Talk:Trials and allegations involving Silvio Berlusconi: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
his perjury conviction is continually removed. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/93.96.148.42|93.96.148.42]] ([[User talk:93.96.148.42|talk]]) 02:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
his perjury conviction is continually removed. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/93.96.148.42|93.96.148.42]] ([[User talk:93.96.148.42|talk]]) 02:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
== Acquittal |
== Acquittal == |
||
I'm not sure whether [[Acquittal]] is the right juridical expression to characterize some of the verdict described here. Many of the sentences we are talking about don't say "not guilty", they instead say something like "he actually committed the crime ''but'' no punishment is deserved because the statuste of limitation expired".--[[User:Pokipsy76|Pokipsy76]] ([[User talk:Pokipsy76|talk]]) 14:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC) |
I'm not sure whether [[Acquittal]] is the right juridical expression to characterize some of the verdict described here. Many of the sentences we are talking about don't say "not guilty", they instead say something like "he actually committed the crime ''but'' no punishment is deserved because the statuste of limitation expired".--[[User:Pokipsy76|Pokipsy76]] ([[User talk:Pokipsy76|talk]]) 14:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC) |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
In fact you are right, but as you might know these pages are often edited, and taken care of, by Berlusconi's dedicated staff. No wonder. You might have also noted that this paragraph about his many trials and convictions has been split off from the main berlusconi bibliography, kind of hiding it. There are many oustanding NPOV issues related to Berlusconi entry, but .. it keeps staying as it is .. biased and misleading. <AT SALUDI> 07:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC) |
In fact you are right, but as you might know these pages are often edited, and taken care of, by Berlusconi's dedicated staff. No wonder. You might have also noted that this paragraph about his many trials and convictions has been split off from the main berlusconi bibliography, kind of hiding it. There are many oustanding NPOV issues related to Berlusconi entry, but .. it keeps staying as it is .. biased and misleading. <AT SALUDI> 07:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC) |
||
-I have changed the descriptions as below - more accurate, I hope |
|||
* 1.1 False testimony on Propaganda 2: guilty, but amnestied |
|||
* 1.2 Bribing a member of the Financial Police (corruption): not proven |
|||
* 1.3 All Iberian 1 (illegally financing a political party): not guilty (statute of limitations) |
|||
* 1.4 Medusa Cinema (false accounting): not proven |
|||
* 1.5 Lodo Mondadori (corrupting a judge): not guilty (statute of limitations) |
|||
* 1.6 All Iberian 2 (false accounting): not guilty (law change) |
|||
* 1.7 Fininvest media group consolidated (false accounting): not guilty (statute of limitations) |
|||
* 1.8 Macherio estates (embezzlement, tax fraud and false accounting): not guilty |
|||
* 1.9 Lentini affair (false accounting): not guilty (statute of limitations) |
|||
* 1.10 Mediaset television and cinema rights (false accounting, embezzlement and tax fraud): not proven |
|||
* 1.11 SME-Ariosto (corrupting a judge and false accounting): Innocent |
|||
* 1.12 Telecinco (tax fraud): not guilty |
|||
[[Special:Contributions/93.96.148.42|93.96.148.42]] ([[User talk:93.96.148.42|talk]]) 02:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:This is incorrect. The statutory limitation does ''not'' mean he is not guilty; at the very least it says nothing about guilt, and in fact it may indicate that he ''is'' guilty if the statute of limitations is applied after conceding benefits for previous good conduct (i.e. it would be the first verdict of guilt), because such benefits can be granted only ''after'' guilt is ascertained. See sentence #5069 of the [[Corte di Cassazione]], [[May 21]] [[1996]]. [[Special:Contributions/78.53.201.220|78.53.201.220]] ([[User talk:78.53.201.220|talk]]) 07:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC) |
:This is incorrect. The statutory limitation does ''not'' mean he is not guilty; at the very least it says nothing about guilt, and in fact it may indicate that he ''is'' guilty if the statute of limitations is applied after conceding benefits for previous good conduct (i.e. it would be the first verdict of guilt), because such benefits can be granted only ''after'' guilt is ascertained. See sentence #5069 of the [[Corte di Cassazione]], [[May 21]] [[1996]]. [[Special:Contributions/78.53.201.220|78.53.201.220]] ([[User talk:78.53.201.220|talk]]) 07:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC) |
||
As clearly expressed by the comments above, the Italian judiciary is a madness!!! You are acquitted, but you are not "not guilty": for an English-speaking person this is an absolute devious nonsensical byzantine system |
|||
Revision as of 23:51, 12 February 2009
Perjury
his perjury conviction is continually removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Acquittal
I'm not sure whether Acquittal is the right juridical expression to characterize some of the verdict described here. Many of the sentences we are talking about don't say "not guilty", they instead say something like "he actually committed the crime but no punishment is deserved because the statuste of limitation expired".--Pokipsy76 (talk) 14:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
In fact you are right, but as you might know these pages are often edited, and taken care of, by Berlusconi's dedicated staff. No wonder. You might have also noted that this paragraph about his many trials and convictions has been split off from the main berlusconi bibliography, kind of hiding it. There are many oustanding NPOV issues related to Berlusconi entry, but .. it keeps staying as it is .. biased and misleading. <AT SALUDI> 07:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- This is incorrect. The statutory limitation does not mean he is not guilty; at the very least it says nothing about guilt, and in fact it may indicate that he is guilty if the statute of limitations is applied after conceding benefits for previous good conduct (i.e. it would be the first verdict of guilt), because such benefits can be granted only after guilt is ascertained. See sentence #5069 of the Corte di Cassazione, May 21 1996. 78.53.201.220 (talk) 07:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
As clearly expressed by the comments above, the Italian judiciary is a madness!!! You are acquitted, but you are not "not guilty": for an English-speaking person this is an absolute devious nonsensical byzantine system