Traduzioni

Ciao, io insisto a chiedervi di aiutarmi nelle traduzioni, possiamo provarci con quanto segue?:

I mentioned yesterday, I will go over with you some of the
rules that we need to follow in the course of this trial. The
things I'm going to tell you are pretty straight forward.
They are also quite important; that everybody abide by them.
First of all, as I mentioned, members of the jury
are to have no contact or conversation with either counsel or
anyone that you know to be a witness for either side or
involved in the case in any way. It's okay to say "good
morning" or "good afternoon." Do not let it go beyond that
point. The parties -- counsel know they can't talk with you.
They won't talk with you. Just puts everybody in an awkward
spot if jurors are trying to talk with the lawyers or other
people, and they have to say, "I can't talk with you." Nobody
who is trying a case wants to appear to be rude to the people
who are deciding it, and you need to not create that kind of
situation.
The reason for this rule has to do primarily with
the law of evidence. The admission of evidence in the trial
is governed by a body of law found almost exclusively in
what's called the Evidence Code, appropriately enough. In
California, the Evidence Code is a codification by and large
of common law rules of evidence that have been applied in
trials for the last several centuries, both here and in
England.
The reason that those rules exist, the ones that
we're mainly concerned with in trial, has to do with the
reliability of information that you get as jurors to decide a
case. And the hearsay rule is a good example of that.

e invece dall'italiano all'inglese con questa:
Il Procuratore ha detto che "l'atteggiamento fisico della vittima durante la testimonianza è uno dei fattori significativi che la giuria utilizza per valutarne la credibilità ".
Lasciatemi precisare che dare della vittima a questa donna è paradossale e irriguardoso rispetto alle disgrazie delle vere vittime. Il Procuratore capo Totten non ha visto l'atteggiamento della White durante la testimonianza, atteggiamento che, invece è stato reputato 'irritante a pelle' da chi ha assistito al processo. Il Procuratore ha ben chiaro che non solo rapporti medici incontestabili siano stati presentati? Ma cosa importante è a conoscenza che mentre la White ha testimoniato alla preliminare (ovvero senza la presenza della giuria) senza ausilio di una assistente ha preteso per il Processo con giuria l'assistente seduta accanto (si trovano discussioni di questo nell'apertura del processo, sempre su www.thepeoplevscarloparlanti.com/atti/atti.htm nelle trascrizioni dell'8 dicembre), e il procuratore sa che mentre la White si è presentata al processo senza ausilio di alcun bastone, quindi autosufficiente, il giorno 3 marzo che doveva essere pronunciata la sentenza da parte del Giudice si è invece presentata con l'ausilio di un bastone, dichiarando che fosse stata cosi danneggiata da Carlo che pretendeva il massimo della sentenza e non si tenesse conto del carcere subito da Carlo sino a quel momento, è un atteggiamento significativo?!
_________________

ho tradotto il testo, non posso garantirti l'esattezza della grammatica...putroppo è un pò che non parlo inglese, però è una base, se ancora nn l'avevi.

ciao

w.

The prosecuting attorney Totten, speaks about Carlo’s precedents, they would have been decisive for the jury.
He says “Mrs. White has not been the only one to carry to the process the accusations of sexual abuses against Mr. Parlanti.
One of Parlanti’s ex – mate has told to have endured the same type of violence of Mrs. White, by Parlanti”.

The attorney at law Ron Bamieh also says the same thing practically, in fact, he tells he was convinced that “the jury has condemned Carlo based on the testimony of the other woman (n.d.r. Sandra Lavagnino) who accused him of violence, even if he wasn’t accused for that presumptive crime, the jury is influenced from them and wanted to punish him for his behaviour. “No women, Parlanti’s ex – mate, who have testified during the trial, to understand us, has spoken about sexual abuses, these testimonies can be viewed on the transcripts of the trial, in which it is moreover clear that were four female witness, all of them were Carlo’s ex – mate, including Mrs White.

Two of these witnesses, Mrs Mai De Barra and me, testified in favour of Carlo. (gave witness for Carlo)
I established by deduction that Greg Totten didn’t read the documentation of the trial, I remind you that Gilbert Romero supported the charges during the trial. However I believe that he concerns to one woman in particular, Sandra Lavagnino, who have testified that she had threatened to denounce Mr Parlanti if he didn’t pay the perforated wheels.

