Michele Luca Noschese, One Year On: The Contested Truth Between Ibiza and Rome

 

A year after the death of Dr. Michele Luca Noschese, known by his stage name DJ Godzi, questions remain about what the family's forensic medical report reveals and how it contrasts with the official Spanish version. With clinical analysis, we explore the facts and offer a technical comparison between the two reconstructions, along with the testimony of those left behind.

One death, two countries, two truths

On July 19, 2025, in an apartment in Ibiza, Michele Luca Noschese, 36, a native of Naples and a well-known DJ, lost his life. His death has become one of the most controversial cases in Italy over the past year, not only because of his young age and fame, but because, a year on, two profoundly different official versions still exist about what happened in that room, each claimed to rest on scientific grounds. On one side, the Spanish authorities maintain that Michele died of cardiac arrest caused by drug use, in circumstances that, according to them, show no signs of violence on the body.

On the other, the family, through the forensic consultancy of Dr. Raffaele Zinno, filed on April 18, 2026, states that death is attributable to a mechanism of positional/restraint asphyxia, with a crucial role played by the intervention of the Guardia Civil.

This is not a simple disagreement over technical details; there are two completely opposing views of the same sequence of events, with enormous consequences: on one hand, a “natural” death, however tragic, tied to the vulnerability of the person involved; on the other, the possibility of a crime. The Rome Public Prosecutor's Office has opened an investigation for manslaughter (“omicidio preterintenzionale”), and the family's lawyers have also raised the hypothesis of torture, invoking Article 613-bis of the Italian Criminal Code, introduced after the case of Stefano Cucchi. It is essential to stress that, at this stage, this is an investigative hypothesis supported by the family's own consultant and lawyers, not a final judicial verdict. The Rome Prosecutor's Office is examining the question of causal link, and the final decision will rest with the judiciary, both Italian and Spanish, in a process that will be anything but quick or straightforward.

Timeline of events

Reconstructing the sequence of events is essential to understanding where the contrast between the two versions originates.

We are in Ibiza, July 19, 2025. Michele Noschese is at home when neighbors report loud music. The Spanish Guardia Civil intervenes. According to the officers' account, the young man, under the effect of psychoactive substances and in a state of agitation with alleged hallucinations, reacted violently, allegedly attacking a neighbor with a knife before being restrained. During the search of the home, residues of various substances are found. Shortly after being immobilized, Michele dies.

The first hours. The autopsy carried out in Ibiza attributes the cause of death to acute cardiorespiratory failure, in a context of poly-substance use. However, the preliminary report from the Instituto de Medicina Legal y Ciencias Forenses de las Illes Balears also mentions certain findings, such as “cervicocephalic congestion” and “shawl/cape-pattern edema” (edema en esclavina), which, as we will see, would later become central elements in the family's reinterpretation of events.

Late July 2025. Dr. Giuseppe Noschese, Michele's father and a respected surgeon with deep experience in humanitarian missions and war zones, as well as president of the International Disaster Medicine Association (IDMA), is not convinced by the initial reconstruction of events. Before the body is repatriated, he arranges, at his own expense, advanced diagnostic tests, including a full-body CT scan and a brain MRI, at a private clinic in Ibiza. According to information provided by the family, these tests are said to have revealed seven fractured ribs, a fractured clavicle, air detected in the chest, and a cortical fracture, together with edema that technicians partly associate with the procedures carried out during the autopsy itself. Faced with these results, the family returns to Italy with the body to raise their concerns with the competent authorities regarding the Spanish reconstruction of events.

August 1, 2025. The Rome Prosecutor's Office orders the evidentiary seizure of the body and opens an investigation, initially against unknown persons, for manslaughter. This investigation falls within the jurisdiction of the Italian judiciary since it involves an Italian citizen who died abroad under suspicious circumstances.

The following months. In Italy, the autopsy examination becomes the focal point of the family's forensic consultancy, together with the full-body CT scan already carried out in Ibiza.

April 18, 2026. At the Rome Prosecutor's Office, Dr. Raffaele Zinno's technical consultancy report is presented. This is the only forensic medical report examined, and the article provides a detailed account of it in the following section.

Between April 24 and 29, 2026. Lawyer Vanni Cerino, together with colleagues Angelo Sammarco and D'Urso, formally files the report with the Prosecutor's Office. They present to the Rome magistrates, deputy prosecutor Giovanni Conso and assistant prosecutor Daria Monsumò, the hypothesis of torture by the Guardia Civil officers who intervened that morning.

