A very common trap that many commentators fall into -- whatever their opinion on the case -- is to (perhaps unintentionally) try to apply cultural assumptions from their own country (e.g. Anglo-Saxon legal practices) to Italy.
For example, people will often say something like "oh, surely X will be found in contempt of court for saying that!" -- without realizing, apparently, that this is a foreign country, and so there very well may not be any such thing as "contempt of court". It's an American legal concept (and thus presumably British too, since American law historically derives from British law), which may or may not have some Italian analogue or equivalent.
More generally, Italian society has different conventions and mores from American or British society. You cannot expect that something that would be considered "outrageous" in one country will also be considered "outrageous" in another. I think LondonJohn made this mistake earlier with regard to Comodi's comments about the court being against them. An American or Briton might gasp at the notion of a prosecutor impugning the integrity of the judge; but Italy is a country where people routinely shout insults at each other over dinner, interrupt speakers in formal lecture settings, and don't apologize for making loud noises when they drop dishes on the ground. For all I know a statement like Comodi's could just be considered part of the normal give-and-take of public discourse. (Now perhaps Hellmann could sue Comodi for "slander"; but have her removed from the case? You've got to be kidding! -- an Italian might say.)
Similarly, these complaints about closing arguments may not make any sense in an Italian context (they might, but it's not to be taken for granted). Who says that closing arguments have to restricted to "the evidence adduced at trial"? Well, that's the rule in the American system. But an Italian might say, "It's the closing argument, not the evidence phase!" and expect it to be obvious that closing arguments are the place for strong, emotionally-charged rhetoric rather than dispassionate presentation of evidence (which has its own place earlier in the trial).
How often do lawyers break down in tears during American and British trials? Not very often, I would guess. Yet it's happened more than once in this very case. We're dealing with a different culture here.
.