I try to better explain: in the transcription, on 13 december 2005, from pg 158, it can be note the following assertions, by Mrs Lavagnino.
During the questioning aside of the accusation she declared at pg 159 that she was particularly fear when Carlo drank, otherwise he was a perfect gentleman. However she said Carlo (not mentioning that he was drunk, but he was irritated for a discussion with her) had raised her, had thrown her in the sink of the kitchen and had given the strainer on her head and then he had torn her dress and then have burnt it.

At pg 160 we find that a morning Carlo, suddenly, threw the knives on the bed and asked her to kill him, she is frightened, so Carlo brings back the knives. The attorney asked her if she had ever suffered sexual abuse, she answered: yes, he asked for doing anal sex and he pleased to beat me during the sexual intercourse. In the against testify by the side of Mr Bamieh its established at pag 170, that none of these events had been denounced to the police of Monterey, introduction that you find in the transcription.
Mrs Lavagnino testified against Carlo because she was contacted by the therapist, I’ve already spaciously talked about it. Curiously these events are just mentioned after 5 years and however it established, by chief attorney, that the abuse is that Mrs Lavagnino gave consent to anal intercourse, which Carlo regularly demanded,

(pag. 170 line 15 in http://www.thepeoplevscarloparlanti.com/atti/ing/13_dic.pdf ),
(http://www.thepeoplevscarloparlanti.com/atti/ing/13_dic.pdf) )

Mrs Lavagnino declared she gave consent , she didn’t like this kind of intercourse, but she gave consent.
It means that normally a man has the duty and the ability to be a mind – reader, in particularly his girlfriend’s mind, which through her words and her body gave consent to an anal intercourse, but since she didn’t like (she has not pleasure in doing it) then although she didn’t show, it is considered anyway an abuse.

Moreover Mrs Lavagnino still declares she hasn’t ever said that she has been assault by Carlo, because she didn’t want to practise anal sex, rather, she confirmed that she gave her consent, so that Carlo can enjoy it, according to attorney this is abuse.
Furthermore the attorney highlighted a detail: Mrs Lavagnino has two brothers, and they are policemen. The attorney should know, if the ethic is true and if he is looking for justice, that the two policemen have frightened Carlo for a long time (about months).
In his against testify, Mrs Lavagnino didn’t remember of a lot of facts, but, strangely enough, she didn’t remember of facts which could exculpate Carlo, whereas she modified her previous declarations,
it is or not a perjury?
The crime of perjury is punished with 3 years of imprisonment, isn’t it?
Mrs Lavagnino’s deposition: “I found perforated wheels on my car, I asked Carlo I have seen him perforating the wheels, therefore he had to pay them, and so he paid them”.
Afterwards Mrs Lavagnino admitted she lied because nobody had ever seen Carlo perforating the wheels.
She tricked the words and she modified her declaration, saying that Carlo have admitted that he had perforated the wheels, on the contrary, basing on the previous depositions and on the whole discussion, both in front of the jury and without the jury, you couldn’t be sure of her declaration about Carlo perforating the wheels.

Then, perjury is a crime, as by American law enacted, despite that Mrs Lavagnino wasn’t under investigation.

Moreover it shows that Mrs Lavagnino accuse Carlo of sexual abuse, despite that she admitted having hanged out with him once and again.

The attorney could ask to every women of wisdom if she would like, spontaneously, to hang out with a man who have abused sexually of her.
About the wheels, Carlo never told to anybody he have perforated them, he just paid for them, that’s all.
What would you like to do in a foreign Country if your girlfriend, threaten you with a warrant of arrest by her two policemen brothers?

What would you prefer, to be arrested or paid 40$ for the wheels?
About Carlo’s precedents, if therefore the attorney believe in what is confirmed by Mrs Lavagnino, I’d like to invite him to overread her deposition. And then, where are the evidences?
Is Mrs Lavagnino’s deposition reliable?

Are the criminal investigations verified?

Did Gilbert Romero (who have taken on the case) read the confidential report between White and Lavagnino; and between Lavagnino and White’s ex boyfriend? It doesn’t seem to show the precedents, but I will let you judge.

