Where did you find this information? It isn't in the linked article.

The conclusion drawn by grandparent is _also_ not supported by the article.

It's in the headline article.

> In June, Italian authorities recovered hundreds of illegally gathered archeological finds from a Belgian collector, dating as far back as the sixth century BC and worth €11m (£9.4m).

> The nearly 800 pieces “of exceptional rarity and inestimable value”, including stelae, amphorae and other items, came from clandestine excavations in Puglia, in Italy’s south-eastern tip, according to the carabinieri in charge of cultural heritage. The collector is awaiting trial.

Very odd. The version of the article that I see says:

> The nearly 800 pieces “of exceptional rarity and inestimable value”, including stelae, amphorae and other items, came from clandestine excavations in Puglia in Italy’s south-eastern tip, according to the carabinieri in charge of cultural heritage.

Nothing about the collector awaiting trial. The word "trial" doesn't appear on the page that I get to see at all.

thaumasiotes read this article that includes the trial sentence.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/28/ancient-roman-...

While you pwagland read this article, which does not.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jun/21/italy-recovers...

This is a mirror of the headline (original submission, not pelasaco's comment) article:

https://archive.is/W6hYb

If it appears here but not in the original article, there is a rogue HTTPS certificate in your browser allowing a MITM attack.

Interesting, for me it is there in the headline article.

Me either. That would be a weird split test…

It isn't, they are just looking at different articles, there are two links now, one in the headline and one in the comments. The headline one has the quote the other does not.