, concluded that the accused "does not show significant clinical disturbances in the area of attention, memory and intelligence. He adds that psychological analysis did not show any signs and symptoms "which could indicate any major psychiatric syndrome".
In particular, Dr. Roma's psychodiagnostic analysis based on the formal tests she carried out, says that "Mr. Gabriele is characterized by a simple mind in a fragile personality with paranoid tendencies, to cover up profound personal insecuirty and an unfulfilled need to bask in the consideration and affection of others. Alongside elements of suspiciousness about others, he also shows obsessive traits in his thinking and actions (meticulousness, perseverance), a feeling of guilt, a sense of grandiosity linked to a desire to act according to his personal idela of justice. The need to receive affection can expose the subject to manipulation by others whom he considers his allies and friends".
On the basis of the overall expert proceedings conducted, Prof. Tatarelli thus came to the conclusion that Gabriele is characterized by "markedly dystonic personality elements. These elements are not easily observed through routine psychological observation, but they emerge with ample evidence in prolonged, free conversation, and his responses; and even more effectively, in the results of the psychological tests. In this sense, it can be said that the subject is afflicted with paranoid thinking based on a sense of being persecuted, which for a long time was compensated by the lifestyle he came to have". [Perhaps that explains why he started stealing documents only two years ago, after four years of having been the one man serving the Pope's most intimate personal needs. You cna't have a more singular job than that!]
Gabriele's personality is "also characterized by a profound need to receive attention and affection" which drives him "to seek to fulfill the needs of those who are welcoming ad friendly to him, and who are ready to show him confidence and esteem. In this case, Gabriele can be subject to manipulation by those who show him those attitudes".
"This personality condition is further accentuated and reinforced by the cognitive simplicity found in the subject, which is confirmed by the results of the psychological testing".
Consequently, Prof. Tatarelli responded to the 3 questions he was asked to answer, as follows:
a) The personality condition found in the subject does not present any mental disturbance that would abolish his consciousness of his actiona and his freedom of action.
b) Because of the pervasiveness of his personality condition, the subject is to be considered a continuing danger to society even if only in the specific area of the crimes attributed to him.
c) In view of his personality category, the subject is considered suggestible and therefore able to commit acts which can be harmful to himself and/or to others.
The second expert, Prof. Cantelmi, maintains that the cognitive elements elicited by the clinico-textual investigation "delineate a personality type that is afflicted by an incomplete and unstable identity, suggestibility, sentiments of grandiosity, a distorted moral rigor based on his own personal idea of justice, as well as a pervasive need to be appreciated and esteemed".
"Such personality aspects," he continues, "have made the subject highly inadequate to fulfill the work functions assigned to him, insofar as in the course of doing his work, he manifests an inability to understand the nature of his responsibility, and therefore started to develop feelings of grandiosity and disorganized thinking". This, ays Prof. Cantelmi, has effectively abolished Gabriele's consciousness of his actions and his freedom to act.
Thus, Prof. Cantelmi's responses to the three questions posed by the investigating judge were:
a) The deformation of Gabriele's thinking processes has abolished consciousness of his actions and his freedom to act.
b) Results of the expert testing done on Gabriele did not elicit any signs or symptoms to indicate he would be a danger to society.
c) The subject, although he appeared to be suggestible in some specific circumstances, did not manifest signs, symptoms and behaviors that would make him a danger to society and therefore able to commit acts that would tend to harm himself or others.
This Office, therefore, proceeded to examine the two opposing conclusions by the experts in the light of norms laid down in the now oft-cited Art. 46 of the penal code.
As to the 'state of mental informity', it must be observed first of all that the second expert, in his anamnestic analysis [based on answers given to specific questions by the doctor], cites other interesting elements deriving from Gabriele's personal story - elements which seem to represent not specifically pathogenic life experiences, and therefore, not relevant in terms of assessing 'mental infirmity'.
It follows that, on this point, we must accept the conclusion of the official expert in terms of characterizing the psychpathological profile of the subject, according to which Gabriele presents 'markedly sytonic personality elements' being afflicted by paranoid thinking 'based on a sense of being persecuted', as well as the conclusion that he does not "reveal clinically significant disturbances that could indicate any major psychiatric syndrome".
Nor can we share the arument of Prof. Cantelmi about the subjec'ts "high inadequacy' to 'carry out the tasks assigned to him'. This is contradicted, first of all, by reports from his work dossier, which contains authoritative evaluations of "meritorious service', along with 'fervent wishes that he may continue in his discreet and responsible service'.
