Did not Mignini say he thought it was interesting that Spezi knew both Mario Vanni and the pharmacist Francesco Calamandrei, who Mignini also accused of being the 'monster of florence'? (do I need to look that up, I'm sure I've seen it?).
And did not Mignini argue at Spezi's hearing the day he was released, in April of 2006, that Spezi was too dangerous to let go free, because he had managed to organize an international PR campaign all in his favor - and managed to do this from his prison cell?
Specifically, what evidence did Mignini believe Spezi was trying to plant, to incriminate Antonio Vinci? There must have been something specific, no? Because how could 'nothing specific' be seen as incriminating to Vinci, or to anyone else? How could Spezi "sidetrack" an investigation if its not done in some specific way?
And by the way, Spezi has never been convicted of side-tracking an investigation, has he? Isn't that among the charges that were set aside at some point?
In what way did Carlizzi's theory differ from Mignini's? Aren't they both theorizing that a 'satanic masonic sect' is responsible for the Monster of Florence crimes?
And wasn't Carlizzi convicted for defamation 10 years earlier for accusing another writer of being the 'monster of florence''?
Wasn't the self-proclaimed psychic medium Carlizzi repeatedly interviewed on Italian TV as an expert of some kind on satanic sects?
An overall observation, first:
The series of questions above suggest you are departing from some relevant points, those which you should consider if you wish to have a rational approach.
The facts that you should consider of most importance in a rational view, are: the fact that Mignini arrested Carlizzi, that he requested she underwent a psychiatric assessment, and that he publicly declared that she was a mythomaniac who talked while “knowing nothing” and she had no clue about the case.
Mignini had this public position and he arrested her; this is a fact, and it’s worth to have its implication drawn from a reasonable point of view.
For example: do you think Mignini believed Carlizzi? It doesn’t make much sense to assume, at the same time: a) that the Narducci investigation was based on Carlizzi’s testimony; b) that Mignini disbelieved Carlizzi, since he publicly discredited Carlizzi and arrested her; and c) that he went on with an investigation allegedly based on Carlizzi’s testimony even after he arrested and discredited Carlizzi.
This theory makes little sense. If you want to make sense something about it, the theory will become extremely complicated.
Also, some other facts that are worth consider on the part of a rational observer, are that Carlizzi’s theory was fundamentally different from the Prosecution’s theory, in that the Prosecution was drawing a scenario around Narducci, where Narducci was implicated as a criminal, whereas Carlizzi has drawn a scenario where Narducci was only a victim and it was Spezi who – in Carlizzi’s mind – became the person of greatest suspicion of being the “Monster of Florence”. In fact, Carlizzi pushed a conspiracy theory which she shared with lawyer and author Franceschetti, that is the “Monster” was a group headed by Florentine Prosecutor Nannucci and included Mario Spezi, while Francesco Narducci was an innocent young guy who was eliminated by his father and by Calamandrei because he was a good guy who wanted to leave the “sect”.
Mignini’s theory was very different; but in fact it was not Mignini’s theory, it was the theory of the Florence Prosecution Office, who was acting also based on the findings by the Florence Appeals Court. Presecutor Vigna and his deputy Canessa begun to investigate on Calamandrei and Narducci. When Mignini opened his investigation about Narducci’s death he only considered that a cold case to investigate the causes of death, on request of Narducci’s wife Francesca Spagnoli.
Mignini didn’t know anything about ties between Narducci and the MoF. It was the Florence prosecution office who advised him, they told him they had a secret investigation on Calamandrei and Narducci that was ongoing, and they suggested Perugia should connect it with the MoF file. So Mignini did, and he accepted the Florence “sect” theory as investigation scenario.
Indeed Mignini found huge amount of evidence connecting Narducci’s death to the MoF case. And he also found evidence that the body found in the lake was not Narducci.
The evidence he found about Narducci was so relevant that in fact even Judge Micheli – who attempted to dismiss the charges – wrote in his motivations that narducci was most likely involved with the Florentine criminal group.
Then, let’s point out, as response to your questions:
1. Mignini did not accuse Calamandrei. On the contrary, he requested the preliminary judge to drop charges against him due to insufficient evidence.
2. Mignini argued that Spezi was too dangerous to be released, based on
a series of reasons. It is not true that Spezi managed to organize a PR campaign from inside his cell. In fact he organized several things, not just PR campaigns, but from the outside.
3. The specific object Spezi planted against Vinci – not just that he
tried, but that he actually successfully presented as evidence – was a written testimony, which was physically presented to the police by ex-officer Zaccaria, but was written by Spezi himself (a hand written copy was found at his home), and it was Spezi who brought Zacaria at the police office in his car, waiting outside while Zaccaria presented his false testimony.
It is not the only thing Spezi did. There is also what he attempted to do: he together with Zaccaria, and thanks to a previous logistic help from Ruocco, planned to place six boxes inside Villa Bibbiani. The boxes were reported of in the false report presented by Zaccaria, their location was accurately described thanks to Ruocco’s indication, but the boxes were not found. Spezi and Zaccaria were caught while they were still lurking around Villa Bibbiani as they were spotted by the personnel working at the estate, thus before they could physically place the evidence. The police inferred that one of the boxes might have contained 50 Winchester bullets .22 caliber, which Zaccaria officially possessed but were missing from his car where the weapons were stored, he didn’t have them at home and were never found.
4. Spezi has not been convicted for “side tracking” an investigation? Well, first, he has not been acquitted neither. The Perugia prosecution dropped the charge of calunnia in 2014, but only because it was time-barred (and Vinci did not take part as a civil party), while there is objective and obvious evidence that he did commit a calunnia. He was anyway ordered to pay legal expenses to the prosecution.
But on the other hand Spezi was convicted of calunnia by the Appeals Court in Milan, on another calunnia case, which he committed in the context of the Narducci investigation, so we can say he was in fact found guilty of side-tracking the Narducci investigation.
5. I explained the differences between Carlizzi’s theory and the Perugia Prosecution theory. Now, what I know about Carlizzi is that she had been convicted of fraud about 10 years before. She deceived some friends to stole money from them. She was a notorious fraud.
I can’t tell how many people she accused of being murderers or Satanists, but I can tell she did so on many notorious murders, including known political murders like the Pecorelli case (where the former prime minister Giulio Andreotti was actually tried for masterminding the murder in Perugia, and Giulia Bongiorno was working as his attorney). Carlizzi loved high profile cases, and on those cases she would side more or less against the same “enemies” (Giulia Bongiorno for example will always be in the “evil sect” group).
By the way, Carlizzi did not talk about a “satanic sect” but rather about a “secret society”, she was one of those theorists that talk about “Illuminati” conspiracies and she had this theory about the sect she called the “red rose” society.
