vai all'archivio

29 luglio 2009
Oltre il danno la beffa

Katia Anedda 05:50 

14 luglio 2009
La mia risposta alla email della procura

Carissimo Mr Wold ho ricevuto una risposta dalla Vs procura e mi preme farvi considerare un po di cose:Il materiale fornito non e’ solo in difesa di Carlo Parlanti, ma soprattutto in denuncia a personaggi che hanno violato le leggi, tra i codici penali violati possiamo trovare:penal code section : 72, 118, 129governament code section 12650penal code section 236-237 per false imprisonament per il crimine di non aver inviato alla Germania prove necessarie che avrebbero evitato l’estradizione del Parlanti e la difesa in Europapenal code 470 – 483.5e sicuramente ne possiamo trovare altri, tra cui la frode aggravata allo StatoSul sito http://www.carloparlanti.comTroverete ora tre registrazioni importanti:Riguardo la email dite che quanto consegnato alla vostra procura sono solo opinioni, in realta’ sono state presentate non solo analisi di esperti, vi ricordo che la dottoressa Pozzi non e’ come avete scritto “un supposto esperto” ma e’ un medico chirurgo e non e’ la sola a contestare quanto di medico sia stato evidenziato durante e prima del processo e documentazioni che sono in possesso della vostra procura e vanno investigati , la sua relazione e’ stata concordata con altri medici.Tra le cose importanti, ad avvallare la denuncia ID6 I in cui si accusa di non aver fornito prove alla Germania e provocato un estradizione fraudolenta, sul sito http://www.carloparlanti.com trovate anche la dichiarazione di Mr Romero che lo ammette. La documentazione in Tedesco non e’ null’altro che la prova che la Germania aveva richiesto ulteriore evidenze e documentazione alla vostra procura, mentre le e’ stato risposto che non vi era null’altro che un rapporto generico, inviando oltretutto solo una parte del rapporto di accusa.Il DA Gilbert Romero nella nostra conversazione ammette che se la donna ha mentito, se ha presentato prove false e’ una criminale, i criminali si perseguono legalmente. Sempre dalla intervista con Romero si capisce che anche lui ha sospetti sulla falsita’ delle foto, e questa puo’ essere provata senza analisi, come vi avevo anticipato arriveranno altre denunce e informazioni alla vostra procura, ma come nella registrazione del detective lo stesso comunica che saranno fatte ulteriori investigazioni, mi auguro che questa sia la linea tenuta da voi e mi aspetto aggiornamenti sulle indagini in questione, di quanto tempo, ad esempio avete ancora bisogno per dirci se le foto sono vere o false? Di quanto per dire se i diari sono stati costruiti ad hoc o realmente esistenti nel marzo 2002? Dimostrarci che e’ possibile le violenze enunciate? E che quindi la signora White e quant’altro non abbiano mentito e falsificato prove per recare danno e truffa allo stato e a Carlo Parlanti?Quindi mi aspetto che quanto il detectives dice che il vostro dovere e’ trovare la verita’ e fare giustizia non stia scherzandoCon rispetto Katia Anedda

Katia Anedda 11:08 

09 luglio 2009
Denuncia alla procura di Ventura, CA

For the Attention of the Attorney General of the State of California
CC. Italian Consulate in the State of California
E p.c.S.E. Foreign Minister – Franco Frattini

COMPLAINT
Katia Anedda, born in Wiesbaden (Germany) on the 26 February 1967 (NDDKTA67B66Z112Y), residing in Eboli (SA) Via U. Nobile 14 c/o Avv.ti Franco Cardiello and Costantino Cardiello, of whom she is represented. Acting as General Attorney in virtue of the notorial act no. 247/2008 lodged with the Italian Consulate and the form A 250 General Power of Attorney dated March 20th, 2006 public notary deed drawn by Philip Durante Comm. 1625780 by Mr. Carlo Parlanti, born in Montecatini Terme on 1st November 1964 and at this moment detained at the 2nd level State Prison of Avenal (CA, U.S.A), declares as follows:

Mr. Carlo Parlanti, an Italian citizen who moved to the United States for work purposes was sentenced to nine years imprisonment for alleged rape.
The trial was based entirely on the statement of the alleged victim, Ms. Rebecca White who made use of false evidence which she had previously set up and on stories of facts that never took place.
This statement clearly cannot include all the lies which were pronounced to compel the Court to sentence an innocent person for a crime that was not committed, because the purpose of this statement is to prosecute a crime and also because the statement would be excessively tedious if it were to include the exact list of all the false information told to the Judge and to the Jury.
Moreover, by merely reading the depositions gathered during the trial anyone would realise that the accounts of the events put forth were implausible.
The writer could just cite the fact that the victim gave three different dates for the alleged rape and beating (6th July according to the first statement, 29th June according to the rider later confirmed in court, 12th July according to her statement included in the medical certificate drawn up by Dr. Patwosky); that she was not able to say how many times she was raped (three, four or five times); that she continually contradicted herself when reconstructing the events, in fact the first version that she gave to the police (certainly the most reliable because it is closer in time to the events) was embellished during the hearing with details of such violence that would have been most difficult to have been forgotten. One particular example is the devastation of the vagina and anus, the former having been violated with a closed fist and the latter with part of the hand. Rape of this kind would be difficult for a woman to forget, and yet it is not mentioned in the first statement but is remembered after three years, and only when the trial began.
When the various versions of the event are put together, the following picture of the sequence of events can be attained.


