Who was on the jeep
Or, who was on it before and after the charge.
According to Placanica's official statement, the two jeeps were assigned to a group of about 100 carabinieri and were under the command of a colonel and another officer, respectively. In his statement, Placanica declares that he was "specifically in charge of shooting teargas. He affirms that his group was made up of 100 carabinieri on foot, followed by two Land Rovers, one of which contained the colonel and the other one of which carried the other officer." What is incredible is that nobody asks what the names of the two officers are. During the auditions in parliament carried out by MPs Lauro and Fiorillo, one of the two officers appears to be lieutenant colonel Truglio.
One can read the following in the written report of the auditions:

"PRESIDENT: Did the lieutenant colonel leave on one of the jeeps?
ADRIANO LAURO, vice-head of police in Rome: Yes, he left on one of the two jeeps when we said we would move towards the vehicles. Subsequently, when we saw the group of demonstrators and there was the clash, they probably retreated. That evening I saw the pictures of the two jeeps retreating rapidly behind us and positioning themselves behind us. At that point, lieutenant colonel Truglio told me that he got off the jeep and joined the group of carabinieri on foot. When the jeeps actually left I think he was no longer on one of them (or so he affirms)."

Thus Truglio appears to have abandoned the jeep immediately before the latter was involved in the disorderly retreat and in Carlo's death; he is thus the man who gets off in via Caffa. But why did the colonel abandon the jeep just before the flight? And if, as would appear to be the case from the video, Truglio gets off the jeep which manages to escape, where is the captain who should be on the other jeep? If he stayed on board, then there were more people on Placanica's Defender than all the carabinieri affirm there were, and if he had already got off the vehicle, why had he abandoned it when his colonel was still on the other one?
An anonymous witness who posted his/her message on the Indymedia website declares that: "I was surprised by the fact that the jeep and those who stayed inside it (I saw a carabiniere getting out and joining his colleagues) were doing 'strange things': even before a couple of comrades started attacking the side of the jeep the carabiniere inside it kept kicking the rear window with his boot in an effort to break it. I clearly saw the soldier's boot break the rear window of the jeep."
[modem 56 Kb - file .asf - 97 Kb - 19 secondi]

This sequence and these photos seem to confirm the second part of this testimony. A boot thrusts around repeatedly out of the rear window. Why should the person writing be lying after telling the truth in the first part of the testimony?
Apart from all this the number of soldiers occupying the back of the Defender is still a mystery: were there two or three men in those back seats? The British witness interviewed by "La Repubblica" declares that there were 4 men on the Defender, of which 3 occupied the back seats.
Other witnesses, on the contrary, assert that there were only two men in the back seat of the Defender: a French photographer who was in piazza Alimonda declares: "There were two people plus the driver on board". Devin Asch answered a question I asked him when he sent me some of the photos published on this web-site, and declared that: "I believe there were three officers in the vehicle", but he does not specify if the latter included the driver or if he was referring to the back seat only. From the photos I possess I can actually only see two people in the back seat. This means that the third man is either lying on the floor near the seats or on the seats themselves.

However, if one looks at this photo closely and at the close-up of Devin Asch's photo one can note a number of strange details.

One can notice the following in the first photo:

a) a carabiniere on the left who appears to be lying on the Defender's back seats. His right hand is holding the pistol. His right leg is slightly bent and it is leaning against the edge of the vehicle's rear window;

b) a second carabiniere is turned around so that one can see ¾ of his face. He is standing on the right-hand side of the jeep and seems to be falling over, having probably lost his balance because of the bump when the jeep first passed over Giuliani's body. One can just see his left arm trying to grasp the front left-hand seat to steady himself;

c) a hand between the first and the second carabiniere. One can see the palm and from the position of the fingers it would appear to be the left hand of the man holding the pistol. But this is not the case, as his position is incompatible with this hypothesis. The man would have to have a really long arm, one that is much longer than the right arm clutching the pistol. The hand also seems to be clutching the jacket or sleeve of the carabiniere who appears to be falling over, as though it belonged to someone lying on the bottom of the jeep who is trying to stop the second carabiniere from toppling onto him. Therefore, this hand probably belongs to the mysterious third man in the back of the Defender, and it is plausibly Raffone's.

Observing the close-up also highlights a number of problems. The close-up and the photo I have analysed in the preceding paragraphs are basically simultaneous and both show the moment in which the jeep has just passed over Carlo's body once and is about to drive off towards via Caffa.
01 | 02

When he sent me the photo, Devin Asch described it in the following terms: "You can see the gun, the boot and both hands of the officer who shot Giuliani. I think he is lying on his back, one boot braced against the back of the vehicle, left arm crossed under right to stabilise the shot. I think in this position his head would be quite low".

The Misteri d'Italia newsletter, on the other hand, gives a different interpretation of the photo:

a) one carabiniere (Filippo Cavataio) is driving;

b) right behind him (on the left-hand side of the jeep) one can clearly see another carabiniere who is holding a hand to his wounded left cheek. As the only soldier who was wounded in the face was Mario Placanica, it must be him.

c) A hand sticks out from the second back seat. It cannot be Placanica's as this would entail that he was in an unnatural position. The owner of this hand is also the same person whose boot is leaning against the edge of the rear window of the Defender. In his statements Placanica affirms that he threw himself over Raffone to protect him; thus the third carabiniere - the one who is lying on the floor- is Dario Raffone.

d) At this point we still have to understand who is holding the pistol one can see on the right-hand side of the photo. Is he the fourth man? If Placanica really is the carabiniere who is most visible, the one who is holding his cheek with his hand, then he cannot be the one clutching the pistol.

This analysis is based on an inquiry which I published on the same web-site. I think it is basically correct. The hand which is described in point c) above is the same hand which I discuss in point C of my discussion of the preceding frame. However, comparing the two images induces me to believe that the boot in Asch's close-up and the leg and the boot in the frame discussed above belong to the man who is holding the pistol. Also, Placanica was wounded in the head and not in the face. However, I agree with the main point, i.e. that the hand which is visible in both pictures belongs to the third man in back of the Defender, who is probably Dario Raffone. Asch believes that this hand belongs to the same person who is clutching the pistol and that it is holding up the arm which is shooting, but if this were the case it would be below the elbow and not above it, as would appear to be the case from the close-up.

The conclusions we have reached are the same even if we take the official version into account: if Placanica was the one who shot, and the only people in the back seats were Placanica and Raffone, we have to conclude that the man holding his head in Asch's close-up is Dario Raffone. The only problem is that Raffone does not look like the man in the photo at all.
All these detailed analyses point to the same conclusion, i.e. that, against the official version, what these photos show is that there was a third man lying on the floor of the Defender - a fact which Placanica himself underscores in his statement.
Verbale Placanica

Preamble	Before the shot: the police charge	The flight
Carlo's death	Who was on the jeep	What happens on the jeep
The armoured vehicle in via Torino	Cavataio's responsibilities	Placanica, the man without a face
Placanica in hospital	Carlo's body and the autopsy	But this is not everything.