Advocate Gallinelli Paul is the defender of the former referee Massimo De Santis, who was charged to the process under way in Naples Calciopoli . After the recent developments which are well known, we asked him to give his opinion on possible future scenarios.
Hello, lawyer. Gallinelli. The first question is the topic of the day, we would like to know your opinion on the application for objection against the President of the Chamber, Dr. Casoria.
In generale l’istanza di ricusazione mi lascia molto perplesso, per vari motivi. Innanzitutto perché è la seconda ricusazione e poi anche per i tempi e le modalità, oltre che per i contenuti, e poi perché si inserisce in un momento in cui tra l’altro il Tribunale aveva dato l’ultima possibilità ai pubblici ministeri per sostenere il loro impianto accusatorio, ammettendo loro nove nuovi testimoni che sono stati sentiti in una nuova attività integrativa di indagine, svolta in parallelo rispetto all’istruttoria dibattimentale. Quindi mi sembra un atteggiamento quasi provocatorio nei confronti del Tribunale e in particolare della dott.ssa Casoria. In relazione ai tempi, poi, mi lascia perplesso il fatto that the hearing on 1 March were not presented and Nucini Gianfelice Facchetti, which would have been the driving force of prosecutors, and the next day, March 2, the PM have filed the application for recusal. And 'obviously not ready in five minutes an instance like that, and also the PM was certainly made aware of the disciplinary proceedings before the CSM which concerned Dr Casoria: and they were at least since February 28.
Let us assume a scenario. Should the application be accepted and should remain the two assessors with a new President, you check-in?
If they accept the request of the PM as it was formulated would give weight to this little dispute that there would be, as written in the instance document, including the Casoria Pandolfi and on the admission of the civil parties. This is the only element that connects the disciplinary proceedings in the Casoria Calciopoli, while the circumstances are invoked relate to other situations and problems of a more general and inside the Court. If it passes that line means that there has been some more serious problem between the President and at least one of the two assessors, and then at that point that we believe should be reconstituted around the college. But I think this is possible in view of the time. I also believe that the Court of Auditors would be interested to see clearly in this situation because there is pending proceedings against the accused to the Court of Auditors same, regardless of that the defendants have claimed substantial expenses to defend themselves, but above the state and then citizens.
In theory one of your allies at this point could be just the plaintiffs.
No doubt, even this initiative creates a cleavage between the plaintiffs and the PM.
How long will it take, in your opinion, to have a final decision on this matter, since the last time I think it took a couple of months?
hard to say. Let us remember that were already scheduling threads of lawyers as well as the indictments of the PM and in the light of this, the attitude of the PM seems a bit 'too little transparency and provocative, because they almost had announced the date when they started the indictment with the likely demands of conviction ....
Ultimately, if the request for recusal was granted, have you considered the idea of \u200b\u200basking the displacement of the process elsewhere?
This we can not rule it out. If it is shown an environmental situation further ... .. we had already asked at the beginning and the ass falls here because it was the Casoria to accept the thesis of MP and maintain competence in Naples, who was then his decision to support the PM. Here Narducci and Campbell, instead of asking for the disqualification of the President, should have asked for some of their witnesses because, if a prosecution witness does not match their expectations, it is not the fault of the Court. Obviously they chose the wrong word in the indictment. The unique profile of incompatibility that I can see is that of the PM towards the Court, which are considered witnesses in the disciplinary proceedings pending against the President Casoria. If he is, instead, found a conflict between judges with specific reference to the process Calciopoli is Obviously we would not feel safer defenders of peace and accusing the prosecutors of the Court's finding.
Another unknown is constituted by the statute of limitations ....
Surely there is a risk for fraud offenses sport you get to the prescription, which should take place between 2011 and 2012, but the underlying problem, for writing the truth of the case, is that here there ' was just the same as the previous application for recusal pursuant to art. 37 CPP, but also is called art. 41 CPP, namely calling for the immediate suspension of any preliminary investigation. For this I said that I'm perplexed, since this is an inquiry that asked them to court and now call for their suspension. But is not that they sought a year ago, but on February 22! I mean, Facchetti Jr was heard April 26, 2010 and called the hearing to the Court February 22, 2011, and Dr. Casoria and other judges have accepted these demands, so the attitude of the Court does not appear and has never looked, hostility towards the PM, on the contrary it became more of absolute impartiality from what I saw and how they have all seen, and Dr. Casoria led the debate in an impartial, disregarding requests PM only when these demands were unfounded, and instead accepting them when they were.
