Trial of Amanda Knox: Yet Another Black Eye for Italian Justice
(Italia Chiama Italia, Italy)
"Is this civilization
or barbarism? … In a nation which prides itself on being civilized it should not take eight years to reach a verdict. ... So this is what we have come to: more often than not it seems that sentences have already been formulated, whether based on mere conjecture and/or because they have been decided on the spot, from the first few minutes. That is to say nothing of the continuous investigations carried out with every breath. In the United States only those carried out within the first 48 hours are considered reliable, with supplemental investigations in only truly exceptional cases. With us, however, the crime scene has all the appearance of a train station."
Raffaele Sollecito, Amanda Knox' former boyfriend and co-defendent in the murder of British student Meredith Kercher: Like Amanda Knox, he is now free after four long years to resume his life - and sue the authorities for wrongful imprisonment.
To be fair, this appeared to be just another boorish and
uncivilized illustration of our justice system. Yesterday, after eight years
see-sawing from questionable evidence, testimony and inadmissible expert
opinion to convictions and acquittals, came the verdict of the Court of Cassation
[Corte diCassazione - Italy's highest
court of appeal], which brings to an end the thriller of Perugia in which an
English girl [Meredith
Kercher] was found dead. The two people - Amanda
Knox and RaffaeleSollecito
- already convicted, acquitted and then convicted again, have been definitively
cleared of suspicion - "for not having committed the act." Is this civilization
or barbarism?
I won't go into the merits of the final judgment, but I firmly
believe that in a nation which prides itself on being civilized it should not
take eight years to reach a verdict. When that happens it means that the
various assumptions of guilt and/or innocence formulated at the time were just
plucked out of thin air, and which, arrogantly and pompously, the authorities
wanted to pursue.
It reminds me of proceedings, not long ago, in which the
judge refused to hear some 80 witnesses proposed by the defense. What a blatant
example of "fairness" on the part of people responsible for
ascertaining the truth.
So this is what we have come to: more often than not it
seems that sentences have already been formulated, whether based on mere conjecture
and/or because they have been decided on the spot, from the first few minutes. That
is to say nothing of the continuous investigations carried out with
every breath. In the United States only those carried out within the first 48
hours are considered reliable, with supplemental investigations in only truly exceptional
cases. With us, however, the crime scene has all the appearance of a train
station.
If we get into the area of wire tapping, which for some unfathomable
reason escaped the net of state prosecutors, it turns your stomach, as does the
endless string of television appearances. I well know that journalism thrives on the
scoop and the bombshell, but we need a shred of decency and a smidge of respect
- and I refer in particular to the big national newspapers and those which
define themselves as perfectly democratic and bearers of perfect truth.
And here, the Florentine jester [perhaps Chief Judge Alessandro
Nencini of the Florence appeals court which convicted
Knox and Sollecito], who plays fast and loose with a
quiver of questions of secondary importance, is no more suited to putting his hands to justice reform than he is to participating in a panel discussion
with Amazonian tribesman. Certainly, if one has a desire to reform the judiciary
and proposes terms and responsibilities, you end up being a lightning rod. Perhaps
some time ago there was a sign of such a desire. However, for those who aren't up
to it, it would be best to sell vegetables in a street market - a few of which exist
in Florence.
