The difficult part is that news outlets, seemingly, have moved on. We are the ones who haven't.
In the weeks before the M/B acquitals in March, Italian news media was filled with Raffaele's story - about judging the case against him by the evidence against him, and forget Amanda. Turns out that the case against Raffaele was the legal-linkage of evidence against Amanda to apply to Raffaele whether it did or not.
That, in short, was the basis of Raffaele's appeal to Section 5, as well as the content of his media presence in those days.
My reading of the media in Italy in the days' past the acquittal itself, as well as since the M/B report is overwhelming acceptance of this... with 3 possible exceptions. None of the exceptions, though, scream that ISC has been hijacked with an unconstitutional hijacking of the law.
There it sits, and it is, apparently, only us still down the rabbit hole.
I realise it's a "cracked record" situation, but:
Italy's criminal justice system desperately needs fundamental, categorical, widespread, far-reaching, root-and-branch reform.
It's so manifestly (and grotesquely) unfit for purpose in its current form that it would be laughable if it wasn't so serious for so many of those caught up in its web. It's broken from top to bottom: from the risible, unworkable and unjust notion of lay-judge panels of uneducated members of the public in first-level trials who are quite obviously going to be led and hugely influenced by the professional judges who sit on the same panels(!), through to the hugely flawed, crazily time-consuming and contradictory nature of the two-appeals process (which, while possibly a nice idea in principle, turns out in practice to be unworkable and actually arguably contrary to the notion of a fair trial), through to the way in which the Supreme Court sets up insoluble traps for itself when cases go back and forth through the appeals process.
In addition, the fundamental relationship between judges and PMs has to be completely taken apart and re-assembled properly and justly in the context of adversarial justice, and it appears that everyone in the entire Italian judiciary needs to be sent back to school to be taught what "Innocent until/unless proven guilty", "Burden of guilt rests with the prosecution" and "Proof beyond a reasonable doubt" mean, and they must then be forced to apply these standards constantly, consistently and fairly.
Now of course no criminal justice is perfect - that's an impossibility, and both a theoretical/philosophical and practical level. But some are better than others. In a liberalised modern democracy, all the evidence suggests that a single trial in front of more than ten lay jurors (with at least a very strong majority needing to vote for guilt in order to result in a conviction), where the prosecution and defence are given equal standing in the court, where the entire burden of proof rests with the prosecution, where a presiding judge serves to control the trial, rule on the admissibility of evidence and direct the jury (but who - crucially - does not have any part in judging for guilt or non-guilt), and where the charge must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in order to find for guilt, is the "least bad" method there is. By a very long way. Appeals (of the kind that are understood by the "normal" adversarial system) should be reserved for specific (and articulated) matters such as potential misapplication of law of the lower court, new information about evidence/testimony presented at trial, new evidence/testimony that may have come to light, or inadequate legal representation of the defendant at trial. It would be nice to have written "motivations" reports for all verdicts, but if the above system is in place, it's virtually impossible, since the triers of fact are lay members of the public. We already have written verdicts in appeal-level hearings in any case.
Italy has a long and inglorious history of resisting legal and constitutional change. It has already had the hugely-flawed inquisitorial system of criminal justice pried from its hands (with difficulty) by the European institutions to which Italy subscribes (and to which it purports to belong as a modern, liberalised democratic polity). All the evidence suggests strongly that Italy has failed to make the transition properly, that there are still really unpleasant and unjust fascist-era laws/rules buried in the statute book, that the justice system is highly (and unjustly) politicised and factionalised, and that there are many within the system (*cough* MIGNINI *cough*) who routinely find their way around any reform laws (and around the very concept of justice and fairness) in order to get what they want out of the system.
All of this needs to change, and soon. It's more and more apparent that the Italian executive and legislature - the ones who should be driving change and reform - cannot do their job properly in this area. It's also clear that significant parts of the Italian judiciary are resistant to reform, and may be actively trying to block reform. And it also appears likely that the Italian public are either ignorant of the whole situation, or that they are sleepily compliant. Lastly, there's the really nasty and disgraceful matter of restriction of freedom of the media - it's very likely that the Italian media are largely prevented (implicitly) from criticising the system either holistically or in respect of particular cases, for fear of being prosecuted themselves.
Rant over.
