“The investigations carried out on the choices of the health facility made it possible to conclude that those choices were substantially lawful, which did not violate any law and, above all, never concerned Andrea Scanzi who, however, is the only one to appear on the notice setting the council chamber, as investigated, never having been one, nor having ever undergone investigations and even with the assignment of an official defender “. This was stated to the Adnkronos by the lawyer Caterina Malavenda, defender of Andrea Scanzi in the proceeding concerning the vaccination of the journalist from Arezzo which took place on 19 March 2021. Proceedings regarding which the deputy prosecutor requested the filing and for which tomorrow, 3 December, the hearing to oppose this request has been set before the Gip of Arezzo Giulia Soldini. The lawyer Malavenda retraces the stages of the story with Adnkronos: “Andrea Scanzi, on February 26, 2020, in a moment of great confusion over the administration of vaccines, asks his doctor if he could be vaccinated, compatibly with the guidelines in force , which will only happen on March 19, 2020, after almost a month “, he explains. “In the meantime, while awaiting an answer, on March 15, 2020 General Figliuolo reiterated the need not to waste vaccines and the administration of Astrazeneca was suspended until March 18, 2020, when it would resume in the inevitable distrust of the recipients and with consequent defections “. At that point, in the reconstruction of his defender, Scanzi” was called the next day, he showed up in the evening, following the instructions received and was vaccinated as a reservist. Only later, when his name was registered in the Sispc system, the problem of his location arose and it was at that moment and without his knowledge that he was placed in the category of caregivers, to which he had never said he belonged “. Summing up, “the investigating judge will have to make his decisions, but he cannot fail to take note of them”, firmly emphasizes Scanzi’s lawyer, who concludes: “The investigations had, however, the advantage of dispelling any possible doubt on the behavior of Scanzi, even if even today, against all evidence, he is remembered as the one who would have taken advantage of his notoriety to be vaccinated, without having the right to do so “.