her head was banged thirty times against a notice-board and then thirty times against the wall
the violence was so great that over the following days a loss of hair was evident;

kicked in the stomach and ribs, slapped several times and punched in the eye;

she was suffocated and so was not able to cry out for help

she was held in a wrestling grip with the alleged assailant on her back pulling back her head

an entire fist was thrust inside her vagina after which the assailant tried to open the fist inside the vagina

a hand inside the anus which caused such heavy bleeding that the mattress was soaked in blood

her nipples were bitten so hard that it felt as if they had been bitten off so violently that the alleged victim screamed as hard as she could

she blacked-out four times


There are no visible signs of all this violence. The policeman who photographed her in perfect shape 15 days after the incident saw nothing (not even signs of healed bruising, at least to her face). The neighbours did not hear or see anything. The restaurant manager Dana Anderson who came face to face with the victim when she returned her daughter’s bag saw no evidence of so much torture, just two days after the events.
Had she received miraculous treatment in the meantime? Of course not, because after all this violence she was then, according to her story, tied up for two nights with plastic bands and even these did not leave any marks.
If that is not enough, if the account is not already utterly implausible, there has to be added the fact that this violent attack was carried out by a man who had drunk four litres of wine and who was therefore, as stated by an expert witness during the trial, almost certainly close to dying and if he was able to survive could have done nothing more than pass out continuously. According to the reconstruction of the facts given by Ms. White, Mr. Parlanti not only survived but he was able to use the computer (trying to show her a web site showing women in bondage so that she could choose how she herself would be tied up) and was capable of sexual appetite and of having the strength to rape her three, four, five times (inaccuracy is not the writer’s, but the person giving the statement), and of using indescribable violence of such force that the alleged victim was unable to resist or protect herself in any way.

Before going ahead, it must be added that Ms. White had already on previous occasions made serious accusations against her ex-husband (violence and attempted murder). At the conclusion of the trial, on the affidavit of the daughter it was requested that the woman be admitted to a psychiatric clinic. Has anything changed since then? Certainly not the psychiatric condition of Ms. White if the statement of detective Richard Lee is recalled. On being interviewed about the case of Parlanti he said: “I was certain that Ms. White had a problem with alcohol. In my professional opinion, based on years of training and experience, I recognized Rebecca White to show many of the physical effects of excessive consumption of alcohol”.
To all this must be added the fact the Ms. White took drugs, in particular Darvocet, an opioid similar to methadone which if taken with alcohol could seriously harm the mind and effect her personal safety.
Did anyone check if Ms. White had regained her ability to testify, which had previously been denied by the Texas Court?
What did the people’s representative do, when faced with such an accumulation of fantasy?

During his closing address he deemed that he could not suspect Ms. White just because her story had been contradictory and refuted by the events, because, if he should ever deem himself suspicious it would be of an excessive coherence. Rather than the writer’s own words it would be better to make use of the expressions used directly by the prosecution to show the actual substantiality of the evidence of guilt
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.

