CMS150 - Winter 2001

Housekeeping:
1. Week 8 quiz
2. CMS course handouts
3. Tests
4. Tuesday’s homework: finish Ginzburg
5. Lecture

Why is this case like Rabirius’ case? [from a historian’s point of view]

trial about events that occurred quite a while before
appears to be a "political" trial
what do we mean by political trial?

modern
commentaries from multiple perspectives
transcripts of a preliminary hearings and trial

Why has Ginzburg written this book?
He is a good friend of Adriano Sofri.

* leader of left [some say anarchist ­ revolution must come from bottom up; intellectuals must inspire and educate the masses to reach for revolution] movement Lotta Continua; editor of its newspaper; led attack on police re Pinelli’s death; reporter from former Yugoslavia
He is intrigued by the relationship between the historian and the judge.
* Ginzburg famous for study of the Inquisition and inquisition transcripts [cf Cheese & Worms] and for his contribution to post-modern historiography
* wants to study methodological and political implications of features common to both professions: evidence, proof, testimony
What is his project in this book?
* to discredit the trials (ultimately 7) of the Calebresi Three by demonstrating through an analysis of its transcripts that the Italian courts and prosecutors functioned as an Inquisition.
What events led to the trial of Leonardo Marino? Who were Marino's co-defendants? What is the procedural history of this case?

* 12 December 1969 ­ 17 people killed in bombing of bank in Milan [a period of great political unrest in Italy];
* Pinelli arrested for questioning
* 3 days later he falls to his death from investigating detective’s office
* Originally police claim it was suicide; have to back off quickly
* Lotta Continua begins journalism campaign claiming Calebresi murdered Pinelli.
* Pinelli sues LC for libel.
* 22 October 1971Trial judge orders exhumation of Pinelli’s corpse; procedural move by Calebresi stops trial before exhumation; requires restart with new judge
* 17 May 1972 [before new trial] Calebresi murdered outside his home; LC approves of dead but doesn’t claim responsibility for it.
* ?? July 1988, Leonardo Marino, confesses to murder of Calebresi; claiming that the LC executive council ordered it; Adriano Sofri and Giorgio Pietrostefani communicated the order to him; he drove and Ovidio Bompressi [known as Ernesto] did the shooting.

Why do the transcripts of the preliminary investigation remind Ginzburg of transcripts of the Inquisition?

* secrecy
* use of penitento testimony to convict [prosecutors used laws re co-conspirator confessions designed to break Mafia against Calebresi Three]
* methodological issue of corroboration of confession

What does this analogy suggest about Ginzburg's view of the Marino trial?

* Inquisition is bad; therefore this trial (which is like the Inquisition is bad)
* nb: we need to know why Ginzburg thinks the Inquisition is bad to understand this analogy

* the historian must render a verdict on figures and events in accordance with a principle (the higher interests of the state).  Historian’s principle alien to justice.
* historian must evaluate testimony and evidence impartially
* Lord Acton: historiography based on documents becomes an established court of law

* historians wrote about events (l’histoire événementielle) which could be attributed to the actions of one or more individuals [usually via documentary evidence]
* historians avoided the study of all phenomena that didn’t lend it self to this analysis [history of social groups, mentalities, etc.)

* rejected l’histoire événementielle for l’histoire de menalité; e.g. La Grande Peur de 1789 [a book revolving around an event that never occurred: fear that brigands were attacking peasants in the country side)
Why did they have this reaction? What are the consequences of the Annales model of historiography for historians?
* disputed principles on which historians would judge [i.e., didn’t know if they agreed with "best interests of the state" ­ remember wwI & wwII are context for Annales school.
* didn’t want to take a "moral" stance; i.e., was Robespierre a good or bad man
* wanted a history "from the bottom up"

* Annalists through out too much: question of proof should be compelling reason for analogy between historian and judge
* modern historians are preoccupied with "representations" [all we can know is how folks represented things, not how things were -> CG: = a lazyily radical form of skepticism
* notions of truth and proof are integral parts of the historian’s profession
* the historian cannot overlook the principle of reality
* the professions of both historians and judges rest upon the possibility of proving, according to given rules, that x did y where x may equally well indicate the protatonist (perhaps nameless) of a historic event or the subject of a penal proceeding; and y an action of any sort.
* A trial is the only case of historiographic experimentation: in a trial the sources are foced to interact de vivo, not only because they are heard directly, but also because they are forced to confront one another, subjected to cross-examination and prompted to produce, as in a psychodrama, the adjudicated event.
 

