Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

Italy and fascism:

There are some who argue that Italy has been a fully-democratic republic since the downfall of Mussolini and the end of WW2. But the truth is rather more complicated. Because the victorious powers (US, UK, France, Russia) focussed on Germany after the end of the war, Italy was far more left to its own devices to put its house in order. Unfortunately, this meant that much of the state apparatus put in place by Mussolini remained intact, or was subject to no more than a glacial pace of change.

This is particularly true in the area of criminal legislation, where - incredibly - the criminal code in force today is still heavily based on that enacted in 1930 under Mussolini. Admittedly, most of the most extremist parts of the code, relating to state repression and authoritarian powers, have long been abolished, but many questionable areas of the code either remain in place or have only very recently been abolished. For example, the presumption of innocence in criminal cases has only very recently (post-2000) been enshrined in Italian law, and maximum periods of detention without charge / detention without trial are far longer than in most modern democratic systems.

Just for some colour, here's a Guardian editorial from March 2009, which contains the following passage:

Unlike postwar Germany, postwar Italy never properly confronted its own fascist legacy. As a result, while neofascism has never seriously resurfaced in Germany, in Italy there were important continuities - inherited Mussolini-era laws and officials and the postwar rebirth of the renamed Fascist party among them - in spite of Italy's nominally anti-fascist public culture. Those continuities have just become stronger. It is a day of shame for Italy.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/mar/30/silvio-berlusconi-fascism-italy-g20

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Did he actually not put a last name? I gotta go find this thing.

ETA: OMG, could it be any longer?

Interesting that most of the comments made about the TJMK link did not cover its content, verbose as it was.

 

[Matthew Best]

Interesting that most of the comments made about the TJMK link did not cover its content, verbose as it was.

I think I covered its content rather well: "the insane ramblings of an obsessed stalker".

 

[CoulsdonUK]

I think I covered its content rather well: "the insane ramblings of an obsessed stalker".

Hmmm concise verses verbose! Still a fairly limited response, I guess I expected better, oh well.

Night.

 

[Justinian2]

The Italians I've known, aside from Mignini and my mother-in-law, have been very smart, likeable people.

 

[LondonJohn]

Interesting that most of the comments made about the TJMK link did not cover its content, verbose as it was.

Well, the content was not only verbose, but it was also risibly slanted and coloured with a strange air of vindictiveness. It was also pretty hostile in places - so if what the comedy frog wants is for the CPJ to reconsider its stance, he needs to do a refresher course on diplomacy. Here's just two examples:

I believe this letter is factually highly inaccurate, is ill-researched, and is very unfair and possibly libelous to the officials in Rome and Perugia that it criticises.

Now, call me naive and uninformed, but I'd have thought that the CPJ knows enough about libel law to have considered this possibility carefully before writing its letter. I do believe that the CPJ has plenty of experience in dealing with litigious (not to mention despotic) regimes, and probably doesn't need an anonymous internet poster to wake them up on this point.

Would you write a big letter to presidents and cabinet ministers and senators around the world? Or do you only do that when a well-off, best-selling American author is part of a personal feud with an investigative magistrate?

Now, again, call me naive, but I don't think that adopting a tone like this is very likely to give power to the persuasive qualities of any underlying argument you're trying to make..... but maybe that's just me.

Actually, in fact I'd agree that there are some parts of the original CPJ letter that are factually incorrect, and they probably need correcting. However, of course, these inaccuracies are peripheral to the main point of the letter (if indeed the body of the allegations about what happened to Frank Sfarzo* are correct and verifiable). And, of course, taking the ludicrous and pompous position of writing an "open letter" (not the first time either) simply serves to make the writer (and his cheerleaders) look and sound like a strange over-invested bunch of people.

* Incidentally, Frank Sfarzo is - AFAIK - a pseudonym for Francesco Sforza, and he's publicly stated this before. He has a one-to-one mapping with the identity of a real, known (and presumably verifiable) person. It's therefore no different than Tom Cruise mapping to Thomas Mapother IV, George Orwell mapping to Eric Blair, or Skeptical Bystander mapping to Margaret Ganong. So, in this case, Sfarzo the pseudonym is linked to Sforza the person. But I guess it suits some people to carry on saying he's not an identifiable human being so he has no credibility. "Plus ca change...", as they say in West Seattle.....

 

[Justinian2]

Italy and fascism:

There are some who argue that Italy has been a fully-democratic republic since the downfall of Mussolini and the end of WW2. But the truth is rather more complicated. Because the victorious powers (US, UK, France, Russia) focussed on Germany after the end of the war, Italy was far more left to its own devices to put its house in order. Unfortunately, this meant that much of the state apparatus put in place by Mussolini remained intact, or was subject to no more than a glacial pace of change.