Proof of a severe beating does not rest in the fortuitous (at this point) escape from death, nor in the flood of blood that should have occurred at least in the inguinal area which had been so devastated, nor in the bruises, the haematoma, or other visible injuries, nor in the terrible screams coming from the person who suffers such terrible torture for many hours, but it is in the simple change of mood or demeanour. The neighbours did not hear screaming, they did not see blood or injuries, but they did notice a change in mood so much so that it was deemed to be convincing proof of butchery of a body.
Going back to the severely disfigured body of Ms. White (it must have been so if she managed to survive), it must be said that not even the first doctor who examined her after twenty days did not notice anything (apart from a fractured rib which will be further dealt with in a later section of this document) and the patient did not complain of any pain, apart from the rib.
At the time of the examination, all visible signs had disappeared as well as all the pains. It was only two years later, in a letter addressed to that doctor, Dr. Manchester, in view of the imminent trial and hearing, she reminds him that the pain in the inguinal area did not go away until after one year: Why was this hidden from him at the first examination? Was it because these pains did not exist and she was afraid that the doctor would prescribe further examinations that would reveal her lies?
Why after two years did she feel it necessary to write to this first doctor who had examined her, expressing in the letter things that she had not revealed before: the hand inside her anus, the broken teeth, something that no-one had seen and which had not been mentioned until now, that is in July 2004?
Perhaps it is because Dr. Manchester has an important role to play in Ms. White’s plan. She says to the doctor that the policeman “told her that that they could not proceed with the complaint until a doctor’s examination had taken place in order to enable them to substantiate the damage”.
But even this impediment was invented by Ms. White because on reading the first complaint , the detective who took her statement reports “Ms. White also told me that she would see a doctor in the following two days”. Dr. Manchester’s intervention was requested therefore only by Ms. White, who lied to the doctor about the necessity of a medical report to be able prosecute the crime and that nonetheless predetermines evidence against her, considering the results of the medical examination. Results unknown to the jury because Dr. Manchester’s medical report was not part of the trial documents.
Just like the marks of the injuries sustained, also the pain (of course less visible but certainly longer lasting) also suddenly disappear without treatment.
But Ms. White’s illness is also abnormal, because if it is true (and on this point all that is necessary is to read the deposition of Dr. Manchester) that Dr. Manchester draws up a certificate that states “ skin intact, warm, dry, no visible rasch or remarkable lesion”; “head atraumatic” “back: no redness, no edema, no bruising, no visible deformity” “Eyes sclera white and clear”, dated the 16th August another medical report is made and signed by Dr. Bivens where he states “She does appear toh ave some slight ecchymosis around the eyes where she was punched”.
The first time someone appears to have noticed signs of the violence is only after two months from the event, after the same body, the same face had been examined by another doctor at a time much closer to the event, after the same face had been photographed by the police where nothing was mentioned about any “appearance of ecchymosis” around the eyes. On the other hand Dr. Bivens seemed to see some ecchymosis: how a doctor can express an opinion to the effect of what seems to be something as a result of a direct examination is difficult to understand.
At last, after five months, the first signs of violence appear!
In the medical report of Dr. Fore dated 5th November 20002 he states the existence of a very black eye and two broken ribs caused by a beating.
This statement can be explained in two ways.
The first, if it is true that Ms. White had a black eye on the 5th November she had caused it herself in some way and had accused Mr. Parlanti, to set- up beforehand proof, clearly false, of his responsibility.
The second is that there were no injuries at all and so Ms. White and the doctor acted in league to set up evidence against Carlo Parlanti. It is up to the expert to check what actually occurred.
The medical reports were not produced in court as evidence, even though they represented the proof of the underhand tricks of Ms. White who clearly tried to set up false evidence to verify the violent attack she had undergone.
This is not the only false evidence used by Ms. White.
The other is more disturbing, also because it was used in the trial against Mr. Parlanti - it is the photographic evidence.
At the time of her first complaint the police took photographs of Ms. White and in these photos there are no signs of violence.
Only at the preliminary hearing does Ms. White present the photos which show her with signs of injuries to her face and according to her account these photos were taken the Wednesday after the event (therefore the 3rd July).
Now, it is strange that these photos were not handed over straight away to the police to confirm what she had reported, also because Ms. White knew that from the photos taken by the police it would be obvious that they had evidence against her and, therefore there was even more reason for her to hand over the other photos in her possession.
However, even to an inexpert eye it is immediately obvious that the photos of Ms. White showing noticeable injuries to her face were taken some years previously because she appears much younger and her hair is much shorter than in the photos taken by the police on the 18th July, therefore fifteen days later.
So, either in those fifteen days she had rapidly aged and had undergone an unusually rapid hair growth and nevertheless a sudden recovery, without medical attention, with the subsequent disappearance of symptoms and signs left as a result of a continuous, savage beating, or perhaps it is more likely that the jury would have concluded that the photos which show her young, with short hair and injuries could not have been taken just two weeks before those taken by the police where not only is she much older but above all there are no signs of injuries despite the fact that she had not received medical attention.

It is difficult to find passages in the deposition of Ms. White that do not imply planned falsehood.
For expository convenience the falsehoods can be put in large groups, where the writer will put together only the most noticeable things which can be understood even by someone who does not have full knowledge of the entire trial documentation.
The reason for the slander shown below was clearly demonstrated throughout the course of the trial: Ms. White was not able to get over being abandoned by her partner.


"When he walked out the door and said good-bye
to me for the last time, I fell to the floor and cried knowing
I would never feel him run his hand over my face again, kiss
my lips or talk to me in bed with his liquid silver voice"?
Isn't it true you wrote that?



and she childishly tried to cover the true motive during the course of the preliminary hearing

Q. Okay. Do you know where –- do you know where Mr Parlanti was on the day you reported him to the police?
A. He was in Gulfport, in Mississipi.
Q. With wo?
A. He was at work.
Q. Come on, ma’am. Whith who? You know who he was with.
A. He was probably whith – with
Q. Starts whith a C.
A. With her.
Q. Yeah. And you know that , didn’t you?
A. Yeah



That the motive for the slander is passion is evident from the existence of some e-mails which the alleged victim sent to her torturer after the massacre, where she bid him to escape.

