Report about Gilbert Romero
The questions that follow were proposed to the public prosecutor of Ventura, Gilbert Romero, of the court proceedings in order to study further in-depth the analysis of Parlanti case (Public Prosecutors in U.S.A. are elected, they do not gain access to this profession by means of passing public examinations so as to gain a safe job, and they are not on the same level as judges; instead these have political duties the success of which is usually measured by the number of court cases won). This public prosecutor, after having accepted to answer these questions at the beginning of September 2009, then instead, after having seen such questions he then chose to avoid doing so. Despite the fact that he has been asked to explain at least why he chose not to answer, furthermore, Romero has, for some time now, avoided to give any kind of explanation, preferring to “vanish” into thin air. Despite this (and, in a certain way, all the more so) the questions remain an extremely important document, to propose for those who wish to read it, in order to better under stand some of the fundamental elements of the Carlo Parlanti case, who has been, for years now, prisoner in the United States of America.

1)       In the court proceedings relating to Carlo Parlanti, there are many unclear points and contradictions: for example, it emerges, from both the accusation report deposited on 18th July that several statements made during the court case published on the website, saying that Mr. Parlanti shortly before and during the presumed, atrocious violence, had drunk 4 litres of wine. In an interview that you gave some years ago to News Italia Press, you had denied that 4 litres had been consumed saying that he had drunk only 2, these had been objected to, however from all the court proceeding acts, 4 litres had been mentioned: was this due to an oversight made on your behalf or should we consider that all the acts that have been published and that bear a registration number are false? Several experts affirm, and this can be seen on numerous websites referring to alcohol breath tests, that a quantity of alcohol even less than that stated on several occasions (and the 4 litres are one of the few things that the women does not deny), that this would have caused Mr. Parlanti to go into an alcoholic coma and subsequently death. Furthermore, the experts have furthermore declared that, in those conditions,  it would have been impossible to have an erection; considering that the women, actually referring to that precise subject, did not seem to have any doubt, by going into detail, on several occasions, describing the procedure on how to buy the 2 two-litre bottles of wine, could you tell us how it is possible to have considered her a reliable witness, considering the previous statements made, both prior to your meeting with Mr. Parlanti as well as those made immediately afterwards, in several unrealistic depositions given to the police?


2)       Ms. White had also stated that she had been hit against the wall 60 times, 30 against a cork notice board hung on a load-bearing centrepiece of the house and 30 time against a nearby wall made of plasterboard, yet the photographs of the flat highlight the wall and the notice board that were totally untouched and in perfect order, in addition to this, the flat maintenance technician witnessed that absolutely no repair jobs had been carried out in the flat, nor to the plasterboard walls. Moreover, the police had not found any evidence of fighting or violence in the building ( considering their own statement contained in the fully published court case acts) and during the court hearings that took place on 14th and 15th December 2005 they even contradicted Ms. White, by justifying that they had not confiscated anything due to the simple fact that no evidence illustrating any kind of fight whatsoever, just as there were no blood stains on the mattress that according to the presumed victim should have been flooded with blood; from information gathered from the Net it seems that in the case of a rape, the police should confiscate the various objects involved in this crime, however, in this case they should have confiscated the cork notice board,  the computer, the beanbag armchair… according to you, do you think that this was due to the incompetence of the police agents for not having carried out such procedure, or are there exceptions to the normal procedure? If there are exceptions, could you give me an explanation? If, as the criminal lawyers sustain, by following the previous “Duke” case, the court case should have never even been started due to the fact that the accuser, on several occasions had contradicted herself (please refer to the  “evidence” section of the website containing the documentation), how come then in the Parlanti case, a court case has begun in which the contested crime has been declared as being impossible to carry out without having left any trace whatsoever, by experts in crude violence?


3)       Why did the judge prevent the defence, upon his request, from having the presence of a doctor to assist the Party? Or haven’t you considered summoning a doctor superior to the Parties that would attain only to the diagnosis of physical signs and medical evidence and who would not be involved in the case?


4)       From the link

You can see a certificate that was produced by the sheriff and which was used by you during the court hearing in June 2005, when a possible bail for Mr. Parlanti should have been decided upon; such certificate is in clear contradiction both with Mr. Parlanti’s European criminal record published as of link and with online research regarding any eventual previous convictions relating to Mr. Parlanti within the United States of America, or as regards what was indicated by Monterey Public Prosecutor’s office where no records of him committing rape or armed robbery have been found; moreover, as of the County of Monterey it appears that there are no previous convictions relating to violence, not even that of a domestic nature: how can you explain this inconsistency? Has Mr. Parlanti’s criminal record been modified somehow, considering that the quoted report mentions numerous crimes and which are not certified anywhere? Is the public prosecutor of Monterey lying or has the public prosecutor’s office in Milan issued a false document?