The Prosecuting attorney refers to Mrs Lavagnino, she has a relationship with Carlo in 1998. Their relationship ended because Carlo Parlanti didn’t have one relationship at a time, all along I’ve confirmed this facts.
Mrs Lavagnino is a Mrs White’s friend, is a twice - married woman, both marriage are failed, one of these ended with accuse of violence.
I would like to invite you to read the testify on the 13 of December, you can find it on:
http://www.thepeoplevscarloparlanti.com

ho tradotto il testo, non posso garantirti l'esattezza della grammatica...putroppo è un pò che non parlo inglese, però è una base, se ancora nn l'avevi.

ciao

w.

The prosecuting attorney Totten, speaks about Carlo’s precedents, they would have been decisive for the jury.
He says “Mrs. White has not been the only one to carry to the process the accusations of sexual abuses against Mr. Parlanti.

L'avvocato Bamieh dice di aver consultato esperti per quanto attiene le foto e comunque di aver fatto ampie indagini, cosa che tu non hai mai riconosciuto.
Se fosse vero che Mr. Bamieh ha consultato un esperto valido avrebbe saputo che un laboratorio di analisi se è vero che non puo dire data e ora esatta di una stampa può stabilire se è stata fatta prima del 2002, per diversi motivi. Le tecniche di stampa cambiano velocemente, ci si puo sbagliare di un anno, forse due, ma stiamo parlando di 7 anni di differenza, il colore di una stampa invecchia, quindi dipende da come le foto sono state conservate, ma visto che la White ha testimoniato che le foto scattate all'appartamento e quelle scattate a se stessa sono state sviluppate nello stesso momento e tenute sempre insieme era sufficiente vederne la differenza tra le due, per la parte tecnica. In oltre le foto in questione non sono mai uscite dal tribunale, quindi Mr. Bamieh forse si confonde con qualche altro caso. "Ciò che abbiamo scoperto noi ha aiutato in qualche punto, ad esempio alcune persone che avevano incontrato la presunta vittima dopo il fatto raccontarono di non aver notato alcun segno di violenza su di lei. Abbiamo trovato il suo ex-marito in Texas, ma la Giuria ha deciso di non dare troppa rilevanza a queste indagini" stiamo quindi ancora qua affermando che la Giuria non ha dato rilevanza ai fatti ma nelle istruzioni alla giuria non si deve tener conto solo dei fatti? Non era proprio Bamieh a dire che la giuria non si può basare su qualcosa che non è un fatto per il caso in questione?

Reduan Inviato il: 6/3/2007, 20:09
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

wookyee, sei un mito!

kanedda Inviato il: 7/3/2007, 06:07
sei un angelo, grazie

The attorney Bamieh, said he has consulted some specialists for what it concerns the photos and moreover to have conducted wide investigations, things which you have never recognized.

If only it was true: that Mr Bamieh has consulted a good specialist, then he would have known that an analysis laboratory, even though can’t exactly establish the date and the time of a print (photo), however can establish if it has been made before the year 2002, for several reasons.

[First of all] the press techniques change quickly, the analysis could go wrong about one year, perhaps two years; but we are talking about a laps of time of seven years. The colour of a print get old, therefore it depends on the way of preserving the photo, but Mrs White has testified she had printed the photos, the one of her apartment and the other of herself, in the same time and always have held them together in the same way. Nonetheless it was good enough looking at the two photos, just to see the difference between them, referring to techniques.

Moreover the photos in question, never gone out of the tribunal, so maybe Mr. Bamieh gets confused with another trial.

“What which we have found out was of some help, for instance some people, who had met the supposed victim after the fact, have said about not having noticed any violence sign on her, furthermore We have found her ex husband in Texas. But the jury have decided not to give too much importance to these investigations”.

So we are still here asserting that the jurors has not given too much importance to the facts, but in the instructions to the jury, doesn’t it say that jurors must take into account only the facts?

Was it not Mr Bamieh who said that the jury should not base their judgment on something that is not a fact relating to the case in question?

************-------------------**********





grazie!!
ho cercato di fare quel che potevo..

...ho postato qua le traduzioni e non email a kanedda, perchè se qualcuno che sa l'inglese e ha il tempo di leggerle, può eventualmente correggere errori ed evitare che, considerato il mio idioma di orgine, si abbia l'impressione che parli Sordi in Un Americano a Roma...!!

