Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Vito Roberto Palazzolo

This is the Mediation Committee formal mediation discussion page for the Vito Roberto Palazzolo mediation case.

This case was originally beings mediated by Tristessa de St Ange (talk · contribs) and is now being mediated by Wgfinley (talk · contribs).

Discussion

Discussion With Previous Mediator
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi Nicholas - *shake hands* Thank you for taking up the issue of Palazzolo's BLP. I just want to reiterate that the length and complexity of this affair has lead to a mountain of data, in which lie allegations, "evidence" and innuendo that is unsubstantiated and unverified. Since the inception of my efforts to gain a balanced BLP for Palazzolo, Don Calo has altered and qualified parts of it, for which thanks. But still it leaves a lot to be desired. I propose to deal with each allegation in turn. Fact for fact. That is all I ask. I don't want to whitewash Palazzolo (I couldn't, if I tried), but merely use the evidence and allegations that have been brought against him, each in turn. A few examples: "He was declared an undesirable person in South Africa", is untrue. "De Pontes said among the deals he and Palazzolo worked on was a 1987 sanctions-busting attempt to import submarines and jet fighters for the apartheid regime."' Also, flagrantly untrue, and reporting information like this creates a very poor impression of Palazzolo, which amounts to a trial by hearsay and innuendo. "Mafia suspects Giovanni Bonomo and Giuseppe Gelardi were given refuge by Palazzolo in South Africa and Namibia after they escaped arrest in Italy." Given that the two men were only issued with warrants of arrest, in Palermo, after they left SA, is a vital fact that Don Calo fails to mention. Again, innuendo. "He hired a public relations adviser, Aldo Sarullo, a former actor, playwright and director... etc." This never happened, and was never even considered as an option. Many thanks --41.5.152.34 (talk) 12:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC) Tristessa/Nicholas - welcome and thanks and looking forward to your mediation. Bonjour Tristessa!!! When do you think you will be able to mediate on this very important issue? I wait with bated breath! --41.5.100.235 (talk) 08:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC) --Fircks (talk) 08:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC) Update court cases in Italy Hi, I updated the information on court cases in Italy. These are all facts not even the lawyers of Palazzolo deny (in fact much is based on the information provided on the website of Palazzolo), so I see no harm in updating the article allthough it is now under mediation. There was some unclarity about the exact convictions of Palazzolo and I also included some facts on the actions of Palazzolo's lawyers at the European Court of Human Rights and the appeal review at the Court of Caltanissetta. Since we want to discuss this article on the basis of true and updated information I thought this might be useful. To see the changes I made just click here. - DonCalo (talk) 23:18, 11 September 2011 (UTC) Opening thoughts Well, hello there! I'm Tristessa, your friendly Mediation Committee mediator. I apologise sincerely for the delay in getting this mediation underway. I'd like to thank you both so very much for your patience. We'll get your issues resolved as soon as we possibly can, and I can see that issues have been worsening on the article in question lately -- so I'll "cut to the chase", as they say, with the initial stages of mediation. There are some things I'd like to say about how mediation works down here that I'll begin with: Mediation will continue for as long as you are both interested in mediation, but you can both pull out at any time, and we'll stop if you want us to stop. The goal of mediation is to come to a common point of agreement, ending in a resolution adopted by all parties of the mediation. I'm a neutral person whose job it is to help both of you come to an agreement. I can't take sides with either of you, or give an opinion on either of your views, but I can help you come to a mutual understanding. If you can both declare an "amnesty" with regards to the dispute -- that is, be able to distance yourself from the dispute while discussing it here, and discuss it from as objective a perspective as you can separate from your views -- the mediation will be much easier. I hope this is all to both of your satisfaction, and you know that you can let me know if anything is wrong at any time. Key issues I've read through the original mediation request, and I've looked (briefly) at some of the article history. The issues seem to revolve around the following areas: How should sources relating to Vito Roberto Palazzolo's criminal sentence be included in the article? How much of this material is reliable -- e.g. which sources meet WP:RS and WP:V? Are sources accurately quoted if they are reliable, or are they being misinterpreted in the way their referenced claims are included in the article? In summary, what we need to agree is: a set of sourced claims relating to Palazzolo's BLP details, referenced to a set of sources, deemed acceptable by both parties. Note that the Mediation Committee cannot handle issues directly relating to the content; that is, I as your mediator can help you come to agreement on these issues, but we cannot be directly involved in the question of determining the suitability of content in Wikipedia articles. I hope you understand this. Initial question The description in the original mediation request, and the events on the article itself, are too complex to be able to reduce