that to the forefront right now so you don't ask about them

during your deliberations. You are not going to get the

police reports. There are legal reasons why this evidence is

not going to come before you, and you are not to speculate as

to why or why not you are getting them. You are not going to

get any transcripts that were referenced to. You are not

going to get the full and complete diaries that we talked

about, and you are not going to get any of the medical reports

that Dr. Manchester talked about.

I'm going to move around. I don't want to block

everybody's view the whole time.

Now, what you are going to do, as jurors, is have

certain responsibilties and obligations. The first thing is

that you have a duty to deliberate individually. That means

that Mr. Parlanti is entitled to each and every one of your

individual opinion. Everyone must participate. Everyone must

give their reasons why they feel one way, and everyone must be

treated equally in the jury deliberation room.

You have a duty not to allow sympathy for the

defendant or the victim or victims enter into your

deliberations in any way. As much as you possibly can,

emotion should not in any way enter into your decision of

whether or not the defendant is guilty of the crimes he is

charged with.

You have a duty not to allow any prejudice with the

defendant or the victim enter into your deliberations, and you

have a duty not to speculate. What that means is you must

base your decision on the evidence that you have before you.

wrote him a couple of e-mails describing what had happened,

but did she say the exact same thing in every one of those

communications? No. And it's ridiculous to think that she

would; that to think that she would say the exact same thing

every time she talked about it.

Now, you -- you may consider the ability of

Ms. White to see, hear or otherwise be aware of what happened.

When she talked about what happened over several hours of that

night of June 29th over several hours, when she talked about

it, was she really -- do you really think she was paying

attention to how many times the defendant initially banged her

head against the wall? Was she counting them? Or do you

think she was trying not to get too hurt?

When the defendant banged her head against the

adjacent wall, do you think she was counting how many times he

was banging her head? Or do you think she was thinking about

not getting hurt? When the defendant choked her and she fell

to the floor and he started kicking her, do you think she

counted how many times he kicked her? And if she says, "I

think he banged my head about 30 times," to the best of her

recollection, that's probably what she remembers. Was she

counting them? No.

When she says, "I think he kicked me ten times," to

the best of her recollection, that's what it felt like to her;

that he banged her head 30 times. Did he bang her head

against one wall 30 times and then banged her head against the

adjacent wall 30 times? Probably not. But does that change

the fact that that's what it felt like to her when she's being

beaten like that? when she's being slapped? when she's being

kicked? Is she going to have an accurate recollection of all

that or is she just going to be thinking at that time, "I need

to make sure to protect myself as best I can. I don't want to

get too hurt"? You need to look at the core of what Ms. White

said.

Clarence Darrow was a famous, early 20th-century

attorney, and he represented John Scopes, Scopes' monkey trial

is probably his most famous case. He was a criminal defense

lawyer and a labor lawyer. He also represented Leopold and

Lowe, two well-to-do guys from the Midwest who were charged

and I believe they pled guilty to killing a young guy. Those

are probably his two more well-known cases, but he had a very

long and distinguished career.

And one of the persons he represented in about 1920

was a young guy, who was accused of bombing the Los Angeles

Times Building, here in Los Angeles. And the prosecution in

that case had a star witness. They had a person who

personally I.D.'d this defendant running away from the scene

of the bombing of the L.A. Times Building.

So, the district attorney's office in Los Angeles

sent Mr. Darrow the statement of this witness and he read it.

And sure enough, "I saw your client bombing the building, and

I saw him run away." Mr. Darrow hired his investigator, and

he sent this investigator out to talk to this witness. He got

the report back, looked at it, same thing. "I saw your client

bomb the building and run away." Looked at the initial report

that he was provided by the district's attorneys office, exact

deputies were given transcripts, taped transcripts, verbatim,

word for word, of what was spoken three years ago; given an

opportunity to review them before they came on the stand to

testify, and they couldn't remember what they were talking

about. They had to keep referring to the report. And in

fact, they just kept reading through the report when they were

being asked questions. They weren't testifying on their

memory. They were -- "Yeah, that's what it says here. That's

what it says here." And I made that objection two times with

both deputies. I was watching. Several questions. "Oh,

yeah, that's what it says here. That's what it says here."

Ms. White didn't have an opportunity to do that, to look at

her transcript, taped statements, and see exactly what she

said.

That's what the defense is trying to do here. They

are trying to get the record as messy as possible. Looking at

your notes, you probably don't have an exact word-for-word

exchange of what was said on the stand because it was so

minuscule, so tiny, it was difficult to follow everything that

was being said. The defense wants you to lose focus of the

big picture by pointing out every single variation, including

the most miniscule of each of Ms. White's statements, but I'm

asking you, look at the core.

Three years ago, my brother got married; my older

brother, someone who I love very much. He got married in San

Luis Obispo. I have a very large family. I have relatives

here in California, in Texas, Michigan, Florida as well as

Mexico and Brazil. A lot of them came to the wedding up in

San Luis Obispo. It was in June of 2002, three years ago.

Little over three years ago.

And I drove up from the wedding because I live here

in Ventura, got in my car the day of the wedding, the day of,

drove up, had lunch with my brother, and it was -- the wedding

was actually on a ranch, a small ranch; had a lot of family

there.

After having breakfast, we went over to the ranch,

and I had a bunch of cousins, little cousins ranging from

three to about 16 years old there. And the ranch actually

belonged to the parents of the bride, and they had really nice

horses. They had this area -- kind of like a park area where

people were playing football, and I remember taking my -- a

group of my cousins, about ten of them, like I said, large

family, and we walked over to the horses. We were able to pet

the horses, comb their hair; afterwards, played a little

football with some other relatives.

Then the wedding started. Sat through the wedding.

As soon as the wedding was over, I left; drove back down to

Ventura.

Now, since that time -- actually, shortly

thereafter, I got phone calls, and I spoke to relatives who

weren't able to make the wedding, and they asked me about it.

So I told them. I told some about the actual wedding. I told

some about the horses. I told some about the football. I

told some about my cousins.

If you were to go back and look at every statement

that I made to those relatives about that day -- and it wasn't

something traumatic. It was a wonderful day, seeing my

brother get married -- would they all be consistent? No.

They wouldn't be. That's a natural tendency. If they are all

consistent, exactly the same, that's when you start to wonder.

What is going on here? Why are they so consistent?

In all of the information that was launched at

Ms. White while she was on the stand for those three days, all

the e-mails, all the letters that were given to her, was --

was it ever stated that she said she lied? that she said she

was not beaten? that she said that she was not raped? Did

that ever happen? No. Ms. White never made that statement.

She might have talked about it endlessly to anyone she can

think of, but did she ever say she lied? that she was not

raped? that she was not beaten? No, she did not.

Corroborating evidence. Going back to my story of

my brother's wedding. Let's say I had to prove that I was

there three years ago. Let's say I had to prove that I was

there, okay. You have my statement to you that I went there.

Well, how about some more proof? Okay. I remember on the way

back, I stopped by a gas station, and I used my credit card

for some gas. I can produce that document showing that my

credit card was used on a particular date in San Luis Obispo.

Corroborating evidence to show that I was there on that date,

proving I was there.

Well, we have Ms. White's testimony. And should you

look at it with a critical eye? Yes, you should. Look at it

with a very critical eye. The allegations she is making

against the defendant are serious. Look at it.

What else do we have to show that she is telling you

the truth? Well, we have people who came in and testified

that they saw Ms. White shortly after the 29th walking slow.

None of them said they saw any bruising on her face. None of

them recalled that, but they do recall her walking very slow.

She was not making eye contact. Couple people said she was

kind of looking down. Before that, she would say "hi." She

would look at them. "How're you doing?" Superficial

greetings. But then remember her -- and I think it was Kevin

Bunch and Sarah Campbell said, "Yeah, after the 29th, you

know, she really wasn't making eye contact with us anymore.

Didn't see any bruising, don't really recall any arguments,

any loud noise on the 29th coming from their apartment or

anywhere around that time, but I remember there was something

different in her demeanor." Corroborating evidence.

The photographs that Ms. White took of herself in

the bathroom. She took two photographs of the bruising to her

face with the disposable camera, and she kept them. During

this time, she's still living with the defendant. She's still

sleeping in the same bed right next to him, and she was only

zip tied to him at night.

During the day, he would be gone. She would be able

to leave if she wanted to. Why didn't she leave? I can't

answer that question. I'm sure there are profound,

psychological reasons why Ms. White stayed in that apartment;

why she did not just call 9-1-1; why she did not just go to a

neighbors; why she didn't do a number of things. She did take

pictures of herself.

Almost three weeks later from the date of the

incident, she finally does go to the sheriff's department, on

July 18th, and they take photographs of Ms. White. And they

also came in and testified to the best of their recollection

they don't really remember seeing that type of bruising on her

face or any bruising; don't really remember seeing that

bruising on her face. Well, they do recall seeing some faded

bruising on her arm, I believe -- and I believe that was

Deputy Reilly testified to that. And Deputy Keller, Jody

Keller, is the one who took these photographs, and she said,

"She might have had some bruising on her arm, and I think I

remember seeing some bruising on her back near her ribs."

Well, almost three weeks later, the bruising that

she suffered faded. So when she went to the deputy sheriff,

that evidence was not there at that time, but there is another

injury that she had that doesn't heal like bruises, does not

heal that quickly. Three weeks or so was not enough time.

And what I'm talking about is the two fractured ribs that she

had.

On July 22nd, she goes to Doctors On Duty in

Monterey, and she sees Dr. Troy Manchester, and she gets

treated. And Dr. Manchester takes x-rays of her ribs because

she's been complaining of this pain. She's been having

problems, walking slow. The residents at the apartment

complex testified to that. The sheriff's deputies testified

to that, her moving kind of slow. She's got two fractured

ribs. You can tell -- he can put the fractured ribs, in his

opinion, as happening between two and six weeks before. July

22nd, two to six weeks before. That puts June 29, 2002 in

that range. Takes a lot longer for fractured ribs to heal

than it does for bruises. That is corroborating evidence.

And the defense might come up and argue that: Well,

she could have fractured her ribs doing a number of things.

The evidence was clear that when Dr. Manchester examined her,

she had no other injuries on her face. She wasn't in no

recent car accident where she still -- where her ribs hit the

steering wheel possibly. There was no bruising there.

Corroborating evidence that the defendant beat her on

June 29th.

What other corroborating evidence do you have that

the defendant did this to Ms. White? Sandra Lavagnino.

Sandra Lavagnino came in, and she testified that the defendant

was charming in their relationship when they first started

dating. She fell in love with him, and she moved into his

apartment. And once she was in his apartment, that's when the

abuse started. She talked about lying in bed, sleeping.

Defendant comes in and throws cold water on her. Other

occasions, lying in bed, sleeping. Defendant comes in and

flips the bed over. No apparent reason. She talks about the

defendant choking her to unconsciousness. She talked about

the defendant and her having a conversation and something

being said, she didn't recall exactly what, but the defendant

then just losing it, threw her in the sink, hit her with a

colander on her head, ripped off her dress and lit it on fire.

The defendant likes the power and control. He takes

out his frustrations on his significant others. That's what

telling me to get out of the office and go into the bedroom,

and I remember that's where I made the entries in both

diaries." That's what she testified to. Then Mr. Bamieh

showed her the two diaries and said, "There's different color

ink. How could you have made the same entry if there's a

black pen and a blue pen?" She really didn't have an answer

for him at that time. She said, "I think it might have been

two pens on the night stand. I don't remember."

On cross-examination, I asked her about it. And

then she says, "The entry that I made" -- actually, she says

this on direct initially, too. She says the entry she made on

June 29th, in her personal diary, she made before the abuse

happened. That's why there's no more -- that's why there's no

discussion of the abuse.

MR. BAMIEH: Objection. Misstating the testimony on

direct examination.

THE COURT: Overruled. The jurors are the judge of what

the evidence is.

MR. ROMERO: Then I show her the entry of the diary from

-- that she was keeping to help Mr. Parlanti because that has

entries that go beyond the 29th. So, I physically handed her

the diary and asked her, "Will you look at those dates?" And

she looked at them. And in her personal diary, her entry for

the 29th is on one page. In the diary -- you will get this.

In the diary that she kept for Mr. Parlanti, her entry for the

29th is just a few sentences, the very bottom. And at the

very top, you have June 24th, next entry, June 25th through

the 28th, and then at the bottom, June 29th. All in the same

color pen, all -- if you look at it, looks like the exact same

pen, same ink.

Ms. White testified that after June 29th, that the

defendant asked her to make the entries into the diary. He

actually asked her why she wasn't still doing it. This is the

diary that she was supposed to be keeping to help him. Look

at those entries. June 24th, June 25th through 28th, and

June 29th. Same pen. Same ink. Made at the same time, after

the June 29th date.

Go to the next page. June 30th, July 1st, July 2nd,

and you will have this part when you go back to deliberate.