Carlo Parlanti, secondo il Procuratore Greg Totten, "è stato difeso durante il processo da un avvocato estremamente capace che ha costruito attorno al suo cliente una difesa vigorosa, attraverso la quale il signor Parlanti ha avuto la possibilità di far parlare tutti i testimoni e di esaminare tutte le prove".
Non sono stati fatti parlare tutti i testimoni, anzi, le persone chiave: Cecilia Howells, Valerie Esposito, altre ex di Carlo non sono state chiamate a testimoniare. Questo perché, in effetti, l'avvocato era talmente capace e conoscitore della legge che ha sempre sostenuto, a ragione, e come il Procuratore stesso dice, che non era la difesa a dover dimostrare l'innocenza bensi l'accusa a dover tirare fuori le prove, i riscontri esterni per dimostrare la colpevolezza, e, sosteneva l'avvocato, che l'accusa non aveva nulla in mano, a parte la dichiarazione inconsistente della White, che sarebbe, se credibile, sufficiente a condannare Carlo per maltrattamenti domestici ma non, assolutamente non, per stupro, accusa per la quale è necessario avere dei riscontri esterni. Questo mi fu dichiarato dall'avvocato. Se ora vogliono cambiare le carte in tavola, allora c'è sempre il problema che seppur fosse sufficiente la dichiarazione della vittima, questa dovrebbe essere attendibile, reputate voi attendibile quanto dichiarato dalla White? Una donna che ha ritrattato quasi tutte le sue dichiarazioni quando presa in flagrante dalla difesa. Anche queste in California sono perjury, perseguibili penalmente, come mai non viene perseguita la White visto che le sue dichiarazioni sono agli atti? Ripeto che questo è irriguardoso verso le vere vittime di crimine.
Dunque tu dici che le testimonianze a favore dell'accusato non sono state presentate?
Anche. Ma dico che quello che sta sostenendo il Procuratore è che ci troviamo davanti a un criminale capace di fare cose che nessun uomo potrebbe essere in grado di fare, quindi davanti ad un alieno e per giunta pazzo, tanto pazzo che, sapendo di essersi macchiato di un crimine cosi ignobile, ha rifiutato un patteggiamento che lo avrebbe portato a casa in tre mesi. Ci troviamo con un Procuratore che sostiene che Rebecca White, dopo questa atroce violenza, riscontra due costole contuse all'altezza del seno, unico posto in cui non dichiara di aver preso calci e pugni, rimane viva e non solo, non gli viene diagnosticato nemmeno un trauma cranico dopo che il Parlanti "con tutta la sua forza", così lei dice, le avrebbe sbattuto la testa alla bacheca e muro e questi sono rimasti intatti, senza traccia di tutte quelle decine di colpi. Ci troviamo davanti a un Procuratore degli Stati Uniti che dice dopo una violenza sessuale per cui una normale donna avrebbe avuto ... difficile immaginare cosa, qui ci vorrebbe un patologo, la White non si sottopone a visita ginecologica, anzi, nei giorni successivi testimonia di aver avuto rapporti consensuali con il Parlanti, meglio, prima dice consensuali e basta, poi dice rapporti consensuali perché aveva paura di dirgli di no, e per giunta nei giorni successivi telefona a mezzo mondo ma non alla polizia. Abbiamo, lo devo aggiungere, a questo punto, un sostituto Procuratore, Gilbert Romero, che fuori record dice che la White è pazza (ho i testimoni) e però lui, al tempo del processo, e il suo capo Greg Totten oggi, dicono di credere alla parola della White -una pazza. Ci troviamo davanti a una Procura degli Stati Uniti d'America che è tanto convinta che Carlo Parlanti sia un pericoloso stupratore da offrirgli l'opportunità di patteggiare ed essere libero in tre mesi. Che una donna ha commesso reati di perjuory difronte ad un Tribunale e non viene perseguita legalmente, spergiuri punibili e accertati da trascrizioni ufficiali, messi agli atti. Il Procuratore dichiarando che la White è attendibile sta anche dichiarando che i tre poliziotti, che il 15 dicembre hanno testimoniato che la White non aveva nessun segno di violenza e alle sue dichiarazioni erano increduli, i tre poliziotti della sua Contea, sono inattendibili.
Dunque?
Dunque che l'Italia e gli Stati Uniti mi aiutino a capire, perchè se questa è una Procura della più grande democrazia del mondo, allora, c'è qualcosa che non va, bisogna solo capire se è nella Procura o nel concetto che io ho di "democrazia".

According to the prosecutor,Greg trotten, Carlo Parlanti “was defended in trial by an extremely competent attorney who constructed a strong defense around his client, a vigorous defense, through which Mr Parlant, was given the opportunity to allow all witnesses to testify and to examine all of the evidence”.

