Although the judgments of the chief justices do not have a merit value but a legitimacy value, the court of cassation seems to set one tombstone about the investigation of the accused threats in the media campaign in which the General Director of Ulss 7 Pedemontana del Veneto participated, Charles Bramezza. The Reasons the decision that confirmed what the review court He had decided a few months ago to lift the television publisher’s suspension John Jannacopulosleave only debris in the investigation, which has developed from threats against an officer to an unprecedented argument Journalistic stalking. Just a few days ago the deputy prosecutor Chiara Chimichi from Vicenza asked the referral to the process by engineer Jannacopulos, who believes the evidence gathered supports allegations at a preliminary hearing scheduled by the judge for October. The prosecutor signed the application and then awaited the disclosure of the reasons received from Rome.
As soon as he had the document in his hands, the editor had fun issuing a press release on the letterhead of Antenna Tre, Rete Veneta and Telenordest broadcasters, covering Veneto, Friuli-Venezia Giulia and Trentino. “No threats, no defamation or smear campaign: that’s what the cassation says,” writes Jannacopulos, who is assisted by the lawyer Maurice Paniz. “The character of is clearly reinforced in the device public interest of the services transmitted by Rete Veneta and Antenna Tre “on matters of strong societal interest, given the obvious impact of the Director General’s decisions on hospital management and on the right to protect the health of users of healthcare services”. The court then ruled that the same services were in no way defamation, much less a threat.”
Actually the judge Emilia Anna GiordanoReporter of the Sixth Penal Section, Chair: Pierluigi DiStefanowrites: “A confirmation of the provision of the contested review must be received (to the Public Prosecutor of the Republic of Vicenza, ed), who ruled out that the content of the meeting between Jannacopulos and Volpato (the secretary of Bramezza, ed) and the subsequent press campaign through the broadcast of critical reports on the work of the managing director of the healthcare company, albeit massive and marked by partisan aspectswhich, however, do not contain any judgments about the person and their characteristics are suitable for integrating this threat crime“.
Everything arose from the encounter of Jannacopulos with Marco Volpatowho was Chief of Staff to the President of the Veneto Region for eight years (from 2010 to 2018), Luca Zaia. Volpato gave up this post for personal reasons and began working at the Bassano health facility. In July 2021 he met the publisher. He then reported to the Guardia di Finanza that the publisher had announced a press campaign against Bramezza because the director general had not accepted some of his requests regarding the roles and activities of doctors at Bassano Hospital. In a word: it overshadows undue pressure from the older publisher from Bassano.
On this point too, Jannacopulos explains: “Even given one of the pillars moved by the allegation, namely the ‘private and confidential’ interview, it turns out that it was Bramezza’s secretary, Marco Volpato, who pushed Ing. Jannacopulos with the aim “a more forgiving press‘ after some critical services. The cassation is clear and confirms that “there were no identifiable direct or indirect threats”. In fact, the justifications read that “the reconstruction of the public prosecutor’s office takes place on appeal.” obviously unfounded“. The investigation also accuses Jannacopulos of the crime of stalking “because it happens repeatedly.” threatened and harassed Charles Bramezza”. The weapon used? About forty TV shows, but Bramezza did not host legal action for defamation. The investigation revealed numerous values listenincluding those with Governor Zaia, with the Vice President of the Regional Council Nicholas Finco and with Giacomo Possamai, former leader of the Democrats in the region and now mayor of Vicenza. Attorney Paniz’s comment: “The motives are impeccable. The cassation evaluated the facts and determined that there are no profiles with threats or defamation in any service.