And the subject is hello; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And the e-mail says, "Tell Carlo I said run. I did
not know until today what they charged him with. This is
crazy. Tell him to run," with multiple explanation points?


And from the other e mails where she praises his physical attributes, sent by the alleged victim of the massacre to her torturer bidding him to escape, or praising his special physical attributes.

"Carlo was the best man I've ever known. I've only
slept with five men counting him, and I'm proud to say he was
the wildest, best-looking, smoothest, best cock I will ever
have between my thighs."



Falsehood regarding the motive for reporting Mr. Parlanti
Keeping in mind the chronology of the events, it must be said that the delay in making the complaint is suspicious, apart from the fact that she did not contact the police before the 18th July, that is, after twenty days.
At first, Ms. White stated that she was forced to report Mr. Parlanti because if she had not done so her father would not have supported her financially.
During the trial a circumstance occurred which makes one wonder about the way the enquires were carried out and on the judgment of the prosecution regarding certain elements which were only in his possession.
Ms. White, after Mr. Romero (public minister) had listened to Ms. White’s father, felt obliged to send an e mail to the examiner where she explained that her father would not be able to confirm the version of the reason for filing the complaint, because it wasn’t him who had said it, but rather everything came from the mother who was stating the wishes of the father. Incredible!
Even if Ms. White tried to remedy the damage caused by the deposition of the father (who could not confirm something that had never occurred) and then during the trial continued the story saying that she had received 300 dollars on the condition that she report Mr. Parlanti. Did even these 300 dollars come from the mother as the father had played no part in all this?
It has already been said what the motive was that induced Ms. White to build this accusatory castle, inexplicably acknowledged without objection by the jury at the outcome of the trial (abandoned by partner, Cecilia etc. ) How did she justify the fact that she did not call the police in those days?

It cannot be denied that is rather strange that the victim of such a savage attack, even though having numerous chances to escape (seeing that she stated that she was alone in the house for days), or at least of calling the police, did nothing of the sort.
What is the reason given by Ms. White that prevented her from saving herself by contacting the police?
While lodging the complaint she stated that there were three reasons for which she did not contact the police.
The first reason does not merit any comment “she had promised him that she would not do so” and it seems evident that she cannot go back on her word (sic!).
The second reason is that was afraid of harmful repercussions to herself and her daughter.
And this at least could have the appearance of an excuse, except that she never stated what powers of coercion Mr. Parlanti actually had over her and anyway, considering that she was on her own was she no longer afraid of a continued violence, rather of some future reaction from Mr. Parlanti?
Fear that completely disappears when Mr. Parlanti leaves town for his job: was his going
away like this all that was needed for all this fear to stop, a fear that was so strong that it left her immobile in the house for days without the courage to call the police? Wasn’t Mr. Parlanti going to come back?

The third reason is that she did not want Mr. Parlanti to suffer any further, almost as if the person beaten up had been him, and not her.
A follow up to the embarrassing explanation given to the investigator who took down her report is the wanton version given in at the trial.


Q. Did you use that phone to call the police?
A. I couldn't.
Q Why couldn't you?
A. Because it had a tap on it.



So, all in all, Mr. Parlanti had been so careful as to foresee the possible movements of the victim and the alleged complaint by means of a telephone upon which he had planted a “bug”.
Strange that he had freed the victim for the whole day, so that she could have easily gone to the nearest police station to report the event even without the telephone, even without being checked on. Or perhaps it is to be thought that Mr. Parlanti had hired someone to follow her?


Q And why did it take you until the 18th to report it?
A. I was not able to walk or drive myself to the
police.
Q So, if you could have walked or driven yourself, you
would have gone straight to the police?
A. Yes. So I could escape.
Q Couldn't you have called the police and had them
come over and pick you up?
A. Where was I going to go?
Q Well, you said you could have escaped.
Where were you going to go if you could escape?
A. My daughter's.
Q Couldn't you have called the police and tell them to
call your daughter to come and get you?
A. Where was I going to put my car?

So, in the end the real reason that she did not think about saving herself was because she did not know where she would have put her car.



Attempts to falsify the content of some of the evidence.
There are several e mails written by Ms. White herself which would reveal as untrue the supposed beating carried out by Mr. Parlanti.
Only a few will be cited in order to keep this document as an expository summary.
The following example, already quoted above, is disturbing:

"Carlo was the best man I've ever known. I've only
slept with five men counting him, and I'm proud to say he was
the wildest, best-looking, smoothest, best cock I will ever
have between my thighs."