Very short. Very brief. All in blue ink. All the same. But

a little different than entries on the other side, which

corroborates her testimony that she wrote them all at the same

time. Mr. Parlanti asked her, "Why aren't you still writing

in this diary?" She takes it, and she makes some entries.

Another occasion, she takes it, she's makes some more entries.

All the same.

Now, I admit that when she was initially asked on

cross-examination about the diaries that she said, "I think I

made them both at the same time the few minutes that I had

before he came in and pulled me out of bed." And my response

to that is: You can't expect a person who has been testifying

for three days about an incident that lasted several hours,

more than three years ago, to remember every little thing that

happened. That's unreasonable. That is unreasonable to

expect that.

As I said, there's no mention of the beating in the

one that she continues to write in after June 29th because

that's the one she's keeping to help Mr. Parlanti. And if

he's checking it, how would it help him if she were to discuss

him beating her and raping her?

What did Ms. White gain by coming and testifying for

three days in this trial? She's got no lawsuit against the

defendant or his company. She did not take any money from the

defendant even though he gave her power of attorney over his

finances. She didn't take any of his money; had the

opportunity, did not do it.

And in opening arguments, Mr. Bamieh actually said,

"Ms. White is the one with the power in this relationship.

She had the power of attorney." Well, that was before you

heard the testimony. Did Ms. White have any power in that

relationship? No, she did not. She didn't take his

belongings. She took photographs of the apartment before she

left. And in it, it has all of his belongings; his suit, his

computer. You can all see it clearly there in the photograph.

She didn't even take the furniture.

There was an e-mail that she sent about the

defendant promising to pay for her daughter's -- for her

daughter's college education. And because of that, Heather

should get the computers, but that didn't happen. That was

Ms. White talking out of anger after what Mr. Parlanti did to

her, and she's talking to everybody.

She sat through several days of examination. She

was asked tough questions both by the prosecution and by the

defense. And she came back day after day after day and

answered those tough questions. The defense stated in their

opening statement that it was Ms. White, who was driving this

investigation.

Well, you heard her daughter Heather Reeves come to

court and testify. And she said, "I flew out to help my mom

move." Didn't see any bruising on her face; packed up her

stuff, spent the night in the hotel, and drove up to Monterey.

She was being honest. Was Heather Reeves being honest? Was

she credible about her testimony? Did she say, "Oh, my mom

was so beaten up"? No. She told you what she remembers three

years ago.

You had Sarah Campbell and Kevin Bunch and Alfred

Berger come and testify, who said they saw Ms. White walking;

that she was walking slow, didn't see any injuries on her

face, but I noticed something different in her demeanor. Did

Ms. White dictate their testimony? No.

Sandra Lavagnino, was she credible? She was on the

stand, and she was shaking. She didn't even look at the

defendant. She couldn't look at the defendant. What else

does she have in common with Ms. White? Don't want the

defendant to know her new last name. Don't want to even look

at the defendant.

Dr. Manchester. Did Ms. White dictate what

Dr. Manchester came to court and testified? Of course not.

What Ms. White did do was provide information on who

to contact. So, does that mean that she's driving the

investigation because she says, "You know what? I -- I talked

to my friends, and here are their phone numbers. Go and talk

to them"? Does that mean she's driving the investigation?

How else is law enforcement supposed to contact potential

witnesses if we don't get their contact information? We need

that. It's a common sense thing. We need to talk to the

people that she talked to. The defense wants to make it seem

that just because she was providing us with that contact

information, that she was driving the investigation.

The defense whole theory in this case is to attack

Ms. White at every opportunity and to make the record as messy

as possible, so it's so confusing that the jurors say, "I

don't know what's going on."

I'm asking you to look at the big picture. Look at

all the evidence. Look at what Ms. White testified to and

look at the evidence that corroborates what she said. If you

consider all the evidence in this case, it's clear that the

defendant beat, bound, and raped Ms. White for the simple

reason is that he could. That's what he liked to do to

Ms. White on this occasion.

He saw Ms. White not as a person, but as another one

of those things he collects. He's a Romeo, who likes to go

out and meet women and talk to women and enchant them. That's

what he does.

Look at all the evidence. Look at the big picture.

One of the things we are taught at law school from the very

beginning is you don't want to lose sight of the forest by

looking at an individual tree. Look at everything. Look at

the entire forest. Don't get caught up on individual trees.

It's time that the defendant be held accountable for