Sent: mercoledì 8 luglio 2009 22.25

To: katia@carloparlanti.it

Subject: Carlo Parlanti

Dear Ms. Anedda:

This office has reviewed and considered the materials you provided on behalf of Carlo Parlanti. The materials include a Complaint by you, dated June 2009, an 18-page statement by you, an Analysis Investigative Report, dated April 2009, by the ICAA, a Technical Report by Dr.

Agnesina Pozzi, a Technical Report by Dr. Matteo Pacini, a letter from Scott Newby, dated October 9, 2007, several pages of medical records, several pages of Verizon phone records, five photographs of the victim, and several documents written in German.

The materials that you provided to this office for review do not create a doubt about the validity of Mr. Parlanti’s conviction. No new evidence has been provided. For the most part, the materials provided contain nothing more than opinions from various people as to what the evidence that was available at trial shows. One purported expert disagrees with the opinion of a medical expert who testified during the trial relative to rib fractures sustained by the victim. Another individual opines that photographs introduced during the trial could not have been taken at the time or place that the victim testified they were taken. There is nothing conclusive, however, to establish that the photographs were not taken as the victim described. Another purported expert speculates and provides inadmissible opinion that the victim “may have been affected by a mental disorder at the time of her statements…that may jeopardize the truthfulness of her allegations”

without ever having met or having spoken with the victim. He then suggests that the victim should have gone through a neuro-psychiatric examination before being allowed to testify. This suggestion is contrary to California law and the rules of evidence.

Most of the materials submitted question the credibility of the victim.

The determination of a witness’s credibility, including that of a victim, however, is a matter left solely to the province of a jury.

While there were indeed some inconsistencies in the victim’s account of the crime, inconsistencies are not unusual in situations involving domestic violence. The victim’s inconsistencies were fully explored by Mr. Parlanti’s attorney and presented to the jury during Mr.

Parlanti’s trial. Because people sometimes make mistakes about what they recall or about when certain events took place, jurors are not required to automatically reject a witness’s testimony because of inconsistencies or conflicts. Jurors may consider whether the inconsistency is important in light of the other evidence presented. In Mr. Parlanti’s trial, jurors were able to consider the testimony of an additional victim of Mr. Parlanti’s violence and corroborating medical evidence.

Although Mr. Parlanti’s supporters may find the victim incredible and may not believe that Mr. Parlanti raped the victim, the jury heard all of the evidence and had the ability to personally evaluate the victim’s credibility and, in the end, reached a different conclusion. This office is satisfied that Mr. Parlanti had a fair trial and that the jury reached the appropriate verdict.

Very truly yours,

James D. Ellison

Chief Assistant District Attorney

County of Ventura