The only time he rejected a request from the PM was when there was the acquisition, which I request, the order of the Telecom Panasia. In that case, the PM was opposed, but I did note that in order that we talked about Nucini, which was just one of the witnesses which they had requested the hearing, and therefore I believe that for these reasons, logical and legal character of the Court of First Instance rejected opposition demands PM. There were absolutely preconceived or otherwise.
Regarding your request to inspect the papers of the proceedings for a visit to Nucini Boccassini?
Here this is another of our grief. At the moment we have not received any response yet. There are about 18 months I asked for this matter and we have recently reiterated the request. But we never even received any response to our first request.
But they are obliged to give you an answer or they can not do it? Forced
no, because it is the entry model 45 filing made it that way, which technically is called "self-archiving" because it goes to the magistrate, which is not under Art. CPP 116 which entitles you to have a copy. In this case, the procedure assumes a kind "Administrative" because never had any criminal law, and this is why I asked for the acquisition, because Nucini gave no criminal law to those facts that were reported by Inter and is therefore curious to find Nucini as a prosecution witness in criminal proceedings as that of Naples. So there is a specific obligation, but I think, in short, that a magistrate of the Republic in case of refusal should give us a well-argued reply.
But if the document to request the Court was directly represented by its President? If there is still
Dr Casoria March 15, I will ask just that, in view of the fact that there are waiting times. The tribunal may require the acquisition pursuant to art. CPP 507. At that point, the acquisition should be allowed, unless a "diplomatic incident", as it evidently contained herein is definitely a hot material because in twenty years, for the first time when I'm the lawyer, ask a file archived "Model 45" and I will have the opportunity to see him. So there must be something strange.
Nucini March 15 will be a witness?
In my opinion this instance of no-show also hidden challenge of Nucini March 1. I mean, it's strange that the Pm Capuano gives the availability for the presence of Nucini on 8 March, which was then postponed to 15 commitments for some lawyers, and the day after being deposited instances of objection requesting the suspension of the process. At this point, I suspect because Capuano, as we saw earlier, could hardly have been unaware that the day after it was presented the request for disqualification of the President Casoria.
But if the prosecutor had to give up listening to Nucini you will call to testify the same?
This depends on the Court who, having admitted as a witness, could also dispose of the forced accompaniment. But then again perhaps the request for recusal was also made for this, especially because other witnesses have proved quite smoky. So it's obvious that I would not be in the shoes of Nucini at this time, are strong risk of being indicted for perjury while laying. Perhaps this is why PM confident in this block. But in any case we will insist that he be examined, because the weather there, so if the Court of Appeal does not suspend the preliminary investigation, as they have asked the PM instance, we make every effort to Nucini be in the courtroom to testify in front of everyone and to report what he said in the little room of prosecutors.
But with regard to Gianfelice Facchetti?
He also believe that to be a witness in the hearing could be of great interest.
But an apology after the incident as a result of his lawsuit his client De Santis and finding the proper object of interceptions that apology, the more you hear that?
No, he "controscuse" has never done. Rather we have recently read an interview in Vanity Fair in which, on the sidelines of advertising in his play, was referring to Calciopoli and apologized to his father for having suspected him, as if to say that until they had found those notes also he could have had some doubt, but not I believe that those notes could prove either the guilt of the accused nor the good faith of Facchetti, as anyone can converge notes, even the same Moggi would surely have written dozens of them, but now is charged in this process.
addition to the instance of objection, these days it has been much talk about the new procedure that was invented to lift FIGC Spruce from the responsibility of removal of Moggi. What is your opinion?
That's the icing on the cake. In my opinion they should not think about how to enforce the proposed radiation. Conversely, should all make an examination of conscience, a process revisione critica rispetto al 2006, tutti, a cominciare da Palazzi, e quindi riesaminare tutti i fatti che sono stati giudicati nel 2006 in modo assolutamente superficiale.
Non Le sembra che questo nuovo procedimento sia una specie di revisione implicita, una specie di art. 39 anticipato?
Dovrebbero abituarsi a dare alla gente risposte chiare. Evidentemente vogliono nascondere dietro questo procedimento una riapertura dei giochi, ma c’è l’art. 39 e dovrebbero applicare quello. In ogni caso che si dessero una mossa, perché sentire Mazzei, Bergamo e Pairetto finora non mi sembra sintomatico di una volontà di rivedere quello che hanno detto alla gente in tutti questi anni. Perché alla gente have said very bad things and have these in 15 days in 2006, but now they have had months to provision, and this time it could use to do more, feel like Moratti, who in the meantime it is nice to warmth in the stands to watch the games for Inter and was never bothered, for example, to go from Palaces to tell why what he said in 2006 Borrelli was then denied in a net from which it emerged later .
(Credits: JU29RO.COM )
0 comments:
Post a Comment