Andreapisauro

Itavia Flight 870

Hi. I can see that you're a new user, so I thought I should drop you a message.

Please do not make wholesale reversions to the page. I can see that you created an account just to edit it, so perhaps this is an emotional subject for you. I have no problem with you including criticism of the 1990 commission's report, but do not undo all the timeconsuming changes I've made. There is already a more objection section on the report, which is where any criticism should go.

If you have further suggested changes, please use the article's talk page first. John Smith's (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your kind message.

Sorry for the reversions, I am new to how to handle this situation.

I did not create the account just to edit this, I created the account some time ago, but did few changes over time. Not sure why it says it was the first. I am fine with you summary of the criticism but the previous version of the bomb hypothesis did not include them. I would also suggest reincluding the passage about Taylor suggesting there was a bomb on the Air Smolensk disaster as it is relevant.

Many thanks Andreapisauro (talk) 21:50, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I would also suggest reinstating that judge Priore heavily criticised Taylor's findings.

Many thanks Andreapisauro (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi. I don't think it's relevant to discuss the lead investigator's views on other things as it's not relevant to this investigation. Moreover he was part of a committee, rather than an individual working by himself in an unofficial capacity.

As for the views of the magistrate/judge, can you please identity the article and specific piece of text that refers to his views? John Smith's (talk) 08:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi,

I think the investigator's view on the Air Smolensk disaster is extremely relevant as it is a very similar situation. A plane which went down in somewhat unclear circumstances where Taylor supports a theory about a bomb as the main cause of the disaster. In both cases the events have geopolitical significance and in both cases the official investigation leads towards a different explanation of the events. While it is true that in the second case he did not have an official capacity, it is worth noticing that also in the case of Ustica Taylor went far beyond his role on the committee, giving frequent and highly politically sensitive comments to the press. Precisely the kind of comments he put forward in the case of the Smolensk disaster.

For the views of Priore on the Misiti/Taylor report I would refer to this link which is comprehensive: https://www.stragi80.it/ecco-come-il-collegio-misiti-inquino-le-indagini/ and link up the the part of Priore's "sentenza-ordinanza" where the judge harshly criticises the report: https://www.stragi80.it/documenti/gi/perizie/051.pdf

Many thanks Andreapisauro (talk) 17:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to respond on the article talk page. Please reply there so everyone can see. John Smith's (talk) 21:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)