This e mail was written in November 2002, five months after the rape and by the woman who had been attacked so savagely almost to the point of being killed, and is addressed to the person who carried out the attack.
From this genuine evidence, as it was created at a time that was not suspicious and was spontaneous on the part of the interested party (who obviously tried to hide its true content during the trial and to give a different explanation of this written evidence) it must be deduced that what had been previously reported was false, it was motivated by a momentary, although terrible, grudge.
It is beyond all logic that such a eulogy would be used to describe one’s own rapist.
During the trial she was asked to explain these messages.
She justified herself saying “it was something that Carlo kept trying to make me say and that I would never have said it to him”.
Further absurdity, to talk about his penis to please Carlo, after he had left her six months previously? Why, after such a long time and not sooner should she have shown such inexplicable compliance?
Even more absurd is the other explanation that she tried to corroborate at the Hearing of 9.12.05 where she says that the e mails were provocative, to get a response from Carlo and therefore his arrest. Is it possible that she should have to take the place of the police and with such gross methods?
That there was a definite criminal plan which was plotted at the time of the abandonment on the 16th July 2002 (by Carlo Parlanti) and nurtured over time can be understood by a series of facts that were misleading but were not taken into consideration by the judge and the jury, who were seriously at fault.
Ms. White decides to lodge her complaint in a moment of time that is anything but neutral regarding her affair with Mr. Parlanti. He had left her on the 16th July and as can be seen she had tried more than once to hide the existence of a precise reason. It is sufficient to read how during the preliminary hearing she attempted, as shown above, to hide the fact that she knew about Cecilia.
Then in 20005 Ms. White even began to supervise the enquiries, suggesting to the D.A the existence of witnesses who up until then had not been put forward, inexplicably, and who however did not state a case regarding the violence: no-one had seen any signs of violence.
The following extract is disturbing:

And the subject is hello; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q And the e-mail says, "Tell Carlo I said run. I did
not know until today what they charged him with. This is
crazy. Tell him to run," with multiple explanation points?
A. Yes.
Q And it's signed, your name?
A. Yes.
Q You sent this e-mail, didn't you?
A. No, I did not.
Q It's your allegation this e-mail is manufactured?


Ms. White therefore makes a complaint that there has been tampering of the evidence, plotted against her as soon as the evidence which she produced turned against her. Not even this fact is given consideration by the Judge and jury and if she is not held to be unreliable even on a point such as this, it means that it was believed that there had been a tampering of evidence: was an enquiry about this begun?


Falsehood regarding dates
As already put forward, in the course of the first complaint made on the 18th July 2002 she says to Detective Fullertone who questioned her that the events had occurred on Saturday the 6th July. This statement needs to be examined bearing in mind that of her own admission she has:
A. I have short-term memory problems.
Q And what does that mean?
A. I can better remember something that happened last
week than something that happened a few minutes ago,
yesterday, or the day before.

Therefore that version, which occurred between two or three weeks from the event, should be perfectly reliable. But on the 20th July Ms. White contacts the detective again to tell him that she had been looking at the calendar for a couple of hours and realised that the event had happened the week before the date she had given, that is on the 29th June 2002.
Can a beating like the one she had described be so easily forgotten, so much so that Ms. White does not even remember in what month it had occurred?
Can such a memory, of an event so terrible, be remembered only by examining carefully (for a couple of hours), the calendar?
Perhaps the dates had been studied for other reasons, to make her version more compatible with the fact that the police had not noticed any signs of violence (on the understanding that any signs that would have been produced could go away in just ten days)?
The Prosecutor obviously knew that any unreliability regarding dates would have meant unreliability regarding everything. How can he regard the alternative version of the dates as credible: simply because Ms. White produced in court the calendar which she consulted and which helped her to discover the date of the beating and rape.
Should not the Prosecutor however have compared the third date given by Ms. White in the certificate made by Dr. Patzskow on the 21st October because the medical reports were not shown to the jury, even though they contained the most striking contradictions between the versions given by the victim.



Falsehood regarding the event (absence of confirmation of the unprecedented violence)
It has already been said that no witness noticed anything, no-one heard anything, even on the admission of the Prosecutor in his closing address the evidence of violence is only the change in Ms. White’s demeanour.
Ms. White is not even able to state, without changing version, how the violence began: there is an enormous contradiction in the story told by Ms. White on the 8th December 2005 regarding the order of the beginning of the violence, if compared with her complaint of the 18th July 2002.
In the complaint, in fact, she states that the violence began because Carlo Parlanti was angry because Ms. White was getting dressed to go out, while at the hearing she states that Carlo wanted her to go out, so much so that he was “shoving” her out of the apartment.
The first act of violence which she underwent was that she her head was slammed against the notice-board thirty times and another thirty times against the wall.
According to the account of the victim they were violent blows because they made her lose consciousness (cerebral concussion, therefore? – ruled out by Dr. Manchester who was the first to examine her), because two days later while she was having a shower she noticed a great loss of hair, so much so that it blocked the drain of the bath, that can only be accounted for by a serious injury to the scalp. Only that such a loss would go with a copious loss of blood, and would have been noticed by the police who did not observe anything of the kind.
Furthermore, when the police entered into the apartment they took photographs of the areas showing their exact condition during the night of violence. There is no sign of a severe beating.


