Home Vai alla versione italiana Go to Carlo Parlanti's web site
![]()
For better read there are the index to:
____________________________________
Case :
No. 2002026651
This is an extract from what appened
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2005
In front a:
Court
Deputy District Attorney
the Defendant
Official Reporter
VENTURA, CALIFORNIA; FRIDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2005
--oOo--
Now, this is what I must prove to you beyond a
reasonable doubt. Count 1 alleges the unlawful sexual
intercourse. In order for me to prove beyond a reasonable
doubt that he is guilty, I need to prove there was an act of
sexual intercourse by two people who were not married, the
intercourse was against the will of Ms. White, and that it was
completed by means of force, violence, duress, menace or fear
of immediate and unlawful bodily injury. That's what I must
prove. If I prove beyond a reasonable doubt those four
things, the defendant is guilty.
Count 2, this is what I must prove beyond a
reasonable doubt. I must prove that the defendant willfully
inflicted bodily injury upon Ms. White, and the bodily injury
resulted in a traumatic condition. What a traumatic condition
is, it's an injury. Did she have an injury as a result of
being struck by the defendant?
Count No. 3 is false imprisonment. This is what I
must prove. The defendant intentionally and unlawfully
restrained, confined or detained Ms. White, compelling her to
stay in her bedroom; Ms. White did not consent to the
restraint, confinement or detention; and the restraint,
confinement or detention was accomplished by violence or
menace.
Now, Ms. White -- I told you in my opening statement
that Ms. White was very dependent on the defendant, and that
is abundantly clear throughout the trial. She was dependent
on his affection, his validation, and she did everything she
thought she could to make him happy, and she let Mr. Parlanti
do what he wanted. She let him talk to other women. She let
him possibly go on business trips and be with other women, and
she kind of just accepted it as part of the relationship.
Now, Ms. White is who she is. Prosecutors don't get
to choose who victims of crime are.
The defendant,fancies himself a Romeo.
He likes to go out and meet women. He likes to talk to women.
He likes the way women make him feel. In fact, Ms. De Barra flew from
Ireland and told you that in a six- to seven-week relationship
with the defendant, she had him move in, into her apartment in
Ireland, and she thought he was a perfect gentleman, greatest
guy in the world; so much so that she allowed him to move in
with her even though she knew he had a girlfriend in Italy.
That's how charming he was.
Well, that relationship only lasted a few weeks, and
Mr. Parlanti did not get an opportunity to follow through with
his pattern of behavior of first enchanting and entrusting,
and then given the opportunity to exert the power and control.
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. Looked at the initial report
that he was provided by the district's attorneys office, exact
same thing.
They get to trial. This witness gets on the stand
and testifies to the exact same thing, word for word,
verbatim. And Mr. Darrow got a "not guilty" for his client
because he argued to the jury that is not the way things
work in real life. We don't work off of scripts. Maybe in
television, but in real life, we do not work off of scripts.
People do not say the same exact thing, word for word, every
time they talk about an event.
The defense's theory is to attack Ms. White with the
tiniest of details and make the record as messy as possible.
We spent an inordinate amount of time in this trial going over
things she said to Deputy Fullerton that were different than
things she said to Deputy Reilly the next day that were
different from what she faxed to Deputy Reilly on the 22nd
that were different than what she testified to in the
preliminary hearing earlier this year.
If we were to have another hearing and had her
testify again, would there be things that she said over the
trial these last three days that she never said before? Yes.
You can talk about something over and over and over, but what
you need to look at is the core. The core.
Is she being consistent with what she has said? She
may not remember three years ago what happened over four to
five hours. She may not be able to remember that.
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.
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.
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,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
he does. .
Finally, what other corroborating evidence do we
have? Well, Ms. White testified that the defendant left on a
business trip on July 16th. She reported the incident on the
18th. Detective John Reilly testified that when he got
involved in the investigation, he went looking for the
defendant at Dole Foods. He testified, "I went to Dole Foods,
and I talked to a couple people, one of them being a security
officer there, looking for the defendant. Didn't find him
there."
The evidence shows -- where is the next time we see
Mr. Parlanti? Katia testifies that we see Mr. Parlanti in
late July or early August of 2002 back in Italy. I'll let you
think about that.
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.
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.
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.
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.
weeks old from the 22nd when he saw her; two weeks, July 8th
to the 17th. That's the range and that time period where he
believes Ms. White fractured her ribs. He did say that it's
possible that she could have fractured her ribs as early as
the 16th. And
That's different. What Ms. White testified to is when
she was being -- when she had her head banging the against the
wall, to her, it felt like the defendant was doing it as hard
as he can. How hard was he doing it? She doesn't know. See
how the defense twists the evidence? They don't give you
exactly what is being told.
Ms. White, for whatever reason, decides to write all
these letters professing her love before and after the
incident. Why? Again, I don't have that answer. Probably
because she still loved him. Probably because she was still
hurt by what he did to her. Probably because she was angry.
![]()
And she told Brian Whitney she was going to
use it. She was going take the computers and the furniture.
She had it. She was going to use it.
Four liters of wine in five to six hours. She said
that, and she was sure of it. And she -- Mr. Romero, on
redirect, tried to get her to come off it in some way, get
down under four liters somehow. An extraordinary amount of
alcohol. And she was even shown four liters of wine. A
remarkable amount for one human to digest. And her testimony
was, at the time of the initial binding, he had drank two
liters already, had -- was more than halfway through the
second two-liter bottle.
If he's so abusive during the relationship, why is
she writing that letter to the judge saying he's not?
Remember the letter she wrote to the judge? I showed it to
her. I asked her if she wrote it. She admitted it, and then
she said that she was lying
Pools of blood. Pools of blood. All right. She
said because of what he did to her, putting his hand inside
her anus, there's a pool of blood in the bed. A pool of it.
Right. She didn't change the sheets. She did not change the
sheets. That's her testimony. Told Fullerton, though, on the
sheets was Mr. Parlanti's blood. That's what she told
Fullerton. To you, she tells you there's a pool of blood on
the sheets and on the bed, and it sunk right through the
sheets into the bed. To Fullerton, she said -- and she said
it was her blood, the pool was her blood, not his.
And to
Fullerton, she says it was Mr. Parlanti's blood from the
scratches to the backs of his legs, and she knew it because
she washed the sheets. That's what she told Fullerton.
Wasn't until redirect that she said wrote them at
different times. And then the sheets get her again on this.
Once again, if there's pools of blood on those sheets and
somebody changes the sheets, how does Mr. Parlanti not find
that diary? Willfully false. Cannot leave bed for two days.
Could not leave bed for two days; yet, making all her diary
entries for Mr. Parlanti, making them. Her explanation, which
I really didn't get on this, there it is, is that if you look
at them, you can tell she was writing them at the same angle
at the same time. I have no understanding of what that means.
Zero. It's nonsensical to me. If it makes sense to you,
fine. I'm going to submit it won't. She can't use the
bathroom, but she's getting to that diary. That's what she
came up with. That's her explanation.