How do you know that the press got the documents from the investigation file and not directly from the police?
I don't know, but there is no proof. And anyway it doesn't change anything.
Your belief is that the prosecution leaks documents to the press in order to influence public opinion. And this is absurd.
This is not the same thing as saying that documents could have been released by the police.
The police is not the prosecution, it is a different entity; moreover addressing public opinion with false information during an investigation is nonsense. It has no use, brings no avantage.
And, this information, like the pink bathroom, was in the British tabloids, not in the Italian press. This leak did not even reach the Italian public opinion: Italians dont read British newspapers. How this happens to be "prejudicial" to the public opinion which is a different public opinion, or to the process? Try to think about this alleged prosecution maneuver, think about the nonsense of your theory.
Anyway, if you are suggesting that an "investigation file" is public information in Italy, then the police/prosecution are responsible if prejudicial information is placed in it--it's the same as publishing the information.
The investigation file is not public, is reserved until deposited at the office of the preliminary judge (or the preliminary investigation judge, depending on the evidence). But the secrecy (or confidentiality) of the acts rests on the respect of the law by individuals, it is not under the responsability of the procura.
You're wrong. The prejudice derives from the publication, not from the act of writing.
Sorry, no.
A publication of a document that has no prejudicial content, is not prejudicial.
In order to have a negative effect on public opinion, the material must have itself a prejudicial content already.
If Amanda wrote a beautiful diary, you could claim that the publication had a positive fallout on her image. If you complain about the publication, this is because Amanda may have written a disgusting diary. And this not necessarily because of her sex history. The publication of documents itself does not cause negative prejudice. It is what is found in the documents that can shed a negative light on the person.
My position is that everyone can be held responsible of what declares and does. A prison diary written by a person under investigation is not a private venue, just as the prison parlor is not a place for private conversations, and Sollecito perfectly knows this as he writes his diary.
And what is the main value, to me, is that the diary is authentic: it is a document truly written by that person who was a suspect, thus it is part of the truth, and I don't feel offended by its publication.