5)       On various occasions, Ms. White has stated actions relating to unheard-of violence that experts declare that is not possible, such as a fist entering her vagina right up to above the wrist, a type of violence that expert gynaecologists define as being impossible to be carried out without leaving any traces even if committed years previously, especially if such violence was carried out on an individual that had undergone a complete hysterectomy… have you ever thought, about allowing Ms. White to be examined by a gynaecologist to assess any actual damage? Should there not be any at all, considering what has always been stated by your public prosecutor’s office, that is your objective is to seek for truth and justice, are you now thinking, in the light of these new details, of requesting a review of the damage suffered by this woman? The logical thing to think of could be that the woman is a compulsive liar and that she has not suffered any violence whatsoever, but, as the judge says in the sentence of first instance, she has been psychologically damaged by Mr. Parlanti, but if this was so, don’t you believe that that there is a great doubt whether the woman is defrauding the State, making herself seem a victim of a crime that has never been committed? If you also consider that the doctor who witnessed in Court was Ms. White’s best friend’s employer, if we take into consideration several experts in this field, he was inaccurate in saying that the age of the fracture, that all books show, from the explanations given on the x-rays that are no more recent than 6 weeks previously and therefore prior to the day of the presumed crime, therefore this should be assessed by several other doctors that are not involved in this case, that the woman, Ms.  Lavagnino, who witnessed giving her opinion as regards Mr. Parlanti’s personality, did not witness relating to the contested crime and that Ms. White declared things that both logic and medicine would easily deny, can you explain to us which evidence you think could possible determine Mr. Parlanti guilt, if he could ever be considered guilty?

6)       Don’t you find Ms. White’s statement unrealistic in that she had sorted out her jaw bone that had been put out of place and that she had cerebral liquid coming out of her nose, as she had declared in the interview with her detective, published on the website, considering, if you believe in her story, that she had suffered a serious trauma and she was surely in an extremely painful state? We know that some of her statements have been denied by the detectives, such as the statement that she had lost locks of hair and that she had bugs in her home phones together with the fact that the police was siding with Mr. Parlanti; it could be deduced that the woman could be  either committing perjury or that she may be so traumatised that she was no longer a stable person…What other justification could this kind of behaviour have, considering that in the first hypothesis she would have committed a crime, in the second eventuality she should be considered an individual not allowed to witness in that she would be unreliable? And how come the perjuries committed are not punished or why doesn’t the woman receive any treatment?

7)        As I am a woman myself, it has always struck me that another woman, Ms. White, has continually contradicted herself as regards the presumed sexual assault... How, in you opinion, could it be possible that a person could not remember such a terrible act of violence, that hurts you not only physically but could also seriously affect her psychological state? In my opinion, the statement that Ms. White was so upset that she seemed confused is not a convincing theory, also due to the fact that she contradicted herself many days later…

8)       Numerous qualified experts have affirmed that the photos that allegedly document the violence suffered, presented three years later by Ms. White, had been falsified, and she had stated herself that if the woman had presented false evidence then she was a criminal. Irrespective of the difference that by now all of us are aware of, how a differently coloured wall that doesn’t leave room for imagination if you consider the science of photography and the image of a woman that is totally different so much so that you could presume that the photos in question had been taken years earlier; the detective that wrote the report underlined that there are natural wood finishings that have never been present in the Triunfo Canyon Road house; if science is not an opinion, the woman could have lied in telling her story, don’t you think it’s strange that the pictures appeared three years later, when your Public Prosecutor’s office had communicated that no witness supported her complaints… as regards this point, the police officers, in their deposition contradict the woman who affirms to have spoken of such photos taken three years previously. In fact, someone is altering the truth: how can you justify this?

9)       Mr. Parlanti’s supporters believe that you has gathered that the photos were not part of the court case, the reason for which you had not given the jury the originals as it would have been evident that the did not match with the story told by the accused, but should it not be so and considering the fact that also during the judgement phase, Mr. Parlanti asked for the photos to be analysed, why wasn’t his request granted? Isn’t the presentation of false evidence in court a punishable crime?

[This article-interview was published on these Italian journals: Corriere di Aversa e Giugliano, Italia Sociale, Rinascita,Caserta24ore, Giustizia Giusta, Dea Notizie] English translation by Terri (Terence Nicola) Marshall

Antonella Ricciardi