This is particularly true in the area of criminal legislation, where - incredibly - the criminal code in force today is still heavily based on that enacted in 1930 under Mussolini. Admittedly, most of the most extremist parts of the code, relating to state repression and authoritarian powers, have long been abolished, but many questionable areas of the code either remain in place or have only very recently been abolished. For example, the presumption of innocence in criminal cases has only very recently (post-2000) been enshrined in Italian law, and maximum periods of detention without charge / detention without trial are far longer than in most modern democratic systems.

Just for some colour, here's a Guardian editorial from March 2009, which contains the following passage:



http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/mar/30/silvio-berlusconi-fascism-italy-g20

Very plausible.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

presumption of innocence

Interesting that most of the comments made about the TJMK link did not cover its content, verbose as it was.

Kermit at TJfMK wrote, "Till late in 2008 Frank Sfarzo was very pro-Meredith, and he had no time for those who stood accused." This comment alone calls the whole article into question. First, those who defend AK and RS as innocent* are just as pro-Meredith as those who believe that they are guilty; both wish to honor her memory by seeing justice done. Second, if one really has no time for the accused, then one has no time for the presumption of innocence. If Frank changed his mind because of what he heard at the trial, that is a fine thing and why we hold trials. The principle that one is innocent unless proven guilty is not to be dispensed with under any circumstances. Period.
*this notion holds for those who think that the conviction was unsafe

 

[Chris_Halkides]

article at TJfMK about the CPJ

Interesting that most of the comments made about the TJMK link did not cover its content, verbose as it was.

CoulsdonUK,

What do you think of the content of the article at TJfMK by Kermit? What do you think of the previous article at TJfMK by SomeAlibi? Kaosium has given a rebuttal to the latter here.

 

[JREF2010]

I hadn't laughed that hard for some time. The one by Kermit immediately brought mental visuals of Kermit the frog puppet. Then I imagined some dignitary reading the first part where the writer is explaining why he uses a fake name of Kermit the Frog.

How serious would anyone take a letter signed by Kermit the Frog?

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

So let me see if I understand this correctly. If someone living in Perugia has covered this case and, as a result, has experienced possible harassment from authorities, when one files a complaint with a professional organization one is supposed to also notify the International Network of Followers of the Meredith Kercher Case and its Pre-trial Investigation?

Would one specifically "CC" Mr. Muppet or is there someone else to whom it should be addressed?

 

[Mary_H]

Interesting that most of the comments made about the TJMK link did not cover its content, verbose as it was.

I haven't had time to read it yet. When I do, I will be more than happy to share my opinion. But you knew that.

 

[theRealBob]

The Italians I've known, aside from Mignini and my mother-in-law, have been very smart, likeable people.

But Mignini can never be put a**ide. He's always a (mildly insane, ferociously vindictive) showman.

 

[christianahannah]

Hmmm I wonder if that has any significance, other than the fact that it's just generally taking them longer than they had thought.

At least they won't be able to use the Royal Wedding as an excuse - that's the catch-all excuse for delays around here at the moment

I am not sure what you mean by significance but I would expect them to be especially mindful of the task they are charged with doing. If more time is needed so that they can do a thorough review it should be granted as much is at stake for all concerned.

 

[Mary_H]

I'm glad Kermit included this tidbit, because this is information the CPJ could not live without:

".....and sometimes under the pseudonym “Charlie Wilkes” (a 19th century American naval explorer linked to Puget Sound)."

ETA: Kermie uses "jive" when he means "gibe."

"The example of national policemen looking over his notes in the press area at the back of the courtroom doesn’t seem to jive with the physical layout of the courtroom."

Verb 1. gibe - be compatible, similar or consistent; coincide in their characteristics; "The two stories don't agree in many details"; "The handwriting checks with the signature on the check"; "The suspect's fingerprints don't match those on the gun"

correspond, jibe, match, tally, agree, fit, check

What a jive turkey.

 

[Mary_H]

I am not sure what you mean by significance but I would expect them to be especially mindful of the task they are charged with doing. If more time is needed so that they can do a thorough review it should be granted as much is at stake for all concerned.

Welcome back, christianahannah. Where've you been?