down to an initial mediation question. To begin mediation, we must be able to isolate a common point of discussion from which we can get something that both of you agree on. So, alright, with these points above identified, what I'd like you both to do is write in this subsection, in no more than a few short sentences, what's wrong with the current article content (as of recent revisions). --Tristessa (talk) 03:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC) Suggestion by Fircks (talk · contribs) Given the mountain of evidence, allegations and aspersions put out over 29 years, both as primary sources judged in courts or secondary sources interpreted by newspapers, from which Don Calo can cherry pick at his liesure - I suggest he writes each allegation, as he wishes, only that I can balance it with the full story, when it is questionable? If for example he writes that Palazzolo was implicated in the murder of Agostino Badalamenti in Germany in 1984, for which reason Falcone issued a warrent of arrest, I would add that the Swiss Judge dismissed the case with the words: “… the motivation for the warrant of arrest is invalidated by the illogical, inconsistent content and distortion of the facts.” Thank you for your efforts Tristessa! --Fircks (talk) 11:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC) As our mediator pointed out above one of the key elements of the mediation is to "declare an 'amnesty' with regards to the dispute -- that is, be able to distance yourself from the dispute while discussing it here." I find suggestions including that I "cherry pick" at my leisure not a very promising start of the process. If Fircks cannot distance himself from the dispute I am afraid the mediation will be a waste of time. In other words I would appreciate if you would start with moderating the tone of your suggestions. - DonCalo (talk) 14:37, 12 October 2011 (UTC) Sure, Don Calo, I will do that. Lets see what we can do. I am with you... --41.132.183.193 (talk) 18:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)--41.3.235.50 (talk) 18:07, 16 October 2011 (UTC) Yes it's me - Fircks--41.3.235.50 (talk) 18:09, 16 October 2011 (UTC) Moving forward Alright, thanks for your replies. As regards the amnesty, that's good (41.132.183.193 (talk · contribs), are you Fircks or someone else?) But, as goes the suggestion that Fircks made regarding balance of the "full story", I'd point out that what we need to work out how to achieve is for the article to summarise the facts of the case and not the "emotive" type commentary. This latter, I believe, tends to trend towards a level of sensationalism, even when passages are used in quotes (have a read of that bit of the MoS, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch, if you haven't seen it before; it probably should be extrapolated to quotes). What the article must present is a WP:NPOV account of the issues, not a "full story" in the eyes of a Wikipedia contributor. Does this make sense? Reported speech is always the easiest way of solving these problems, e.g. that the judge dismissed the case on the basis that the warrant was unsound, ignoring the extraneous personal comment if it doesn't convey anything to the reader. Since we want to arrange a consensus wording of the article between the two of you, as "dry" a presentation of the facts as possible will be the easiest way of achieving this. What I might recommend is the following approach: both of you work together in stripping out the various individual commentary parts of the article that aren't germane to a focused presentation of the facts, leaving as bare a description of arguments re. Palazzolo's guilt or innocence behind as possible. Then, once you're both happy with the result of this process, both of you can work together to provide as much balance as possible for the arguments/counterarguments, since you'll be starting from a "clean slate". How does that sound? --Tristessa (talk) 08:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC) Amended; original explanation was nonsensical in places. --Tristessa (talk) 16:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC) OK great, thank you. Should I send Don Calo the points in contention? Via this page? --196.210.179.202 (talk) 05:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC) In essence, yes, but I'd like to point out: This is a collaborative discussion and, as such, we're all working together on working out how to proceed. Think of it as listing what could be improved about the article, not raising "points in contention". How about we all say for now, "there are no points of contention, just possible ways the article could be improved". This is what I meant by an amnesty. Does this make sense? In addition, I'd like to ask that when you participate in this mediation from now on, that you always log in as Fircks (talk · contribs); participating anonymously creates issues over verifying that it's you commenting, since your IP changes frequently. Yours, --Tristessa (talk) 09:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC) OK, of course, I will make a few suggestions where I suggest the article needs to be fleshed out. Thanks. I was signed anonymously by mistake, because I hadn't logged in. Apologies. --Fircks (talk) 08:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC) I propose that we will deal with one suggestion each time, instead of a long list of suggestions. - DonCalo (talk) 09:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC) Would you mind, though, if we could make at least a summary of the entire set of suggestions that both of you would like first? If we deal with one suggestion at a time, it just ends up being another blow-by-blow