In the second place, testimony given on July 18, 2012, by other members of the 'pontifical family' also contradicts Prof. Cantelmi's conclusion. Witness O. said "He carried out his work, trying to do it the best way possible". And N. said, "I saw him every day at Mass and during meals. I found him totally normal, a father and head of a family".
As to whether he was conscious of his actions and was free to act - traits which could be abolished or greatly reduced - Prof. Cantelmi says the deformation of Gabriele's thinking processes had abolished those completely. But neither can this conclusion be shared by the undersigned.
Gabriele was fully conscious of his actions and deliberately chose to carry out a criminal act, ss he himself said in his statements during his second intgerrogation on June 8 regarding his removal and subsequent transmission to others of confidential documents belonging to the Holy See.
He said: "Even if the possession of such documents is an illegal thing (i.e., he was fully conscious of the social demerit of his action]), I considered it my duty to do what I did [i.e., he freely chose to carry out the criminal act], driven by various reasons".
One must add that recently, Gabriele asked forgiveness from the Holy Father, thus reiterating implicitly his consciousness of his criminal action and his will to carry it out.
Nor can one say that the 'deformation of thinking process' cited by the second expert could pave the way for a reduction of penalty under Art. 47, because this norm requires that the offender's state of mind should be such as to 'greatly reduce his accusability', when in this case, as we have seen, his paranoid thinking does not constitute a major psuschiatric syndrome, nor can it be seen how 'the deformation of thinking processes' could determine a 'great reduction in accusability'.
Even on this point, the Office of the Promoter of Justice can only subscribe to the conclusions of Prof. Taratelli, while completing it in the sense that the personality condition of the subject does not constitute a mental disturbance sufficient to abolish or greatly reduce the subject's consciousness of his actions and his freedom to act.
Prof. Cantelmi also maintains that the expert determinations failed to elicit in Gabriele signs and symptoms that would make him a danger to society.
This preliminary investigation has shown instead that Gabriele considered himself - and continues to consider himself - a kind of agent of Providence who had been entrusted, in a place where the highest level of decsisions were made, the role of being 'infiltrated' by the Holy Spirit "in order to put the Church back on the right track", as he said during the interrogation on June 5.
He appears to be strongly critical of some events and some personalities whom he consdiers to be responsible for deceptions and tyranny. Because of the pervasiveness of Gabriele's psychological condition, the possibility remains, therefore, that he continues to be dangerous, namely, that the accused conld commit new crimes.
It is known that such risk "can be generic, in the sense that it could be for any form of crime, or specific, in the sense that the subject has shown delinquency that has so far been limited to a particular crime". But the risk can also be "of an absolute specificity, in the sense that his criminal activity can develop under criminogenic stimuli of any kind but only in certain places and times" (cfr. DI TULLIO, Principi di criminologia clinica, Roma 1954, p. 399).
Prof. Tatarelli maintains that we face a form of specific risk, because he considers Gabriele a continuing danger "even if only in the specific area of the crimes attributed to him". This Office shares this prognostic judgment, but adds that he also presents a relative risk, linked to places where decisions of generla importance are evaluated and made.
Finally, Prof. Cantelmi maintains that Gabriele, alhough he appeared suggestible under spcific circumstances, did not manifest signs, symptoms or behaviors that make him a danger to society and abled to commit actions tending to harm himself or others.
This Office would point out that the link between suggestibility and dangerousness is unidrectional. It is true that being suggestible, Gabriele could be induced by others to carry out socially dangerous acts. But the converse is not true: A dangerous accused man is not always suggestible.
In this case, as we have seen, there already existed unequivocal elements which lead us to consider Gabriele, on his own, to be characterized by specific and relative dangerousness to society. One must add to this his suggestibility (as admitted by the expert who acted in his behalf), and therefore, there is the possibility of other forms of dangerousness when induced by others.
The truth is that, independent of the danger he poses to society, Gabriela, by his very personality organization, has, in the words of Prof. Taratelli, "a profound need to receive attention and affection from others", and is therefore open - as the psychological testing showed - to "eventual manipulation by those he considers to be his friends and allies".
Consequently, in the opinion of this Office, Gabriele must be considered a suggestible subject and as such, able to commit even externally directed actions that could harm himself or others.