The cork noticeboard did not even fall off the wall.

The testimony of the person who went into the house of Ms. White on the Tuesday after the violence (just three days later) to return the daughter’s bag, is crucial.
After three days the marks had disappeared. Ms. White in fact did not cover up anything.
And when this manager came over, did you have any
makeup on?
A. No.
Q Did you have any sun glasses on?
A. No.

and the manager, even though she was face to face with Ms. White, did not notice anything. Had the miraculous recovery which was evident from the police photos already occurred?


According to Ms. White the rape of her anus with the whole hand of Mr. Parlanti caused a terrible loss of blood, but of course nothing was found.

Q. How much did you bleed?
A. There was a pool of blood on the sheets that soaked
through to the mattress.
Q And when the deputies arrived at your apartment on
the 19th, did you point out that mattress to them?
A. I just remember talking about it. I don't remember
removing the sheets.
Q My question to you, Ms. White --
A. I'm sorry.
Q -- is when the deputies went to your apartment on
the 19th, do you recall pointing out the stained mattress to
them?
A. I'm not really sure what you're asking me.
Q When the deputies walked in, did you point and say,
"Look, there's some blood on that mattress"?
A. No, sir.



The reason for which she did not do so was simply because there was no blood, because there had been no violence.
Ms. White’s silence can have no other explanation: on the other hand she herself had asked the police to look for evidence in the apartment and had given them the bag of plastic bands, which she had said had been used to tie her up. She gives the police evidence which is so weak (a bag which can be found in every household) and she does not show them the pool of blood on the mattress?
And the police themselves did not find evidence of blood? And how had Ms. White not bled to death, seeing that her blood had flooded the mattress?

As for the episodes of rape the improbability of these comes from the fact that the alleged victim never gave the same version of the facts.
It must be said regarding this point, that during the closing speech the Prosecutor had to explain away the inconsistencies that had been told, and he stated that it was normal that certain details would escape the mind of the victim, in fact if the account was too exact it would indicate that the story was false, and not the other way round. But we can ask ourselves if this event (rape) is just an unimportant detail of the deposition and this is a question that is left to the intelligence of whoever reads this complaint.


The marks?
During the hearing of 8th December, Ms. White stated that because of her unwillingness to have further sexual intercourse with Mr. Parlanti, he bit her arm with such violence he made her shout at the top of her voice. Now, apart from the fact that none of the neighbours heard anything, neither these screams nor anything else, even though on her own admission it was possible to hear noises, such as peoples voices, from one apartment to another, we need to bear in mind that the action described in the hearing is equivalent to the bite of dog, since the alleged victim says that after having seized hold of her arm with his mouth, Mr. Parlanti then began to twist her head and wouldn’t let go.

.
The sequence of inhuman treatment described could not be kept quiet: that is to demonstrate the level of falsehood and dangerousness of the alleged victim.
After using her arm like a bone, Mr. Parlanti
"Yes, Carlos. It hurt very much. Please stop."
And then he cupped my left breast and he began to try to bite
my nipple off, and I screamed even more”.

so badly as to cause bleeding.



Right in this critical situation she screamed so hard that she could have been heard by the neighbours, who however heard nothing, and after such an alleged mutilation Mr. Parlanti then put his whole hand into her vagina, leaving it there for some minutes trying to open it wide.
She describes therefore a terrible sequence of events, a violence that starts with a bite to the arm and ends with the terrible act of putting a hand inside the vagina and rectum.
This is surely the most vicious moment, the climax of the attack, seeing as it is the only time that she screams from the pain and to let herself be heard.
So, all this represents a circumstance not made public until the hearing of the 8th December, because many of the episodes just described were not previously told, so that from a summary complaint we come to a twist in the events with the introduction of violent facts that would be difficult to forget.
Now we can suppose that the deposition of Ms. White can be examined according to the criteria enunciated in the closing address of the prosecutor, that is that a witness does not necessarily have to remember everything, it can be supposed that Ms. White was conferred with a kind of memory in progress, or more reasonably one can conclude that she violated her right to be impartial, to tell the truth and she tried to inundate the jury with brutal stories which, if they really had occurred, they would have been difficult to remain hidden for such a long time (the hearing took place three years after the events).