debate. I think what I'd like both of you to do is make just a series of bullet point remarks -- no long and detailed rationales, just "wish lists" -- on the gist of what you'd like to see, and then we'll go from there. If it's OK with you, I'll then review your brief lists, and work out what I'd suggest as the best way of proceeding. Without an overview of both of your viewpoints regarding the article, it's hard for me to be able to really help. Is this OK? Cheers, --Tristessa (talk) 12:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC) As the main author of the current article it will be no surprise that I am fine with it as it stands. It is Fircks who has problems with it. Maybe we should be going by section starting with 'Money laundering accusations' and do the lead at the end of the process? - DonCalo (talk) 21:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC) DonCalo: Thanks for your reply. But no, I'd ask that you please refrain from attempting to debate points relating to the article content at this stage, as per my request before. Entering into this section-by-section at this stage without a broad overview to work from simply turns this into an argument again rather than a mediation -- we can't work out what the fundamental issues are until we have the information from which to find that out. I hope this makes sense. Still, thank you for the suggestion, and thank you for your patience. We'll otherwise just get bogged down into minutiae. Fircks: may I please have a bullet-point list from you of what you think is wrong with the article? --Tristessa (talk) 23:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC) Amended, twice --Tristessa (talk) 23:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC) I will get back to you over the w/e, if I may. Thank you. --Fircks (talk) 05:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC) That's fine, we'll pick this up then. --Tristessa (talk) 15:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC) Points to improve by Fircks (talk · contribs) There are many points to take into consideration but I will try, as briefly as possible (given the huge complexity of this case) to air them. Palazzolo maintains that he is the victim of a conspiracy, which becomes apparent in the minutae of the "evidence" that is raked up against him. Which I list with Don Calo's points and my remarks, following, in Italics. "Italian and US intelligence officers estimate that Palazzolo was involved in a network that laundered more than US$1.5 billion in drug money through Switzerland." ::*This observation suggests that Palazzolo was proactively involved in the wider "network", which was in action well before he appeared on the scene in late 1981. He was culpable only for laundering 3 million dollars converted into 200 kg of gold for Rotolo and Tognoli, and 3 million dollars from the USA (through the Frigerio channel). These transfers constituted conduct that was punishable according to article 19 number 1 para.7 of the Federal narcotics law in Switzerland. But he had nothing to do with the rest of it. I agree that Fircks has a point here, and adapted the article accordingly. - DonCalo (talk) 22:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC) "On the strength of a new passport in this name, he obtained resident status in South Africa – but all files relating to the application are missing." ::*This is also suggestive - that Palazzolo contrived to get rid of the files. In point of fact Peets de Pontes was convicted and fined R35,000 because, as well as forging Palazzolo's signature 9 times and trying to steal property from him, he got rid of the files. "De Pontes said among the deals he and Palazzolo worked on was a 1987 sanctions-busting attempt to import submarines and jet fighters for the apartheid regime." ::*This is wholly without merit. Allegations by De Pontes, who was a proven criminal, should be left out of a BLP. "The Cabinet, headed by president Frederik Willem de Klerk, approved a new South African residence application in March 1993 although at the time Palazzolo was the subject of an Italian extradition warrant, according to the magazine Africa Confidential." ::*Palazzolo was not the subject of a warrant of arrest. On the 10th April 1989 the Supreme Court of Rome annulled the last Sicilian warrant of arrest, saying: “…the motivation for the warrant of arrest is invalidated by being illogical, incongruous and misrepresenting the facts”. The next one came from Sicily on 10th Feb 1997. "The document alleged that Palazzolo was believed to head a Mafia "family" in South Africa. Apart from Troia, Mafia suspects Giovanni Bonomo and Giuseppe Gelardi were given refuge by Palazzolo in South Africa and Namibia after they escaped arrest in Italy. Italian police travelled to South Africa, where they confirmed the presence of a number of mafia suspects and "the existence of a well-knit network of corrupted South African officials that protect the Italian fugitives"" ::*This came from the PITU (Presidential Investigation Task Unit), using evidence given by police officers Smith & Lincoln, who later were sentenced for crimes against the State. Bonomo & Gelardi were not fugitives from Italian Justice when they travelled to SA. Warrants for their arrest were issued after they left SA. When Troia was arrested in Palermo (not SA) they found a baby born of the woman who had hosted him since becoming a fugitive. It was unlikely that he had the time or the opportunity to have slipped away into hiding, meanwhile, in South Africa, with Palazzolo! When the police raided a house where Troia was supposed to be hiding they found a law abiding, ordinary South African citizen, who reported them to the