Chronology 28 December 1927. The Turin Criminal Court declares the man's identity unproven despite the questor's identification and Coppola's neuropsychiatric analysis. Early 1928. Bruneri family challenges the decision in the Turin Civil Court 15 November 1928. The Turin Civil Court acknowledges the complete and sure identification of the man as Mario Bruneri, rejecting further requests from the Canella family. 24 March 1930. The Corte di Cassazione voids the Turin Civil Court finding due to procedural errors. The Canella family is granted the right to present further evidence in their favor. 2 May 1931. After a new trial is held, the Florence Appeal Court reinstates the Turin Court's verdict, rejecting the Cassazione's request and denying further prolonging of the trial. 25 December 1931. After another appeal from the Canellas, the Cassazione denies a further reexamination of the case. The decision is a close call, with the 14 judges equally divided. Ultimately, the commission president asks to consult with the Minister of Justice, Alfredo Rocco, and votes against a new trial. Bruneri identification is confirmed again. 1946. A further request for a reopening of the case is rejected, since the outcome is not considered a "fascist political sentence", thus not subject to a new law requiring reviews of trials of prosecuted political opponents. 1964, Giuseppe Canella, son of Giulio Canella, asks to reopen the case, but is denied. The civil trial On 22 October 1928, the civil trial began, lasting over two years and ending with a solid identification of the man as Mario Bruneri. High-profile witnesses were brought into the debate, including Father Agostino Gemelli and Earl Giuseppe della Torre. The former had worked with Canella at the Rivista di Filosofia Neoscolastica, the latter was a co-founder of the Corriere del Mattino and director of the Catholic newspaper L'Osservatore Romano. Gemelli and Dalla Torre both stated that the man was not in any way Canella. They were important representatives of the Roman Catholic hierarchy, and independently chose to testify. They were accused by Canella's attorneys -despite Carnelutti being a close friend of the Church himself- of being part of a secret plot to hurt the family. The Italian Army never removed Canella's name from its list of missing in action, stating that nothing had suggested that the man was Canella. An appeal from Giulia Canella was rejected by the Turin's Appeal Court on 7 August 1929. The family took the matter