"NOTHING NEW": THE REVIEW THAT WOULD NOT SEE THE EXPERT REPORT

The expert report of July 2023 was, technically, what the law calls a new fact: an element of conviction subsequent to the conviction, not available at the trial, that affected the very integrity of the record. Exactly the situation for which criminal review exists.

The institutional response came on 10 November 2023, in the form of a decree of the Public Prosecutor's Office (A.35): the matter presented nothing new. Without a counter-report. Without a technical examination of the medium. Without explaining how an expert report dated four years after the judgment, on an object — the integrity of the record — that no body had ever examined, could be nothing new.

The reasoning deserves pausing on, because it defines the complete circle: the conviction rests on the record; the record presents cuts and anomalies documented by experts; the legal instrument to correct convictions with flawed evidence is review; and review is closed by declaring that there is nothing new — without looking at what is new. The system always refers to the next rung, and the last rung returns to the first.

By then, the complete series was already eloquent: the investigation did not confront, the judgment did not weigh, the cassation did not review, the constitutional appeal did not admit, the complaints generated no steps and the review found nothing new. Six different mechanisms, a single result. Statistics has a name for that, and it is not bad luck.