Police! The Italian Police were thoroughly embarrassed by this and were ordered by the Attorney General in Palermo to fly back to Italy immediately. "In November 1999, Palazzolo was arrested in connection with fraud and forgery charges relating to his South African citizenship. Home affairs officials discovered that it was issued fraudulently." ::*You go on to say that Palazzolo was cleared of this crime, so what merit is there in stating that Home affairs officials discovered that it was issued fraudulently? Clearly they did not! Perhaps more appropriately, the High Court rebuked the Directorate of Public Prosecutions for bringing this case in the first place, told them to withdraw it and to apologise to Palazzolo. "Investigators also probed Palazzolo's alleged role in money laundering through Liechtenstein companies and trusts and requested legal assistance from authorities. An international cooperation granted by the regional court in Vaduz in March 2000 has been ruled invalid. Following an agreement between lawyers for the state and Palazzolo, the Cape High Court ordered that the state "shall forthwith withdraw the requests for mutual legal assistance to Liechtenstein and Switzerland respectively and also any similar requests made to any other countries since 1999". This means investigators cannot access documents, etc, etc..." ::*There is no room to transcribe the entire paragraph but, given that Palazzolo's money was released by the Attorney General of Switzerland and declared in writing that the money was clean and did not originate from any crime, it is hard to know what you are alluding to here. The Convicted in Italy section ::*This is a long and complicated area and to mention just a few aspects of it (like Pentiti or State Witnesses) is a misrepresentation. I have a list of the main court cases and the main points, which will explain what actually happened in the Italian courts. A brief section of which I write below: The Italian judicial saga began on the 16th April 1984 with a warrant of arrest from Rome, and is ongoing today. Having been tried and sentenced in Switzerland, where the alleged crime occurred, the Italians (more specifically, the judiciary in Palermo, Sicily), have been trying to extradite Palazzolo for a variety of things including, even, murder. The narrative in Sicily began when, also in 1984, the most prolific Mafia informant in history, Tommaso Buscetta, gave the prosecuting magistrate, Dr Giovanni Falcone, enough evidence to prosecute 350 Mafiosi in the Maxi Trial (which resumed in 1986). Palazzolo was never mentioned by Buscetta but 11 months later, on the 11th June 1985, Falcone issued a warrant for his arrest too. This was based on an interview with Paul Waridel; a key person in the Pizza Connection drug ring. Since then there have been multiple Italian warrants and court cases concerning Palazzolo, including 6 warrants issued to South Africa, where he lives. Of note, however: On 26th March 1992 the High Court in Rome convicted Palazzolo for the crime of “association with the purpose of financing for narcotics trafficking”, but acquitted him on the charge of Mafia association because the facts to prove such association, the judge said, “do not exist”. This conviction was cancelled in the same court, however, on 31st January 1993, subsequent to the signing of the “ne bis in idem” [double jeopardy] principle between Italy and Switzerland. Etc, etc.... "He hired a public relations adviser, Aldo Sarullo, a former actor, playwright and director, who advised Palermo's Antimafia mayor, Leoluca Orlando, and later Silvio Berlusconi's party Forza Italia, to change his image as a Mafia boss." ::*Palazzolo did not hire Aldo Sarullo, nor ever considered hiring him. --Fircks (talk) 18:38, 22 October 2011 (UTC) Common ground Alright, I've had your opinions from both of you now (please let me know if this is incorrect). Please do not debate the list of issues above at this stage. I would like you both to hang on now until I've had a chance to analyse the list. The viewpoints provided were: User:DonCalo: no issues with the current article, as self-stated primary author User:Fircks: factual/POV issues as discussed in the list above Once again, I'd be really grateful if you could hold off discussion on these points now, while I think about the best way of proceeding in a way that generates common consensus. I trust this is satisfactory to both of you; thank you for your patience. --Tristessa (talk) 00:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC) Thanks again for your mediation. --Fircks (talk) 12:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC) Do you have anything on this case, Tristessa? I have posted a few reminders on your talk page. It's been a few weeks now (since 23rd Oct and began years before that). A great deal hangs on the resolution of this BLP. I don't know what else to do except plead with you to take action. --Fircks (talk) 05:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC) No idea why the mediator has allowed this to languish, but I'm following up on Tristessa's talk page. If T. doesn't resume activity here soon, I'll assign the case to another mediator. Please accept my sincerest apologies for the delay. AGK [•] 14:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC) Thank you and much obliged. I was wondering what else I could do. --Fircks (talk) 09:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC) We've got another mediator, and he'll be along soon to pick up the case. Sorry for the delay. If the other parties could comment here to show they are still active, that would be helpful. Thanks, AGK [•] 21:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Restart

