Talk:Trials and allegations involving Silvio Berlusconi

Perjury

his perjury conviction is continually removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More information

The Italian version of this page includes other relevant information, e.g. drug trafficking, corruption and more. See http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procedimenti_giudiziari_a_carico_di_Silvio_Berlusconi -- R. 1 June 2009

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

In how many cases was he techically guilty then?93.96.148.42 (talk) 04:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Explantion of Statute of limitations

I have added the following as an introduction, based on the discussion above-

The statutory limitation does not mean 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. ref sentence #5069 of the Corte di Cassazione, May 21, 1996
It would be great if someone could find out in which cases he is technically guilty.93.96.148.42 (talk) 04:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer : none. Technically speaking he was not found guilty: Berlusconi did not obtain benefits for previous good conduct.
  - The above unsigned note by 217.201.135.245 (as well as the ensuing edits by the same anonymous user that I reverted) is in blatant contradiction with the first paragraph of the article (that 217.201.135.245 also attempted to remove and was reverted by another user). It is one of the tenets of Italian Law that statutory limitation does not imply a verdict of "not guilt". See the article on Not proven for a similar notion in Scots law and please stop this ludicrous vandalism. --DarTar (talk) 15:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]