* moral claim to a "reality" [i.e., he can hold the prosecution/judges liable ­ not a representation, their "version"; but a real conspiracy]
* method will be analysis of rules: what judges say they are doing vs what they do
* cf what CG says he’s doing: "My objectives were far more limited: an analysis of cour records, with a view to emphasing the divergences and convergences between historian and judge."

How, for Ginzburg, are the evaluations of Judge Lombardi and Judge Minale of Marino's confession, examples of Febvre's description of a historian at work?

* Febvre: a historian "sets out with a specific plan in mind, a problem to solve, a working hypothesis to test…..The essence of his work consists of creating, as it were, the subjects that he observes, often with the assitance of exceedingly complex techniques; and then, once he has acquired these subjects, ‘reading’ them, ‘reading’ his prepared specimen."
* Judge Lombardi’s working hypothesis was that Marino was telling the truth; Judge Minale’s intial working hypothesis appears to have been that Marino was lying.
* Point is that each shaped/made the record that they judged: there was not "pure" evidence; rather the evidence [Marino’s confession] had to be defined in terms of their working hypothesis, and then "read"

What does this description suggest about the way history is made? What does it suggest about the way law is made?
What, for Ginzburg, are the evidentiary problems inherent in Marino's confession?

* internal factual errors in account
* color of get away car
* description of escape route
* internal contradictions/changes in various depositions/statements
* role of Pietrostefani in intial meeting
* length of conversation with Sofri in initial meeting
* contradictions by other witnesses/evidence
* approach to carabinieri
* approach to parish priest
* description of witnesses re driver of getaway car

* Rossi -> that Marino first came to the police on 2 July 1988, not 19 July as police had originally said
* no transcripts of conversations Marino had with carabinieri prior to 19 July
* descriptions of Marino’s statements before 19 July are very general and vague
* descriptions of conduct of poice illogical [e.g., Colonel Bonaventura, important prosecutor; cf Rudy Giuliani, starts making late night visits to a witness who won’t give specifics highly unlikely]
* he implies but does not state that caaibinieri coached Marino
What, for Ginzburg, are the evidentiary implications of Don Vincenzi's testimony?
* Marino originally testified that he had confided in the priest just before christmas 1987; mishmash of testimony re threats from former political allies that Marino had received
* Don Vincenzi -> Marino spoke to him at end of October; said others were trying to get him to take up robery again; priest recalls local police following Marino around
* => carabinieri were investigating Marino [for recent history as thief?] who subsequently "gave up" Milan event [nb cops at police conference say that they’d been investigating for 2 months or so]
* Marino was armed robber by profession as late as early 1987

* cops didn’t pursue fact that Marino had been a friend/employee of man whose son was initially occused of murder of Calebresi
* clothing Calabresi wore on day of murder disappeared in 1972 prior to any forensic examination
* get away car destroyed by police (for non payment of vehicle tax) after preliminary investigation and just before trial starts
* flood damage to criminal evidence office
* auction of bullet that killed Calibresi
* parking lot accident witness contradicts Marino’s account
* eyewitnesses describe shooter and shooting quite differently than Marino
* eyewitnesses say a woman drove the getaway car

* skepticism and conspiracy; historian should not be a conspiracy theorist, but should not reject the possibility of conspiracy thoeries
* only explanation for change in trial judge’s "working hypothesis" is that he changed his mind due to external pressure ­ it would be defamatory to suggest it.

* would not contemplate disproving their own theory of the case
* def’s true testimony about separate events is not probative of his testimony about new unrelated event; but if his testimony about a "monolithic" event is true in one respect it is true in all; corroboration of one part corroborates all
* prosecution’s "logical" proof is a matter of compatibility not necessity: substitutes undocumented information which is compatibile with facts [of confession] for objective corroboration of facts
* willingness to rely on such reasoning when physical evidence destroyed is quite troubling.
What was the purpose of the Marino trial?