I've had a chance to take a look at the previous discussion here and the article itself. I was hoping I could just dive in and move this to being finished but there's some things that concern me and I do things a bit different than your previous mediator.

Mediator Recap (WGFinley)

1. First, I don't see this mediation was ever mentioned on the article's talk page. Looking at the article I'm not seeing any other current editors but can you both affirm for me you feel there aren't any other regular editors in the article involved?
2. Second, this isn't an unusual article when it comes to a BLP where the person has been accused of various crimes but not necessarily convicted. Are there other articles you each think are good that we could point to for reference? The first one that came to mind for me was O.J. Simpson, brief summaries of the various cases are there along with links to full articles on those cases if they merited it (for instance there's a link to the Brown/Goldman murder but not the civil trial).
3. Am I correctly seeing this dispute that it's a nature of how material that has differing views is presented?

Thanks, a feel free to make use of my talk page (addendum: for anything you want to call attention to, conversation is here). --WGFinley (talk) 01:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I've reorganized this, if you guys can keep your replies to your sections and try to address the issue to me and not each other I think we can get on track. --WGFinley (talk) 06:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Fircks Response

I have sent my replies to your talk page, with thanks - --Fircks (talk) 10:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

1. There are no other regular editors on the article's talk page.

2. As regards reference cases, this BLP is unique (as far as I know) because there are no Press articles trumpeting his innocence, or the lack of evidential guilt. There are only Judges rulings and affidavits from lawyers testifying to the lack of evidence against him and - indeed - to the fabrications created against him in South Africa, and Palermo in Sicily, which points to a conspiracy.

3. This dispute centres round 2 things: the presentation of hearsay and unverified allegations as fact; and upon presenting both sides of the story. If Don Calo wishes to mention the charges that have been leveled against Palazzolo over 30 years, then he should mention the obverse side of the coin too, that all of those charges were thrown out of court and he has never been irrevocably charged with Mafia membership or drug money laundering. AND - no evidence has yet been produced further to that produced in Switzerland in 1984. Which begs the question of Double Jeopardy. Which is why Palazzolo asks, "Beyond innuendo and hearsay, where is my crime?"

