That’s the way the system works.

Ian, David Mills was found guilty of taking a bribe even though there was no evidence of a promise made before he perjured himself in a trial against Berlusconi. Mills received the £350,000 reward about a year ‘after the event’, as lawyers like to say.

[Daphne – http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/feb/17/david-mills-silvio-berlusconi-trial%5D

Your reasoning is correct, and the fact that he accepted the thank-you makes it patently obvious that there was the promise beforehand.

My point is that the defence’s strategy is cunning in that while there is proof of the thank-you part, there’s no proof of the initial promise. Technically – this is not a bribe as described at law.

Yes, he accepted a bribe (We know it, he knows it, even the judge knows it). Yes his antics (rosary ring and all) are ridiculous and shameful. But my comment was on the strategy that the defence opted for, rather than what’s obvious.

As far as I know (though I may be mistaken – I’m not a lawyer) a judge cannot convict on what’s obvious. There must be proof that he promised to change the sentence in exchange for cash.

[Daphne – He had seven years to plan and orchestrate all this. No wonder the prosecutor exploded in court. You could smell that rat (no, not Arrigo) when he chose not to have a jury trial. He knew he’d go down like a sack of punctured condoms.]

[Daphne – The bribe is implicit in the ‘thank-you’. Nobody thanks people unless there is something for which they should be thanked. Especially, nobody is going to give you an envelope with a large amount of money as thanks unless you have done something to get it. Funny, but there’s nobody chucking envelopes full of cash onto my desk and saying ‘thanks’ for something I haven’t done.]

Were the three confessors aware that their penitent’s company is the Malta agent for Durex? That would have got their conscience in a twist.

Your last para says it all.