by Michael Mills
In a recent post, How Politics Knocks on Amanda Knox, I presented the idea that since the acquittal of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito by the court of Claudio Hellmann in 2011, the whole case has become politicised, a sub-plot in the ongoing attempt of the anti-Berlusconi forces to use the Italian judicial system to overthrow him and the counter-effort of the pro-Berlusconi forces to discredit that system by accusing it of bias and corruption.
My theory, which would appear to be more than a mere hypothesis, has of course been met with some resistance by some of the anti-Knox contingent who hold stubbornly to the view that Ms. Knox is a deranged murderess, politics notwithstanding.
Thus, it becomes incumbent upon us to revisit this issue by examining what the Judge himself actually said when addressing the issue with the Italian newspaper La Stampa. Hellmann stated in no uncertain terms that he believed the judgement of his court upholding the appeal of Sollecito and Knox was overturned by the Court of Cassation for political reasons.
An article by Doug Longhini in CBS News, 7 February this year, with the headline “Was Amanda Knox a political pawn in Italian politic?”, contains this statement:
“In April 2013, the Italian Supreme Court threw out judge Claudio Hellmann’s 2011 acquittal of Knox and Sollecito. Now retired, Hellmann told La Stampa newspaper that he “foresaw” the reversal. Hellman said “the party of the prosecutor is very strong in the judiciary” and that political party had “influenced” the Italian Supreme Court, according to La Stampa.”
Though Hellmann did not name the political party, it wasn’t the right-leaning party of Berlusconi, Girlanda, and Bongiorno. Was it prosecutors pushing back against Berlusconi and his crew? Very possibly…
This wasn’t the first time Claudio Hellmann raised the possibility that political considerations were helping drive the pursuit of Knox and Sollecito. In October 2011, he told La Nazione newspaper that there was “a political background” to the case. It was directed squarely at Amanda Knox. Hellmann said, “Many wanted Amanda in prison because she was an American.”
In his article, Doug Longhini gave this background to the allegations of politicisation:
“Girlanda was a member of the Italian Parliament from Perugia. His political party was the PdL (Popolo della Libertà) which was also the party of then Italian Prime Minister, Silvio Berlusconi. Girlanda and ten other members of Parliament signed a letter asking Italy’s president to investigate the Knox-Sollecito prosecutors. In addition, Raffaelle Sollecito’s lawyer, Giulia Bongiorno, was also in Parliament, head of its Judiciary Committee, and a member of Berlusconi’s political party.
For his part, Berlusconi and his party were at war with Italy’s prosecutors and judges. The Prime Minister was trying to reign in their investigative powers. Prosecutors, for their part, were trying to put Berlusconi in jail.”
So it appears that political supporters of Berlusconi did try to discredit the court that initially convicted Sollecito and Knox.
As to the reasons for that intervention, it may have been that Girlanda and the other members of Parliament who signed the petition were doing a favour for Sollecito’s family, which had connections to the Berlusconi coalition. But a more likely reason is that by discrediting the court that had convicted Sollecito and Knox, the supporters of Berlusconi were hoping to achieve a wider discrediting of the whole Italian judicial system, and, by extension, a discrediting of the court decisions that had brought Berlusconi down.
If this is true and if Amanda Knox is the victim of Italian political machinations, this aspect of the case becomes the controlling meta-discourse that is battling over the fate of the American girl for reasons that are separate and apart from any real consideration of her actual guilt or innocence.
Nonetheless, Judge Hellman’s statement that“Many wanted Amanda in prison because she was an American”strongly suggests a fatal bias against Ms. Knox. In any event, there is no reason to believe that his decision to overturn her original conviction for the murder of Meredith Kercher was not based on his belief that the evidence against her was to weak support a conviction.
Please click below to view Michael Mills’ previous posts on the Knox-Sollecito murder case:
How Politics Knock on Amanda Knox!
Under Pressure: A. Knox and R. Sollecito Find Meredith Kercher’s Body
How and Why Rudy Guede Was a Lone Wolf Assailant in the Murder of Meredith Kercher
Michael Mills is a retired Australian Public Servant. He is 66 years old, has a keen interest in history and current affairs, and posts regularly on online history forums. Like many, he was appalled by the recent re-conviction of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, and after substantial intensive research, he has developed the theory of the case that he sets forth herein.