July 2026. As of today, one year after Michele's death, the case remains under examination by the Rome Prosecutor's Office, which is working to determine the link between how the intervention was handled and the death.

The Spanish version

The Guardia Civil's reconstruction, released through an official statement, attributes the death to continued drug use, stating that the body showed no signs of violence. According to this version, Michele's agitation, alleged hallucinations, and aggressiveness toward others justified his restraint, while the cardiorespiratory collapse was the result of an independent toxicological condition, unrelated to how the intervention was carried out. It is important to note that the family never accepted this version from the outset, and that it has been progressively called into question by the results of the radiological examinations carried out in Italy (multiple rib fractures, clavicle fractures, pneumothorax) — findings which, according to the family and its consultants, are difficult to reconcile with the idea of a death involving no external trauma whatsoever.

The Italian report: the mechanism reconstructed step by step

Dr. Raffaele Zinno's report, which I had the opportunity to read in full, does not merely dispute the Spanish conclusions; it proposes a detailed alternative pathophysiological account, step by step, which deserves to be reported accurately since the entire scientific case rests on this sequence.

Starting point: a condition of vulnerability, not of imminent death. Zinno begins by clarifying that the state of acute psychomotor agitation linked to the simultaneous use of several substances constituted a state of biological fragility — a hypothetical risk, but not an immediate risk of death. At that stage, according to the report, the body was still able to compensate for increased oxygen demand by increasing ventilation and cardiac output, meaning the condition was still reversible.

First turning point: the lack of de-escalation. A critical issue highlighted concerns the initial handling of the person. De-escalation is not a supplementary measure but the primary tool for reducing tension and the perception of threat, lowering activation of the sympathetic nervous system and therefore oxygen consumption. The absence of this phase exposes the person to a state of continuous stimulation, further increasing metabolic demand.

Second turning point: physical coercion. On top of an already compromised condition comes the phase of physical restraint. Contact and restriction of movement are perceived as further threats, intensifying the defensive reaction and oxygen consumption precisely when the body's capacity to obtain it is reduced.

Third turning point: body position. This is the central technical point of the report. Michele Luca is described as being held in a prone position, knees bent, torso on the bed, limbs immobilized, and pressure applied to his back. Mechanically, this would hinder the chest expansion needed for breathing, reducing ventilation efficiency while oxygen demand remains high due to unresolved agitation.

Proposed diagnosis: “restraint asphyxia.” The report refers to a concept found in international forensic medical literature: positional or constraint asphyxia, a form of mechanical asphyxia that occurs when physical restraint methods limit ventilation while oxygen demand is increased. Zinno points out that this is a well-documented phenomenon, in which death occurs not from an obvious traumatic injury but from progressive respiratory failure — an important point for interpreting certain otherwise nonspecific autopsy findings.

Interpretation of the autopsy findings according to the Italian analysis. The report lists a series of findings supporting this reconstruction: diffuse alveolar edema and pulmonary vascular congestion consistent with acute cardiorespiratory failure; evidence of hypoxic damage in brain tissue; cranial congestion and “cape/shawl-pattern” edema, which Zinno considers indicative of mechanical venous compression; neck congestion and intercostal hemorrhages suggesting chest compressions not explainable by autopsy procedures alone but indicative of compressive trauma; and pneumothorax, subcutaneous emphysema, and pleural effusion, which reinforce this reading since, the report specifies, embalming procedures (tanatopraxis) are not capable of producing them.

The external injuries. Lacerated-contused wounds are noted on the scalp, bruising and abrasions on the face, a fracture of the nasal bones with pneumocephalus, a traumatic injury to the hyoid bone, and rib fractures from the first to the eighth rib, in addition to bilateral clavicle fractures. On the extremities, linear peri-styloid abrasions on the wrists are consistent with the use of metal handcuffs, while other injuries in the ankle area are attributed, according to testimony, to restraint of the legs as well. A skin bruise and a series of linear erosions along the right rib area are interpreted by the consultant as indicative of external weight applied to a body in a prone position, such as a knee or forearm.

The counterfactual judgment. This is the final, and most delicate, part from a forensic standpoint: the question is raised of what would have happened without adequate de-escalation and without the restraint practices described. The family's consultant provides a clear answer, explaining that it is highly probable, almost certain, that death would not have occurred under those same conditions.

