It’s likely that you are by now familiar with the names of Massimiliano Latorre and Salvatore Girone. The two Italian marines, who are now under house arrest at the Italian embassy in New Delhi, had been at the centre of a high-stakes diplomatic fracas between India and Italy. Arrested for the killing of two fishermen off the coast of Kerala, they had earned a month-long privileged sortie to go and vote in their country’s general elections on the undertaking of their ambassador Daniele Mancini. The Italian government, however, reneged on that promise, initially refusing to send them back. They did so only after the stern response of both the Indian government and the apex court.
You are less likely to know of Tomaso Bruno and Elisabetta Boncompagni—two other Italians languishing in the Varanasi district jail since February 2010. Unlike the marines who went to Italy to vote, they had to contend themselves with postal ballots delivered to them by a diplomat from the embassy. Far from the attention the marines have garnered, Tomaso and Elisabetta’s case has attracted no media glare.
The two backpackers had been sentenced to life imprisonment by a trial court in Varanasi in July 2011 for their alleged role in the murder of fellow Italian and co-traveller Franceso Montis. While the Allahabad High Court had in September last year dismissed the appeal their parents had filed against the decision, the Supreme Court has now accepted their plea to have this order reviewed. It will be heard in early September.
They were convicted based on circumstantial evidence and their failure to prove that they had been away from the hotel room in the early morning hours of the day Francesco died, presumably where and when he was attacked. Witness testimony from a hotel waiter even suggested that Elisabetta and Tomaso had developed a mutual liking and they were seen “hugging, kissing and cuddling” the evening before at the hotel restaurant “while the third tourist (Francesco, who Elisabetta was originally in a relationship with) looked subdued”.
However, the two tourists and their parents deny that Elisabetta and Tomaso conspired to kill Francesco. According to them, they had stepped out at 4 am on that day to watch the sun rise over the Ganga and returned at 8 am. They had left Francesco sleeping in the room, as he was not feeling well, and locked it from outside. On their return, they found him unconscious and Elisabetta called the hotel reception for help. The two took Francesco to a local hospital along with some staff. Francesco, the two claim, died on the way to the hospital.
Tomaso and Elisabetta
“The two had their passports with them,” says Tomaso’s mother Marina Maurizio. “They could have fled if they had killed him. Why would they take him to hospital instead?” A real estate broker in Albenga, Marina is in the city with her husband Luigi Bruno, an insurance agent, and Elisabetta’s father Romano Boncompagni, a retired army personnel from Turin. And she is the only one among the three to speak English.
A missing piece in the story is the hotel’s CCTV footage, something the investigating officers found to be “useless”. The hotel manager, based on his viewing of the CCTV monitor that night, testified that he saw nobody enter their room during those hours. The footage was not produced in court as evidence during the trial. The lawyers of Tomaso and Elisabetta did not make any request for the CCTV footage to be produced in court, but claim it may contain proof of their innocence. Gopal Chaturvedi, the defence lawyer for their appeal at the Allahabad High Court, told Outlook that the “best evidence (the CCTV footage) had been deliberately withheld by the prosecution”. However, Anil Kumar Singh, the public prosecutor at the trial court, says, “They preferred to keep silent and it was poisonous for them.”
The parents maintain that Francesco died of natural causes, something they say was a likely result of his heavy smoking and prior illness on the trip. They even question the two post-mortems—the first because it was done by an “eye specialist” and the second for being an “exact photocopy” of the first. “It doesn’t even make a mention of the rat bites that were caused while the body was kept at the hospital,” says Marina. But what about the external injuries around Francesco’s neck that were reported in the post-mortem? The defendants have claimed that they were inflicted while transporting his heavy body to the hospital.
Francesco’s parents, who live in Sardinia, have on the other hand never come to India. “They have refused to press any charges,” says Marina. “In fact, they are concerned for the two.” Negotiating their way through India’s judiciary and police, that too in a language they do not speak (Hindi), has proved to be a challenge. But this hasn’t necessarily soured their impression of India. “It could have happened in any other country,” says Marina.
The parents had also met Italian foreign minister Giulio Terzi in January, who promised to follow the case with “personal interest”. (He resigned following the furore on the Italian marines issue). They have also been tracking the marines’ case closely, fearful of any adverse repercussions that could have arisen had they stayed back in Italy.
Even if the Supreme Court upholds the trial court’s verdict, their parents hope the two can serve out their remaining sentence in their country. This would be under a new prisoner exchange agreement between India and Italy, one that became operational in December last year. For now, it’s a thought they’d rather put aside. “We have full faith in India’s Supreme Court,” says Marina.
By Debarshi Dasgupta in Varanasi
Apropos The Other Italians (Apr 8), let’s hope the Italian backpackers arrested for murder in Varanasi jail fare well when the SC hears their appeal in September. It’s still bewildering, though, why the prosecution would be reluctant to admit CCTV footage as evidence in the court. Wouldn’t it only strengthen their case as the hotel manager says the cameras show no one else entering the room where the victim was asleep?
Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to read the article and share their thoughts. Out of the arguments made here, there are two that perhaps need answering. So here they go.
1. The first part of the article compares outcomes (relative percentages of population of the religions concerned) irrespective of the process that led to those outcomes - whether immigration, relatively faster population growth or conversions. This was for two reasons. One, to put the figure of 2.3 per cent in "numerical perspective", as the article itself explained. The second reason was that outcomes are ultimately what the crux of debate is about. The rest of the article in any case dealt with process - or conversions in this case, from both a contemporary and historical perspective.
2. Some commenters have tried to cast doubts on the reliability of Census 2001. Those who do this should bear in mind that Census 2001 was conducted by a BJP government. Considering the extreme importance that BJP gives to this issue, it would be reasonable to expect that IF it had perceived a problem with the methodology that was distorting the numbers, it would have fixed it. As the article mentioned, BJP or BJP-supported governments have been in power for 10 of the last 40 years, or about a quarter of the time, and the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at is that any misreporting of numbers, real or perceived, would be marginal and hence, not of importance.
To all other arguments made, my answer is the following: Please read the article again, with particular focus on the quotations of Vivekananda and Monier Williams, and the history of the missionary efforts in Bengal and their outcome.
Elisebetta, in this story, in all probability, used Tomaso, to kill her previous boyfriend.
( You just need to understand a bit of how a female mind works, to understand that bit )
Most cases of 'whodunnit' murders involve females. Males usually get caught, because secrecy has never been their forte'. And the Indian police, lack the sophisticated investigations needed to crack murders involving women.
Let us hope for the best when the SC hears said Italian`s appeal in Sept.next . It`s strange why the defence councel is not insisting on CCTV footage which otherwise could save them from the charge of murder as the Hotel Manager asserts to have seen it and no person entered the said room where the victim had been sleeping during those early hours. Why the prosecution is avoiding to put CCTV footage as evicence in the court. Prosecution`s duty is not only to prove the charge with genuine evidences but at the same it needs also to ensure that no innocent is punished for the crime, not committed by him.
P.Gautampurkar,Sawai Madhopur,Rajasthan ..
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT