Home                                                                                                                            Vai alla versione italiana                                                                        Go to Carlo Parlanti's web site    

 

ARRINGA DIFESA A CURA DI MR. BAMIEH

For better read there are the index to:

Idex from DA

 

____________________________________

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.

Two to six

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.

 

 

 

 

Closing Arguments from Defense

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.