--Fircks (talk) 10:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

DonCalo Response

Are we now discussing the issue on WGFinley's talk page or here? I am getting confused. As to your questions:

(1) There are no other current editors involved.

(2) Palazzolo has been convicted: Palazzolo was not only sentenced once, but three times: (a) The Swiss Bundesgericht in Bern sentenced Palazzolo to three years and nine months in 1993. (b) In March 1992 a criminal court in Rome convicted Palazzolo for the crime of “association with the purpose of financing for narcotics trafficking” and sentenced him to two years. He was acquitted on the charge of Mafia association, however, because the fact “did not exist”. The conviction was suspended, because Palazzolo had already served three years in prison in Switzerland, for the same facts. (c) Palazzolo was again sentenced on July 5, 2006, to nine years in prison for aiding and abetting Cosa Nostra. The nine-year sentence for collusion with the Mafia was confirmed by the highest court of last resort in Italy, the Supreme Court of Cassation in March 2009. A request to review the sentence has been filed at the Appeal Court in Caltanissetta which was granted but the review has not been concluded yet. A review application does not nullify a sentence of previous courts. In other words, the nine-year-sentence still stands.

(3) I don't quite understand what you are trying to say here, can you please eleborate? - DonCalo (talk) 14:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I've asked Fircks to put the reply he put on my talk page here.

Regarding #2 I understand he has some convictions (as does Simpson), I'm trying to see if we have other articles that are similar we can look at as a template for how to present the information here. #3 is me trying to get to the core of the dispute. It seems the dispute is over presentation, DonCalo agrees with the current version of the article while Fircks thinks there's a WP:WEIGHT issue with the charges that did not lead to a conviction. Is that accurate or am I missing something more? --WGFinley (talk) 06:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Palazzolo was sentenced for Mafia association. The nine-year sentence was confirmed by the highest court of last resort in Italy, the Supreme Court of Cassation in March 2009. A request to review the sentence has been filed at the Appeal Court in Caltanissetta which was granted but the review has not been concluded yet. A review application does not nullify a sentence of previous courts. In other words, the nine-year-sentence still stands. This is the umpteenth time I point this out. There are numerous reliable sources to back this up. If Fircks keeps denying this irrefutable fact I think mediation is useless. Palazzolo has also been convicted for money laundering both in Switzerland and in Italy. Double jeopardy applied in the case in Italy, which resulted in a suspended sentence, but it proves once more that Italian judges agreed with the Swiss sentence. These are no fabrications, there is no conspiracy… Furthermore, the denials of Palazzolo are mentioned several times in the article. We can argue about the presentation of the facts but if Fircks intends to whitewash his friend Palazzolo the mediation ends right here, as far as I am concerned. In other words, the crucial question is if Fircks will recognize the convictions by the Italian courts. If not, we are wasting our time here … - DonCalo (talk) 14:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Starting Point

Okay, let's start here then. The central issue seems to be convictions in Italian courts, if I read this correctly DonCalo has sources indicating there are convictions and Fircks you are claiming there are not or there's questions about the convictions? Without being exhaustive, can you each post your sources. I realize these have likely been put out there before but for simplicity if you can put a few here supporting your position I would appreciate it. I've created a section for each of you so put your response in your section. --WGFinley (talk) 15:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, but I am not going to repeat the obvious before Fircks clearly states that he will acknowledge that Palazzolo has been convicted for both money laundering and Mafia association by the courts in Switzerland and Italy. Like I said before, if he does not do that this mediation is useless. I have wasted too much of my time on this already, and frankly, my patience is getting exhausted. - DonCalo (talk) 16:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Well there should be ready reliable sources that indicate that's the case should there not? I'm not asking for all of it, just a couple of sources that show it's as obvious as you indicate it is. --WGFinley (talk) 23:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The reliable sources are in the article. - DonCalo (talk) 14:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Fircks Comments & Sources