Photos:
Photos taken by the police on the 18th July 2002 and those alleged to have been taken by Ms. White on the Wednesday after the violence, therefore the 3rd July, were included in the trial documents. The grossness of the photos of Ms. White has already been talked about and we would refer you to the attached professional advice drawn up on behalf of Carlo Parlanti (cfr all) for a careful analysis of the falsehood.
At the hearing of the 8th December, the alleged victim gives the precise moment when she took the photos of herself showing the marks of the violence.
An aspect not of secondary importance must be made clear: the presence of Mr. Parlanti or not inside the apartment when the photos were taken.
That this is a significant circumstance is perceived by the Prosecutor who, after receiving the deposition regarding when the photos were taken, asked the witness specifically if Mr. Parlanti was in the house. To such a question the answer could only be in the negative, for the obvious reason that the presence of Mr. Parlanti in the house would have made the contemporaneous pre-arrangement of the proof of violence by the victim to be implausible, the victim being in the meantime terrified of her torturer.
It must be said however that a few seconds previously Ms.White had stated something different, that is that Mr. Parlanti was in the house. Verbatim.

D: Before you left to the laundry room, was
Mr. Parlanti in your apartment?
A. Yes.
Q Before you left the apartment, did you get an
opportunity to look at yourself in the mirror?
A. Yes, I did.
Q Was that the first time you looked at yourself in
the mirror?
Yes.
Q What did you see?
A. My left eye was very black. I had a bruise on the
left side of my mouth, and my neck was swollen on the right
side.
THE COURT: The last thing you said, ma'am?
THE WITNESS: The bruise on it.
THE COURT: Thank you.
Q (By Mr. Romero) Before you left the apartment to do
the laundry, did you do anything to try and cover up your
injuries?
A. I -- actually, before that, I took my picture
because I was angry.

Therefore, the photo is taken before covering her face with make-up and with Mr. Parlanti still in the house and who asks her to go out to do the laundry. Before doing so she takes the photos, yes the woman who was so terrified that she didn’t have the strength to call the police, finds the courage to do something that is much more dangerous.
And when he told me I had to do the laundry, he said, "Before
you leave this apartment, you make sure you cover those
bruises up so nobody sees them."
Another version on the verge of being ridiculous. How can one think that Parlanti would be afraid that someone would notice the bruises and yet would ask Ms. White to go and do the laundry, something that certainly could have been put off.
Ms. White stated that when she left the house she wore sunglasses, for the obvious purpose of trying to justify the fact that no-one had seen the bruises not even after only three days from the beating. Can a pair of sunglasses, some make-up conceal signs of the torture said to have been undergone by Ms. White. Is it plausible?
Ms. White also stated that she had taken the photos to provide evidence for a subsequent complaint: she was therefore clear-headed and convinced of punishing her torturer according to the law. Only that, according to her first complaint, the very same day she made love with Mr. Parlanti. Is it possible that someone so mutilated could find pleasure in further intercourse with her torturer?
And is it possible to feel pleasure, despite the injuries sustained?



Broken ribs
The only truth told by Ms. White is that she had a fracture to the ribs. Obviously she knew about the injury, a long time before the violence as will be seen, and she tried to blame the fractures as being a consequence of the beating she received on the night of the 29th June.
Apart from the fact that during the trial it was not gathered as evidence beyond every reasonable doubt that there was aetiology between the conduct reported and the fracture, it must be added that the constant calling to attention of the broken ribs, even pedantically at certain points, brings up the reasonable conviction that Ms. White had tried to channel all her lies into one point upon which a not too careful reader could give her credit.
It seems as though the ribs were the only thing she was worried about, despite the fact that the other parts of the body had been more seriously injured (head, nipples, vagina, anus).
The word broken ribs is the one repeated many times by Ms. White, who told the police that she was going to see the doctor because her ribs were still painful (not her anus, not her nipples and not her vagina); she told Dr. Manchester that only her ribs were painful (see deposition of Manchester).
She even talks about the broken ribs on a casual meeting with the maintenance man.
Ms. White discovered this injury too quickly. In her account she says, in fact, that she realised that her ribs were broken while she was being beaten because she moaned to Mr. Parlanti that he had broken her ribs (not anything else?). She is so sure of the fracture that she says at a certain point that Mr. Parlanti had told her how to get up off the ground despite the broken ribs. Yes, because Ms. White is not the only to realise that her ribs were broken, even Mr. Parlanti at a certain point, according to the statement of the alleged victim, said “I have broken your ribs”. Are we in the presence of two doctors, able to immediately diagnose a fracture, or rather are we in the presence of a person who is trying to build her story around the only thing that is apparently plausible?
Apparantly, because it is not possible that the fracture originated on the night of the 29th June for the reason expressed in the expert’s report given by Dr. Pozzi to which we refer you as it is of greater reliability than the words of the writer.
But the broken ribs come up, as has already been mentioned, even in the conversation with the maintenance man who she met on her return from the laundry and to whom “I said that I had two broken ribs”. Not only did she know of her injury, some weeks before the doctor’s examination, but she knew exactly that there were two broken ribs, not more and not less. Perhaps she even knew which ribs were broken?
To believe Ms. white’s version and therefore, that a man who survived an ethylic coma is able to repeatedly rape and beat her, without leaving any immediate visible marks, then one must believe, as the jury did, in the photos and therefore believe that the victim was afflicted with a terrible precocious ageing process which altered her youthful appearance as seen in the photos alleged to have been taken on the 3rd July into that which can be seen in the photos taken by the police on the 19th July which show a woman much older and with much longer hair. One must be ready to believe in a form of mystic and abnormal healing of the injuries sustained by the victim; a sudden healing immediately after the event even more so as it was without treatment and without an aftermath (pains, signs of healing), that neither doctors, nor police, nor passers by, nor family were able to notice anything and then going back to the initial stage, with a gradual reappearance of the symptoms which had previously vanished, as from August, as it “seemed” to Dr. Bivens, until the reappearance of the black eyes certified in November by Dr. Fore.