All of the witnesses were not allowed to testify, in fact, key people, like: Cecilia Howells, Velrie Esposito, and another woman, which were Carlo’s ex matw, were not allowed to testify.

This happened because, in fact, the attorney was so competent and so a connoisseur of law, that he always sustained, in reason, and as the prosecutor himself says, that the defense did not have to prove the innocence, instead the prosecutor had to take out evidences, and external confirmations in order to prove the guilt..
Moreover the defence attorney sustained that the prosecutor hadn’t any evidence in his hand, except the inconsistent Mrs White’s declarations, and if it were believable, it would be enough to persecute Carlo for domestic abuse, but not, absolutely not, for rape, which is a charge that need a lot of external confirmations to make it.

This is what the attorney said to me. If now they are going to move the goalpost, then there will be always the same problem:
Even if it were longer enough just the victim’s declaration, then this declaration should be reliable.
Do you consider Mrs White’s declaration to be reliable?
A woman who had retracted almost entirely her statements, whenever she was caughted in the act by the defense.
Also in California this behaviour is considered a perjury, and perjury is punishable by law.
Why Mrs White was not prosecuted, even if her statements are in the official proceedings?
I repeat it once again: this is a disrespectful behaviour towards the real victims of a crime.

So, are you saying that the testimony in favor of the accused was not presented?

This is what I say. But I also mean that what the prosecutor declared is that we find ourselves in front of a criminal, able to do things nobody else could be able to do; so we are in front of an alien and, even worse, insane, such an insane that, even knowing he is guilty about such a vile crime, he refused a plea-bargain which would have taken him home in three months.

We find ourselves in front of a prosecutor who sustained that Rebecca White, after this awful violence, had two contused ribs near her breast, curiously these are the only parts of her body she declared that have not been kicked and punched, she was still alive and more than that, she had never been diagnosed anything not even a concussion, after that Mr Parlanti “with all the strength he got” , this is what she declared, would have banged her head against the bulletin board and against the wall, which after that, came out undamaged, not a trace of all those dozen hits.

We find our selves in front of a USA prosecutor who said that, after a sexual assault, by which a normal woman would have had……actually it is difficult imagining exactly something, we must need a pathologist, while Mrs White didn’t subjected herself to gynaecological examination, on the contrary – in fact – she have declared that she have had consensual sexual intercourses with Mr Parlanti again in the next days, better than that, previously she said consensual sexual intercourses, nothing else, next she said consensual sexual intercourses because she was afraid to tell him “no”, even worse, in following days she called the whole world up, except the police.

There is, at this point I have to add it, a substitute prosecutor, Gilbert Romero, who, out of record, declared that Mrs White is insane – I’ve some witnesses – but him, in the time of the trial, and his boss Greg Totten today, say they do believe in Mrs White’s words – an insane.

We find ourselves in front of a prosecutor, USA prosecutor, who is really convinced that Mr Parlanti is a dangerous rapist, so dangerous that he wants to give him the opportunity to plea-bargain and be out in three months.

And a woman who had lain under oath, during a trial, and she had not been prosecuted, perjury is punishable by law and her perjury can be verified by official transcriptions, which we can find in the official proceedings.

The prosecutor have declared that Mrs White was a reliable witness, saying so he is also declaring that the three policemen, which are from his own County, and which, in the 15 of December, had declared that Mrs White had not any signs of violence on her body and that they feel themselves incredulous listening to her declarations, were unreliable.

So?

So I hope Italy and USA help me to understand, because if this is a Prosecutor of the biggest democratic Country all over the world, then, there is something that doesn’t work, we just need to know if the thing that doesn’t work is the prosecutor or my idea of “democracy”.

Nei prossimi giorni controllo alcuni dubbi che ho ancora sulla traduzione.

Ciao

Wookyee

Grazie, ma non preoccuparti mi interessava che si potesse capire, la mia intenzione è inviarla a giornali americani, per far conoscere le assurdita che dice la contea e al mio avvocato
Katia

Carlo Parlanti, secondo il Procuratore Greg Totten, "è stato difeso durante il processo da un avvocato estremamente capace che ha costruito attorno al suo cliente una difesa vigorosa, attraverso la quale il signor Parlanti ha avuto la possibilità di far parlare tutti i testimoni e di esaminare tutte le prove".