Not what I was looking for
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I am not denying Palazzolo's court convictions; like I said, "If Don Calo wishes to mention the charges that have been leveled against Palazzolo over 30 years, then he should mention the obverse side of the coin too...". That, I think, is quite clear. My contention was that Palazzolo had not been "irrevocably sentenced". And you can't write a suggestive, biased BLP on a man who has been charged but not (after nearly 30 years) been proved guilty. You are saying that you are not denying the court convinctions but that he still is not guilty. When convicted before three courts and when these sentences are upheld by the courts of last resort, anyone in the world except Fircks will consider him guilty. I find this an unsatisfactory answer. The other side of the coin is extensively treated in the article, quoting Palazzolo and giving his point of view. Still you consider it biased. I am afraid you only be satisfied if the article will read "Vito Robert Palazzolo is a Saint and he should be beatified." - DonCalo (talk) 18:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC) Regarding the one-sidedness and bias, I see that that you (Don Calo) have been changing the BLP pretty well continuously since this argument arose. As a result it is now more neutral. For which thanks. But there are still biased elements, which I deal with, one by one, below. You contend these properly referenced issues without providing reliable sources yourself. We just have to believe because you are friend of Palazzolo? It does not work that way. - DonCalo (talk) 14:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC) For example you say that: Palazzolo - "started working as a private banker, servicing high net worth individuals." He didn't, he traded currencies and commodities in Deutsche bank in Hamburg. Servicing high net worth individuals only came many years later. "After inviting a Home Affairs official to his farm at Franschhoek, Palazzolo was granted a South African residence permit in December 1987." This is a non sequitur and plainly suggestive that Palazzolo bribed someone. "The South African Narcotics Bureau (Sanab) raided Palazzolo's Franschhoek farm, Terra de Luc, and arrested him - seizing 10 guns and diamonds worth 500,000 Rand together with documents indicating that Palazzolo had invested more than 25 million Rand in businesses in South Africa and Namibia. He was declared an undesirable person in South Africa and returned to Switzerland to complete his jail sentence" The guns and diamonds were all licensed and accounted for and he was not declared an undesirable person in SA. "After testifying about his own cooked residence application, Palazzolo stayed in South Africa until late 1991, when he was ordered out of the country by the Department of Home Affairs" These are "weasel words". His residency application was never "cooked" and he was granted citizenship in SA legally and fairly. And he was never ordered out of the country by the Department of Home Affairs. "De Pontes said among the deals he and Palazzolo worked on was a 1987 sanctions-busting attempt to import submarines and jet fighters for the apartheid regime." Ditto - outrageously suggestive, unfounded, slanted and ludicrous to boot. "The Cabinet, headed by president Frederik Willem de Klerk, approved a new South African residence application in March 1993 although at the time Palazzolo was the subject of an Italian extradition warrant, according to the magazine Africa Confidential." It was Mr. Mandela who gave him citizenship in 1994, not De Klerk in 1993. And nor was he the subject of an Italian extradition warrant at the time. "According to some sources Palazzolo allegedly blackmailed former foreign minister Pik Botha with photographs showing Botha in a compromising position in bed with a black woman. The photographs are said to be in the possession of the National Intelligence Agency (NIA). Botha has said the claim was "absolute rubbish" and threatened a R10 million lawsuit against the Mail & Guardian" This is wholly unfounded, suggestive and defamatory. Pik Botha's words, "absolute rubbish", describe it best. Investigations into Palazzolo restarted in 1995 when police in the Cape received inquiries from Italian police, who were after Mariano Tullio Troia, a Sicilian mafioso wanted for the murder of Salvatore Lima, an associate of former Italian prime minister Giulio Andreotti. A March 1998 briefing compiled by Western Cape police intelligence said Italian police claimed Troia was being harboured by Sicilian Salvatore Morettino, a naturalised South African citizen living in Houghton. The Italian police also gave information of contact between Palazzolo and a prominent Sicilian mafia boss, Giovanni Brusca, convicted in Italy for the murder of Antimafia prosecutor Giovanni Falcone. The document alleged that Palazzolo was believed to