Every murderer has his motive, every motive hides a secret. What’s the secret behind Lorenzo Bozano’s prosecution?
Building a criminal case means reconstructing the history of events, which have affected the affair.
The chain of events is put together by the collection of evidences against the alleged culprit.
Why do you need evidences to understand a criminal case?
Because behind the evidences is hidden the truth.
A murder contains a motive, which can provide a plausible explanation for such a violent action. Evidences could help you find a solution.
Milena Sutter’s murder case is an enigmatic tale. Many points of view lie in the shadow of truth, which forces it to appear not entirely clear.
We are talking about a story that needs to be analysed from multiple perspectives to understand its exact dynamics.
We certainly know that the body of a thirteen-year-old girl was found dead in the waters of Genoa in 1971.
Local press became the only source of knowledge regarding updates on the case. You trust it.
What if the articles you read about the case are fossilized on a single point of view?
What if you learn to look from the only perspective available in newspapers?
You think it’s the right one. Because the press is a kind of close friend, who works at night to wish you his good morning every day.
But you, as a reader, deserve to know the truth.
First of all, we need to consider that the Genoese newspapers often and willingly reported news that took a concrete position: against Lorenzo Bozano.
The journalistic storytelling made sure that the evidences for the prosecution of Lorenzo Bozano became the magical objects within the tale between “the Child” and “the Monster”.
The pack of accusations against Lorenzo Bozano was built based on five fundamental evidences.
Let’s try to figure out if these evidences were overwhelming enough to let Lorenzo Bozano earn the label of “Monster” given by the newspapers.
First evidence: the “kidnapping project”
This is one of the most important clues against Lorenzo Bozano.
The kidnapping project is a series of paper sheets that the police found on a desk in Lorenzo’s hotel room.
According to the words of Bruno Noli, the case’s investigating judge: “it was a plan of kidnapping for ransom, which expected the victim’s murder and the liquidation of his body”.
On the first page three verbs stand out: to sink, to bury, to immure. What do they mean?
Bruno Noli said that Bozano had written these verbs referring to the ways he had thought of suppressing the dead body.
On the second page there is a list:
- 8 a.m. x hour
- 9 a.m. telephone call number 1 with supply of evidences
- 30 a.m. number 2 with payment confirmation
- 1 p.m. number 3 with cash in the house
- 30 p.m. number 4 with instructions
Always according to Noli, this was the schedule to carry out the plan.
On the third page a path is traced, also marked in four points. The fourth page was empty.
How does Lorenzo Bozano defend himself?
He confirms that he has written these notes but trusts that it is a hypothetical plan, fruit of imagination, connected to the memory of the Gadolla kidnapping (which also happened in Genoa a few months before).
Lorenzo also says that the night he wrote the hypothetical plan he had been drinking in the company of some acquaintances and some friends. It was the night of March 8, 1971.
In the group that evening there were Aldo Repetto, Tito Manes and Piero Mancini.
The three men testified that Bozano had indeed spoken of a hypothetical detailed kidnapping plan.
Why wasn’t a graphic examination of Lorenzo Bozano’s writing performed at the time?
In this way it was possible to understand whether the writing of the so-called “kidnapping project” was compatible with Bozano’s statements, and therefore it was a work of fantasy.
Or, that project turned out to be the rational fruit of a plan to really implement.
The doubt still remains.
Second evidence: the Swiss School’s telephone number
Behind Lorenzo Bozano’s visiting card is written in one’s own hand the following number: 891773. It’s the Swiss School’s telephone number, belonging to the same place where Milena attended classes.
In court Bozano first declares that he does not remember how and why he wrote that number.
During a second interrogation, he explains that he wrote down the number on the night of May 9, 1971.
Bozano thought to call the Swiss School to get news about Milena’s affair.
He also says he was in the Il Secolo XIX’s bar when he wrote the number.
That night Bozano had gone there as usual to pick up a copy of the freshly printed newspaper.
The witness Armando F., bartender the evening of May 9, declares that he did not see Bozano that night.
Did he lie?
We still don’t know.
Lorenzo Bozano supports his statement even today.
According to the investigators, the Swiss School’s telephone number was used in Bozano to contact the Sutter family. His purpose was to make arrangements for the ransom.
Third evidence: Bozano’s stops with his red spider car near the victim’s home and the victim’s school
The judgment against Bozano refers to stops with the red spider that took place between March 1971 and the day of Milena’s disappearance.
Are we talking about a precise plan devised for the girl’s abduction?
Or is it pure and simple coincidence?
Lorenzo Bozano justifies his presence near the victim’s home with an interest in a cleaning woman who used to work in an apartment nearby.
But he has always denied stopping near the victim’s school, until now when he admits he lied to defend himself.
Bozano says: “I stopped several times near the school, but I wasn’t there on the day of her disappearance”.
His purpose was to show off in front of the girls to get noticed with his car; that’s Bozano’s justification.
Let’s come to the facts: it has not been proven that Bozano stayed in these places to spy on Milena.
In addition, on the afternoon of Milena’s disappearance, no one saw Bozano near the school.
How reliable can these clues be?
Fourth evidence: the sightings on Monte Fasce of Lorenzo Bozano
Two women testified that they saw Bozano’s red spider car on Monte Fasce between 18.15 p.m. and 19.30 p.m. of May 6, 1971.
The two witnesses didn’t know each other.
Are their statements reliable?
According to investigators, Bozano went to Monte Fasce to bury Milena’s dead body. Just like he wrote about the “kidnapping project”.
What is it really happened?
What we know is that the two women weren’t alone when they saw the car.
People with them didn’t confirm their testimonies.
Was or wasn’t Bozano’s car on Monte Fasce the evening of May 6th?
This question cannot be answered with certainty.
Fifth evidence: the diving belt found on the victim’s dead body
This is considered the “queen test”.
This clue needs to be analysed in a separate article.
On the Milena’s dead body was found a diving belt with five weights to keep the body immersed in water.
What are the peculiarities of this diving belt?
There’s a story behind this clue.
Did it really belong to Bozano?
We will find out later along with a new series of minor but still important clues.
To make this case more mysterious we also add a series of missing clues.
The point is to prove that nothing is as it seems.
The Sutter-Bozano case is this statement’s emblem.