21
Januray 2002
TO
THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE – COURT OF VITERBO
PENAL PROCEEDING AGAINST DON ENRICO RIGHI
REQUEST OF PROBATIVE OBJECTION EX ART. 394 OF THE CODE
OF PENAL PROCEDURE
The
undersigned Luigi Cascioli, resident in Roccalvecce
(Viterbo), via delle Provice 45/b, as injured party
in the above mentioned proceeding
PREMISED
-
that on the 13th of September 2002 the undersigned presented
to this Office accusation-lawsuit against don Enrico
Righi (parish priest of Bagnoregio) for the offences
provided and punished by art. 494 and 661 of the Penal
Code, enclosing the book “The Fable of Christ”,
as a confirmation of his statements;
- That on the 27th of November 2002 the undersigned
presented some integrative memories for further clearness
of the reasons for the accusation-lawsuit, where it
was enclosed, besides the already indicated offences,
the existence of the aggravating circumstance of which
at art. 61 n.9 of the Penal Code, with 36 pages of explanations
enclosed about the event,
Thus premised, the undersigned ex art. 394 C.P.P.
ASKS
You
to promote a probative objection on the following points
and for the following reasons.
The probative objection to be accomplished is a valuation
that is aimed to demonstrate if the figure of Jesus
Christ, as diffused by the catholic faith, has a real
basis and adherence to historical data or not.
The valuation is determining for the existence of the
offences because, if the valuation ascertained the historical
nature of such a figure there would not be any offence,
while if the figure of Jesus Christ was a mere theological
creation without any historical confrontation, then
there would be no doubt a basic falseness that, integrated
with the opportune psychological element that certainly
exists, as better explained in the accusation-lawsuit,
it would determine the existence of the mentioned offences
in the above mentioned accusation-lawsuit.
Therefore in this case, the requirements provided by
art. 393 I sub- section C.P.P. are the following: a)
accomplishment of a valuation aimed at determining the
historical or fantastic (theological) nature of Jesus
Christ, which constitutes a logic prius for the existence
of the offences for which the proceeding is asked; b)the
evidence is to be assumed against don Enrico Righi;
c) the evidence cannot be delayed to the trial because
it would provide a suspension superior to 60 days and,
so, one goes back to the field of application of art,
392 II sub-section C.P.P.
This last statement is justified by the fact that the
expert will have to examine carefully all the original
and contemporary sources of the time of the presumed
life of Jesus Christ and, where possible, in their original
language of writing and not in translations that may
betray the primeval meaning of the words used; besides
the experts will have to verify (inside the primary
sources) if there are or not passages interpolated by
subsequent copyists often of christian faith and thus
ideologically brought to model the text according to
their beliefs; finally the research of the expert will
not have to be grounded exclusively on documentary sources,
but to be also extended to verify the epigraphic, material,
monumental, topographic and palaeographic, numismatic
sources or all that may serve to verify the authenticity
or not of the following statement: “Jesus Christ
is not a historical personage”. It appears very
clear that the inquiry is complex and long and that
it could go beyond the themes indicated by art. 392
II sub-section C:P:P: (60 days).
The injured party reserves for itself the right to nominate
a technical adviser of its own in the domain of the
valuation required.
Obsequiously
Enclosed: nomination of the defence counsel.
Luigi
Cascioli
|
