Statement from the editorial committee

After Castellucci, Moretti. Some time ago, in April 2025, we criticised the 150-line piece, 150 lines, devoted to a letter from the former CEO of Aspi, Giovanni Castellucci, following his final conviction for the 2013 disaster when, in the province of Avellino, a bus plunged from a viaduct, killing 40 people. At the time, we found the absence of journalistic scrutiny disconcerting, as did the lack of an alternative account of the facts and the absence of any cross-examination – all in the name of a misguided commitment to due process. Today, history is repeating itself, following the final conviction of Mauro Moretti for the Viareggio disaster (32 dead, including 3 children, and a neighbourhood devastated): a full page (comprising an interview and an opinion piece) has been published presenting a single, one-sided argument, namely the defence case of the former CEO of FS. Yet there is no space set aside to recall the stages of a 17-year-long legal saga that we have covered in this newspaper only sporadically over the years and incompletely in terms of content. A case in which dozens of judges have given their views across multiple levels of the court system. Now a truth – at least the imperfect one that can be arrived at through the reconstruction of responsibilities in a criminal trial – has been reached with a final verdict. Which is not set in stone, nor is it immune to criticism, of course. Having followed the facts and read the case files, however. Yet in the pages of *Il Sole 24 Ore*, we have, once again, acted as a mouthpiece for a single viewpoint: that of a top manager convicted of extremely serious offences. The day before, moreover, there were just a few lines on the conviction and a surreal headline featuring statements from a businessman extolling FS’s safety standards (after Viareggio – not to mention Pioltello, Livraga and Brandizzo, just to name a few, when it comes to the death toll on the tracks). As early as Friday evening, we had asked the editor to make space, at least at a later stage, for a broader analysis that was not limited to hearing only one side’s arguments. But our request was rejected. We believe that, by doing so and depriving readers of an alternative account of events, the newspaper has failed to provide a service that meets the required standards, either in terms of the facts or in terms of legal principles.