head a Mafia "family" in South Africa. Apart from Troia, Mafia suspects Giovanni Bonomo and Giuseppe Gelardi were given refuge by Palazzolo in South Africa and Namibia after they escaped arrest in Italy. Italian police travelled to South Africa, where they confirmed the presence of a number of mafia suspects and "the existence of a well-knit network of corrupted South African officials that protect the Italian fugitives". All of this came from the PITU (presidential Investigation Task). Bonomo & Gelardi were not fugitives from Italian Justice when they traveled to SA. Troia is the cousin of Dr. Morettino and, since the day he got married in Johannesburg, has never set foot in South Africa. When he was arrested in Palermo they found a baby born of the woman who had hosted him since becoming a fugitive. It was unlikely that he had the time or the opportunity to have slipped away into hiding, meanwhile, in South Africa. The absurdity of which was illustrated when the police raided a house where Troia was supposed to be hiding, where they found instead a law abiding, ordinary South African citizen, who reported them to the Police! The Italian Police were thoroughly embarrassed by this and were ordered by tbe Attorney General in Palermo to fly back to Italy immediately. "Investigators also probed Palazzolo's alleged role in money laundering through Liechtenstein companies and trusts and requested legal assistance from authorities. An international cooperation granted by the regional court in Vaduz in March 2000 has been ruled invalid. Following an agreement between lawyers for the state and Palazzolo, the Cape High Court ordered that the state "shall forthwith withdraw the requests for mutual legal assistance to Liechtenstein and Switzerland respectively and also any similar requests made to any other countries since 1999". This means investigators cannot access documents, computer data and other information obtained from four companies and trusts based in. The material was seized and sealed after the Vaduz court approved the cooperation request, stating that "for the period from 1986 to present, the South African investigation authorities have managed to trace approximately 90 transactions to a total of approximately R101,5-million". The Vaduz court decision filed in the Cape High Court said there was a "shrewd scheme" to conceal money flows of millions of dollars into the control of Palazzolo. Reference was made to various offshore accounts, including suspected "Cosa Nostra accounts" and several other companies based outside South Africa" It is hard to know what Don Calo is alluding to, suffice it to say that Palazzolo's money was released by the Attorney General of Switzerland and declared in writing that the money was clean and did not originate from any crime. "He hired a public relations adviser, Aldo Sarullo, a former actor, playwright and director, who advised Palermo's Antimafia mayor, Leoluca Orlando, and later Silvio Berlusconi's party Forza Italia, to change his image as a Mafia boss" Palazzolo did not hire Aldo Sarullo, nor ever considered hiring him. "In January 2007 the Italian government requested the extradition of Palazzolo after the nine-year sentence was handed down by the Italian court for collusion with the Mafia. This was the sixth request from the Italians since 1992.[45][46] In June 2010, the High Court of South Africa blocked the extradition of Palazzolo due to lack of double criminality requirement as South Africa does not recognize the crime of Mafia association as conceived in Italy. Moreover, the Court also found double jeopardy as Palazzolo had already been acquitted of Mafia association in 1992 by a court in Rome. For the Italian authorities Palazzolo remains a fugitive from justice" This paragraph is hard to understand. What you mean is that the High Court of South Africa denied Palazzolo's extradition because of the principle of Double Jeopardy, which is the principle that no man or woman can be tried twice for the same crime. Ergo, Palazzolo had already been tried in Switzerland in 1985, for the same facts. Likewise, his acquittal in Rome in 1992. --Fircks (talk) 09:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, again, I am looking for sources for your position. I saw a lot of quoting from the article which has its sources noted, I didn't see any sources that you provided to counter them and again please don't broaden this beyond the scope I originally set out. Let's stick to the Italian courts and what sources you are using contesting the convictions.--WGFinley (talk) 03:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, I will revert with sources and proof of the points I made. But I am on holiday at present and won't get to my lap top, which has the evidence, till early in 2012. I will get back to it then. With thanks and a merry Christmas to you --Fircks (talk) 07:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC)