from the number of meetings between Mills and Berlusconi and level of knowledge among the two.
I first found, in some places, comments Tarak Ben Ammar on the assembly technique used in the documentary Annozero ( which proposed the reconstruction of the case) very fair. There were often places where near the success of Mills' Yes, I know Berlusconi "was given an interview to Telelombardia in which the Prime Minister stated categorically do not know.
And here the Tunisian producer, pointed out how easy it was to mount the scenes to get a specific message, in this case the falsity of Berlusconi .
Now, I will not enter into the details that you know or not, but probably to their degree of knowledge can be deduced from the number meetings between the two, and it is here that tries to argue Gomez bringing false data. He speaks of several meetings between the two, when it is established, however, by ruling, which clerical error had confused the name with Berlusconi Bernasconi, true author of these meetings with the lawyer Mills. This was quickly countered by Ghedini, which I obviously found it very prepared to respond in kind.
Except that I Ghedini an atypical figure in the study of fact-checking to the difficulty of analysis by these means. He is able to speak with facts, but let these sottointendano far cry from reality. Here's the thing that I noticed in particular.
The lawyer says several times that upon 80 witnesses brought by the defense of Berlusconi, he has been heard only one , real thing in itself (although subtle, in fact, other witnesses brought jointly defense and prosecution, or jointly by the defense of Berlusconi and Mills to have been accepted). It should be noted, however, the different motivations of this attitude of the judiciary; motivation stemming either from Ghedini and the judges themselves.
The first argues that this will be understood in counter-guaranteed, to the detriment of Berlusconi. The judges, clearly politicized, they wanted to condemn in advance, so the deny the right to be heard . And 'here that I find Ghedini not consistent with reality, since such an effect, he submitted only on basic assumptions.
On the contrary I find most credible reason given by judges .
In short, the claim that most lists of defense witnesses were excluded because abundant ,
1 including people not fully identified
2 including residents of countries that have not concluded with Italy judicial conventions (which would be difficult to get requests for assistance, one example, the testimony of Heimo Quaderer , reached after 1 year of performing in Vaduz)
(NDV Here Gomez claimed , erroneously, that Tarak Ben Ammar could not be to exercise the right to testify in France, while it can, with a specific procedure, according to the rules of international jurisdiction)
3 including irrelevant statements, which necessarily limited the description of the contents of documents already in acts, fully tested in all the ponderous technical advice of the parties.
This also was exacerbated by the need of priority treatment of the Mills case, in relation to prescription close, so everything takes a willingness to think about delaying the defense of Berlusconi, hoping for a prescription (which is proving dilatory will even now, given the "very important " institutional commitments that the prime minister is taking part in order to avoid judging).
therefore I do not see the politicization of the judiciary in that choice, what to bring to term a process, leading to a decision before the same shall prescribe.
I find even easier to bring no-confidence in the judiciary by enacting a law that would further shorten the process, and then bring abundant amount of witnesses, and accused the judiciary of corrupt not accept them.
0 comments:
Post a Comment