This complaint is made with the intention of prosecution for the crimes that the American Authorities will wish to consider completed by the exposition of the facts narrated, which require precise and immediate investigation. It must be said that there will be other complaints following this one to speed up the enquiries into any perpetration of other crimes, committed before, during and after the trial against Carlo Parlanti for the sole purpose of reaching a sentence of criminal responsibility founded on the distortion of facts.


__________31.03.09

Katia Anedda 00:21 

05 luglio 2009
this is my last email to Ventura DA

Dear Mr. Wold,
As I told in advance to the Detective Greg Hayes I’m here to let you know that I will write you to about other abuses and inconsistent facts in the Carlo Parlanti’s case.

I excuse me if you will receive some e-mail from me but I am very glad to believe that also in Ventura County, Justice can be restored.

As I told you, the same statements and documents I sent to you are also given with the claim to To the California’s Attorney General To
the department of Justice of the United States
To the Bar Association of California’s lawyers
To the Monterey County
To the FBI
To the Italian GovernmentIt
is also sent to the medical board of California and Oklahoma.

In the documentation there are several items that are still under investigation and I would like that you could take them in consideration.
Please if this is not the correct manner to inform you about the, let me know the correct procedure:
1) June 29 2002, day of the alleged rape, a phone call was made at 10.24 PM from the home telephone number that is used in special occasions from the cellular of Mrs. White.
It would be interesting to track all phone calls from Mr. Carlo Parlanti to exclude that Mr. Parlanti was not at the telephone with someone while beating and raping wildly the woman (as accused).
2) Mrs. White got a total hysterectomy at the age of 30 years and it would be interesting in addition of what in the reports, to know if a woman without ovaries and womb can be penetrated by a hand and forearm of Mr. Parlanti ( Deposition of December 13 2005)
3) In the trial against Mr. Parlanti, another woman testified: Mrs. Sandra Lavagnino/Philips, we arrived at the conclusion that the woman was already in contact for some time with Mrs. White and Mrs. Hollingworth, former psychotherapist of Mr. Carlo Parlanti, that profaning the law had a relation with the Mr Parlanti.
In addition Mrs. Lavagnino was client of a sexy shop in Monterey Nu Art in Fremont Street between Monterey and Seaside.
This will prove the not reliable position of Mrs. Lavagnino that in addition has violated the law several times paying with check an illegal abortion of a Mexican minor that had a relation with the husband. Taking in consideration that in the conversation with Mr Romero he believes that the main proofs a 3 and more precisely:

1. The reliability of Mrs. Rebecca White
2. The broken ribs
3. The deposition of Mrs. Lavagnino

All the allegations and proofs to sustain them produced by the investigations until now are not relevant any more.
It is very important to find a connection with Mrs Hollingworth , (that in reality is the one that got the most of the advantages by Mr. Parlanti arrest) to analyze the diary, all maliciously made up.
The JDE staff that in 2002 was in charge of the June Focus confirmed us that the Diary were supplied for the first time on June 2002 in Dever and this is a proof that Mrs White couldn’t write before that date.
All this confirm and proof only a small part of all lies made up by Mrs White to live at California’s State expenses.
It is important to understand that the only proof supplied by the Accusation are

The Diaries
The Calendar
The pictures

It is incredible that all 3 evidences were presented 3 years later in 2005 after that the Detectives of your County informed Mrs White that there were no withness to testify any evidence of violence against her.
The calendar was declared false before the trail and not admitted as evidence.
All other evidences were found as consequence of our private investigations.
Please I would like to be informed about the status of your part of job in this matter.in order I will send to you some information, please confirme me you can receved that
In attach an email Ms Lavagnino wrote to detective, that is mean no trial can begin when a crazy woman make accusation based her stantement and the stantement from Ms Hollingworth prouve she search to have benefit from that Best regards
Katia Anedda

Katia Anedda 16:12