....
Take a closer look at
Art. 192.2 c.p., Hellmann has the law on his side.
Chieffi used the saying “quae singula non probant, simul unita probant” as an excuse to go onto a fact finding mission himself (not allowed) to follow Galati's re-invention of logic and to get
Art. 606 (e) c.p.p. into play...
....
Here is the text in Italian of CPP Article 192*:
Art. 192 - Valutazione della prova
1. Il giudice valuta la prova dando conto nella motivazione dei risultati acquisiti e dei criteri adottati.
2. L'esistenza di un fatto non può essere desunta da indizi a meno che questi siano gravi, precisi e concordanti.
3. Le dichiarazioni rese dal coimputato del medesimo reato o da persona imputata in un procedimento connesso a norma dell'articolo 12 sono valutate unitamente agli altri elementi di prova che ne confermano l'attendibilità.
4. La disposizione del comma 3 si applica anche alle dichiarazioni rese da persona imputata di un reato collegato a quello per cui si procede, nel caso previsto dall'articolo 371 comma 2 lettera b).
Translation by Google:
Art. 192 - Evaluation of evidence {proof}
1. The judge shall evaluate the evidence by taking into account the justification for the results obtained and the criteria adopted.
2. The existence of a fact can not be inferred from clues{circumstantial evidence} unless these are serious, precise and concordant {not contradictory}.
3. Declarations made by the convicted person of the same offense or by a person charged with a proceeding pursuant to Article 12 shall be assessed together with the other evidence confirming their reliance.
4. The provision of paragraph 3 shall also apply to declarations made by an accused person of an offense related to the one for which it is proceeded, in the case provided for in Article 371, paragraph 2, letter b).
Violation of CPP 192.2 by the Massei court, Chieffi CSC panel, and Nencini court led to arbitrary reasoning in their judgments as clearly observable in their respective motivation reports. ECHR case law states that arbitrary reasoning in a court judgment, if it leads to conviction or other disadvantage to an accused, is an infringement of Convention rights under Article 6.
*Source:
http://www.leggeonline.info/leggi/procedurapenale/art192/valutazione_della_prova/
