The Mail is good for two things. One is its ability to tackle topics no other paper will, and the second is its photos.
One of those topics is the Chilcot failure to report:
- Sir John Chilcot under increasing pressure to release long-overdue report
- Next week, inquiry will have lasted longer than British troops fought in Iraq
- Tory’s Julian Thomas said he failed to give ‘straight answers’ over delay
- John Miller, whose son Simon was killed in 2003, said: ‘What kind of conscience does Chilcot have?’
In Britain, there are quite a few examples of [alleged] corruption. The Hutton Report for example, another was Leveson, Hillsborough, Diana, it goes on. We are no strangers to [alleged] corruption over here.
In America, the one which amazed me, quite apart from Benghazi and Hillary’s emails, was that SCOTUS demanded that POTUS submit the birth certificate by a certain date and POTUS failed to. Now whatever you think of the birth certificate issue, this thumbing of the nose at the judiciary was contempt.
People without agendas on these matters beyond wanting to know the truth, those of us who are dismayed by the overall level of corruption in the ability of the PTB to close down or influence inquiries and reports and on its ability to label with one word tags, e.g. birther, truther and let that stand in place of open debate – we’re indeed dismayed, though hardly surprised.
At this moment now, the trial of Amanda Knox on calumny charges is going ahead. Her supporters should really look at their own statement that the Italian judiciary is too corrupt for justice to be done because it very much cuts both ways.
Interestingly, the side which supported the judiciary and the Supreme Court First Chambers acceptance of her guilt have defended the Italian justice system, even though it has twice let them down.
In no way am I going to discuss guilt or innocence here of the original parties but I am going to look at the justice system. It is indeed corrupt and the very next question should be, in each case, on its merits: “Cui bono?”
Chilcot’s delay and the Leveson farce show clearly who was being defended by and benefiting from the outcome.
So who benefited from the corruption in Italy over the Knox/Sollecito matter? Before answering that, there are other questions. Why would an entire judicial system even interest itself in a minor trial, though it did involve an American national?
If we can lift the eyes above the trial itself to how this whole thing blew way out of proportion, the inevitable answer is that big players became involved. And why would they, in a minor matter? Why would Berlusconi involve himself, lending his attack dog lawyer Bongiorno? Why would that Bongiorno go to an Italian prison and bribe an inmate?
The court has also heard from a jailed Neapolitan mafioso, Luciano Aviello, who claimed his own brother had killed Ms Kercher during a burglary gone wrong.
A fellow inmate of Aviello, called by the prosecution, said Aviello had told him he had been offered €70,000 ($96,000) by Giulia Bongiorno, an Italian MP and lawyer defending Sollecito, to invent the story. Cosimo Zaccari – who is in jail for fraud, libel, criminal conspiracy and receiving stolen goods – said Aviello had confided that he was ”contacted to create confusion in the trial”.
Alexander Ilicet, who shared a cell with Aviello, claimed his cellmate had boasted of being offered €158,000 by Mr Bongiorno that he had planned to use for a sex change.
Then we come to the sudden and diametrically opposed judgments. We’re not speaking of differences of opinion on “beyond reasonable doubt”, we’re speaking of diametric opposite. Why would the judge appointed for the first appeal suddenly be moved aside so that a judge not versed in criminal law, connected with Berlusconi, could take over and acquit, well beyond his authority?
And when the Supreme Court First Chambers threw that out after an exhaustive process, Italian law requiring that Supreme Court decisions stand, and that was followed by the defence appeal in which the verdict was confirmed, why then did the Fifth Chambers, the last stage in the process, not a criminal court but more used to civil cases, see one of the judges, Bruno, open his remarks with Bongiorno’s line that the only thing that was certain was that a girl had died and that there was one killer?
That was stated by the judge before the hearings even began and is the very thing disputed by the Supreme Court First Chambers. You don’t need to be a student of law to know that you don’t open with the very thing you are judging is true or not.
Even were it true, that is not what the Supreme Court First Chambers and the subsequent appeal had concluded. That Bruno statement turned former judgments at the highest level in the land diametrically on their heads.
Still, here, I’m not going to comment on guilt or innocence of the original parties because to do so would mean people would trot out one thing, I’d have to trot out the other to fisk it and we’d be bogged down in something which is essentially over, which has gone. It would go on forever, whilst all I’m looking at here is the justice system itself.
And if there are any independents, you would conclude that it really does look highly suspect, that one arm of a judiciary is saying diametrically opposite things to the other and exceeding its brief according to the law of that land.
And why is it actually over? That is the real humdinger in the case.
There is legal recourse now in Italy to pursue supposedly wrongful SC decisions but none of it can proceed in this case, for one very simple reason – it depends on the Fifth Chambers tabling its report. The law states that the lead judge had 90 days to table his report and that would have fallen in mid-April.
Upon the tabling of that report depended up to a dozen separate cases against the Supreme Court for its sudden reversal.
But there simply was no report. No Fifth Chambers Report, no Chilcot Report. One official connected with the office where the reports are tabled said the Fifth Chambers might be tabled by the end of the year.
Hang on, Fifth Chambers cannot decide that. It is 90 days in Italian law, otherwise the judgment is re-evaluated. But by simply doing nothing, both Chilcot and Fifth Chambers have rendered any subsequent action impossible.
That is simply wrong, on the simplest level. And it’s not just the length of time it takes for any case to conclude but the involvement of the mafia which has vowed to upset and prevent the system from working.
And here is the explanation of the diametrically opposed judgments from what is supposedly the same body. And to ask the simple question cui bono of the Knox trial, the defence has been the one at all stages who have benefited from Berlusconi’s interest.
Therefore, the trial really had little to do with Knox, it was Sollecito or some third party who stood to lose, necessitating the bringing in of the big guns. I do have my 3rd idea of the killer[s] now but am not going to come out with it.
However, a close look at how the system has operated and that question – cui bono – should lead you there as well.
As for Chilcot, it’s really quite simple – he can’t table it. They clearly want it to go away. Now why would that be? One really need not be a genius to supply and answer to that.