The critique of “Excited Delirium Syndrome”

Given the case, it becomes essential to examine the so-called Excited Delirium Syndrome (ExDS), proposed as a possible independent cause of death by the prosecution's consultant. Zinno's report states that this syndrome remains a subject of debate in medical literature, as it lacks a clear diagnostic framework and is not supported by a specific, shared etiopathogenetic mechanism, nor by characteristic anatomopathological findings. In other words, there is currently insufficient scientific evidence to state with certainty that someone died because of ExDS, unlike, for example, a documented heart attack or cerebral hemorrhage.

From these considerations, the Italian report draws a specific conclusion: if an independent cause of death due solely to ExDS cannot be demonstrated, causal analysis must necessarily examine the concrete events that took place. This includes how the person was restrained, the position used, and the duration and intensity of the restraint. This is a point that, as I will explain later in the section devoted to my own perspective, I consider scientifically sound. 

The words of those who remain

A year after his son's death, Dr. Giuseppe Noschese has expressed his thoughts in a statement I want to report almost in full, in his own words, because no summary could adequately convey his grief:

“A year after the death of my son Michele Luca, the pain has not eased. On July 19, 2025, it was not only Michele who died: on that day, the entire Noschese family was shattered.”

These words paint the portrait of a son “full of life,” loved by many people and full of dreams and plans, hidden behind the stage name DJ Godzi. He is described not only as an artist but as a son, a brother, a friend. The nature of the family's request is stated with great clarity: not a thirst for revenge, but a search for the truth. “Justice yes, revenge never” is the statement reiterated even in the presence of the Holy Father. There is a demand that every detail be reconstructed, that responsibilities be identified, and that no omission stand in the way of establishing the facts. Trust is maintained in the Italian judicial authorities, and full cooperation from the foreign institutions involved is hoped for. As a doctor with a career devoted to polytrauma patients, he understands deeply what bodily injuries mean; yet today he speaks primarily as a father — a father determined to discover the truth about what happened to his son. In the weeks following the presentation of the report, Dr. Noschese publicly expressed to the media a harsh interpretation of the events of that morning. He speaks of the use of restraint techniques potentially disproportionate to the situation and describes a blow that he believes injured his son's hyoid bone. This reconstruction, part of his personal interpretation of the case files, awaits verification by experts.

Dr. Raffaele Zinno, author of the forensic medical consultancy for the family, accompanied the presentation of the report with his own statement, which I quote in full:

“We are convinced that the truth will emerge through a rigorous examination of the facts. This is an inevitably complex process that will require time and careful assessment of all the evidence. Our conclusions rest on solid scientific grounds, built according to rigorous methodological criteria and supported by the evidence currently available. At the same time, we are continuing further scientific investigation to further integrate and consolidate the body of evidence, with the sole aim of contributing to a complete and objective establishment of the truth.”

To complete the picture, presented below are the statements released by the Noschese family's two lawyers, Angelo Sammarco and Vanni Cerino.

Statement by lawyer Angelo Sammarco

“Here is my comment on the case as things stand today: the file was closed just a few days later by the Spanish judicial authority, despite clear evidence pointing to the commission of a serious crime — torture, under Article 613-bis of the Criminal Code. Michele Luca Noschese's family has filed with the Rome Prosecutor's Office the technical report of a prominent pathologist, which shows that the violence suffered by Michele Luca Noschese was deliberate and unjustified, causing his death after the poor young man was also subjected to acts of serious, gratuitous violence. This crime, being so serious, can also be prosecuted in Italy under a number of legal provisions; and that is why we, as counsel for Michele Luca Noschese's family, in the face of the unjustified inaction of the Spanish judicial authority, are asking for justice to be done in Italy, with the opening of criminal proceedings against all those who, acting brutally and with extreme violence, killed Michele Luca Noschese.”

Statement by lawyer Vanni Cerino

“Beyond being the Noschese family's lawyer, I have a deep friendship with Michele's father: I can say I saw Michele being born, so one can imagine my state of mind. My professional commitment will be at its highest intensity. Together with my colleagues, Professor Angelo Sammarco and lawyer D'Urso, we have filed a request with the Rome Prosecutor's Office asking it to seek from the European Court the issuance of a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) against the police officers who killed poor Michele. We will certainly not give up until justice is done.”

My point of view, as a clinician

I write about this case in my professional capacity as a researcher in clinical neuroscience and forensic medicine, as well as a clinical neuropsychologist, neurocriminologist, and psychotherapist in training, focusing on the application of neuroscience to the study of trauma. I do not deal with the judicial aspect, which is the exclusive responsibility of the judiciary, but from a clinical and scientific standpoint I consider certain aspects to be fundamental.

In situations of delirium, the correct approach is not to confront but to help. This guiding principle is also at the heart of the Italian reports, which place de-escalation as the first and most important tool for managing individuals in a state of acute agitation. In such conditions, regardless of whether the origin is toxic, psychiatric, or mixed, an individual is not an aggressor to be neutralized but a patient in need of emergency intervention. This principle applies in any emergency room or psychiatric ward: the priority is to physiologically stabilize the patient rather than to apply coercive restraint as an end in itself. The Italian report explains that de-escalation reduces activation of the limbic system, particularly the amygdala, and dampens the adrenergic response, describing a well-known neurobiological mechanism: fewer stimuli perceived as threatening lead to lower activation of the sympathetic nervous system, reducing oxygen consumption and increasing the chances of regaining behavioral control.

I would also like to point out that a body already low on oxygen due to adrenergic hyperactivation cannot withstand additional mechanical strain on the most critical function at that moment: breathing. From this clinical perspective, the Italian report identifies a coherent pathophysiological mechanism — namely, increased metabolic oxygen demand combined with a mechanical reduction in ventilatory capacity — which has long been recognized in scientific literature as potentially fatal, regardless of the substances ingested.

I share the criticism of using the ExDS diagnosis as a “catch-all.” As a neuroscientist, I agree with the caution shown in the Italian report regarding the use of excited delirium syndrome as a self-sufficient explanation for a death. This diagnostic category lacks unambiguous diagnostic criteria and specific anatomopathological findings. Using it as an independent cause of death without considering the context of physical restraint risks turning a generic behavioral description into an explanation that preemptively excludes analysis of the actual circumstances of the intervention. I do not consider this to be rigorous scientific method.

In my research work on war trauma, traumatic loss, and neurodevelopment, I have shown how different experiences of chronic violence — whether domestic violence, war trauma, or a sudden and violent loss — share common mechanisms: stress-induced hyperarousal, traumatic memory, and altered perception of safety. These experiences have effects that extend well beyond the acute event, negatively affecting the family, relationships, and mental health of those left behind. It is crucial to adopt a genuinely trauma-informed approach, not only in care but also in the training of those who deal with crisis situations on the street or in public safety. Recognizing the signs of a clinical crisis in time can prevent tragic outcomes.

My contribution to this case is limited to sharing the general principles confirmed by scientific literature on stress, trauma, and the management of acute crises, which I believe are well supported by the scientific framework of the Italian report. Establishing with judicial certainty exactly what happened to Michele Luca Noschese rightly remains in the hands of the Italian and Spanish justice systems.

In memory of Michele

Behind every accusation, every report, and every technical inquiry still underway, there is a person: Michele Luca Noschese, known to all as DJ Godzi, a 36-year-old young man passionate about music and about his loved ones. He leaves a deep void in the hearts of his father, his mother, and his brother, starting from that tragic morning of July 19, 2025.

A year after his passing, as the family continues to ask for truth rather than revenge, I believe the most sincere way to honor him is for each of us to work, in our own field, to prevent similar events from happening again. It is essential to provide targeted training to those who manage acute behavioral crises, to establish protocols that prioritize medical assistance over physical restraint, and to reinforce a clinical approach that never stops affirming one simple truth: faced with a person in delirium, the first step must be to help them, not to attack them.

Dr. Hamida Ouled Slimane

About the autor: Dr. Hamida Ouled Slimane

Clinical and forensic neuroscientist • Neurocriminologist

Researcher in Clinical Neuroscience and Forensic Medicine

Expert in Clinical Neuropsychology, Neuropsychopathology, and Neuropsychophysiology

Scholar of Neuropsychiatry of Behavioral Neurological Disorders • Adjunct Lecturer in Neurocriminology

Psychotherapist in training - Vice President, PSAF – Professioni Sanitarie Assicurative Forensi, a scientific society accredited by the Italian Ministry of Health and listed in the European Parliament's Transparency Register

Independent expert to the European Commission

Registered in the EU institutions' transparency system • Registered with the Calabria Board of Psychologists, No. 3080