 

[PhantomWolf]

* Incidentally, Frank Sfarzo is - AFAIK - a pseudonym for Francesco Sforza, and he's publicly stated this before. He has a one-to-one mapping with the identity of a real, known (and presumably verifiable) person. It's therefore no different than Tom Cruise mapping to Thomas Mapother IV, George Orwell mapping to Eric Blair, or Skeptical Bystander mapping to Margaret Ganong. So, in this case, Sfarzo the pseudonym is linked to Sforza the person. But I guess it suits some people to carry on saying he's not an identifiable human being so he has no credibility. "Plus ca change...", as they say in West Seattle.....

I wouldn't even call that a pen-name or pseudonym. Sortening Francesco to Hrank is no different to shorting Daniel to Dan, Benjamin to Ben or Benji, or Jonathon to John, Jon, Jonny, or Jono.

In this case he has Anglophied it as well.

 

[bri1]

Open letter from CPJ

The arguments seem to be:
a) Bloggers aren't journalists- therefore CPJ should not be protecting them.
b) Look at this photo- Frank and Mignigni get on fine- Frank must be lying
c) Frank didn't immediately write about the incident on his blog- therefore he's lying
d) The investigative phase, and the first trial is over- therefore Mignigni has no motive for harrassing journalists
e) If people don't make official complaints against the police, then they're lying
f) That the CPJ themselves have been taken in by the Knox PR juggernaut.

I'm not sure why it took Kermit about 80 bazillion words just to say this!

a) The CPJ have obviously seriously considered what blogging is, and how it fits with their remit. They state on their website that in areas such as north Africa and the Middle East "blogging has becomes a serious medium for social and political commentary" (http://www.cpj.org/mideast/jordan/2009/), and in those areas where blogging is used in this way, it can become a target of government suppression.
b) LOL!
c) Ridiculous. When a major incident like this happens, one has to think very hard about how to deal with it, and that thinking sometimes has to happen in private.
d) False. Until all normal court proceedings that Mignigni is involved in are finished (an the current appeal is normal within the Italian justice system), then Mignigni very much has a horse in this race, which is worth protecting. Although considering the grudge lists that were on his computer when it was seized as part of the abuse of office prosecution, even once this is all over, people need to think very carefully about what they publish about this man.
e) This argument affords no weight to the idea that sometimes, by making official complaints, the situation can often become worse, not better. If the culture is such that harrassment can continue after such complaints are made, then following this route becomes much more difficult.
f) Unbelievably naive. The CPJ activities are directed by 35 'prominent journalists' (http://www.cpj.org/about/). They know their work, and they know how PR activity sits with that work. To try and say that CPJ's involvement is due to being hoodwinked by a PR campaign is ludicrous.

 

[Mary_H]

The arguments seem to be:
a) Bloggers aren't journalists- therefore CPJ should not be protecting them.
b) Look at this photo- Frank and Mignigni get on fine- Frank must be lying
c) Frank didn't immediately write about the incident on his blog- therefore he's lying
d) The investigative phase, and the first trial is over- therefore Mignigni has no motive for harrassing journalists
e) If people don't make official complaints against the police, then they're lying
f) That the CPJ themselves have been taken in by the Knox PR juggernaut.

Great summary!

I'm not sure why it took Kermit about 80 bazillion words just to say this!

Exactly. No one at CPJ is going to read it.

Wholeheartedly agree -- Point "b" is laughably bizarre.

Kermit's primary motivation is to defend and protect Mignini. Like Mignini needs it.

 

[LondonJohn]

Great summary!




Exactly. No one at CPJ is going to read it.

Wholeheartedly agree -- Point "b" is laughably bizarre.

Kermit's primary motivation is to defend and protect Mignini. Like Mignini needs it.

Actually, that last point is perhaps the most important as to why this pompous "open letter" is so laughable and misplaced. The story goes like this:

1) Frank Sfarzo (Francesco Sforza) makes a claim that he has been unfairly attacked for his blog views by Mignini and (via Mignini's instructions) the Perugia police.

2) The CPJ investigates this claim - presumably by speaking with Frank and seeking some sort of independent verification of the claims.

3) The CPJ publishes a strongly-worded letter in its official capacity, attacking Mignini and (indirectly) the Perugia police for their treatment of Frank.

4) An anonymous internet blogger - who has no connection whatsoever to Mignini, the Perugia police, Frank, the Kerchers, the defendants, the lawyers or the wider case - deems it necessary to write a verbose "response" to the CPJ letter, and to publish it in an open letter format.

Steps 1-3 follow a logical order. Step 4 is a ridiculous and hysterical reaction by someone (who, by his own admission, got "angrier and angrier"(!) while writing the letter) who is completely unconnected to any of the parties involved. As so often, it tells us far more about the writer (and his very vocal cheerleaders) than it does about the underlying issue.