—

NDespite my requests prompt, only last night (18.12.08) all ore 20, my lawyer sent me the long-awaited draft of the Complaint, with the possibility of correction on my part . This morning (19.12.08) by phone the same lawyer, tells me that my comments and corrections are fair and relevant (in the draft annexed hereto are yellow) but…for now does not put, will use them only when discussing departmental Supreme Court : already in the process of Appeal there were ” small mistakes and misunderstandings ” So to dispel any doubt or misunderstanding while today 19 diecembre 2008 Paleso here on my SITE available to anyone and a witness of my real and concrete will

—————-

Supreme Court

* * *

The undersigned lawyer. Flaminio Maffettini the Court of Bergamo, registered in the Register of the lawyers before this Court, as defense counsel, as to warrant added to the file, Alviero Bonfanti, born in Brunico (BZ), in data 17 October 1956, resident in Sorisole (BG), via A. No time. 6, via P. Micca 4 defendant in a criminal trial n. 2180/08 Reg. Gen. held before the Court of Appeal of Brescia, First Criminal Section, proposed by the present act

Appeal

against the judgment n. 1550/08 Reg. Sent. emessa in data 4 November 2008, deposited with the registry on 11 November 2008, under which the Court of Appeal of Brescia, First Criminal Section, reforming its entirety the judgment no. 1059/04 Reg. Sent. given judgment 13 May 2004 by the Court of Bergamo, Alviero Bonfanti declared guilty of the offenses referred to in Articles. 572, 582, 583, in relation to Article. 577, c.p. and, for the effect, condemned the same, granted extenuating circumstances and considered the continuation, the penalty of nine months in prison, with the simultaneous granting the benefit of probation, for the following

Reasons

1. Contradictory and / or illogical reasoning point in the existence of the alleged crimes

Erra Judge a quo where rejects, as unpunished, in his opinion, of any evidentiary support, the Tesi, advocated by the undersigned defense, that would Bonfanti at the time spoke on wife for the sole purpose of safeguarding the twin sons, with severe physical disabilities, anger maternal.

Indeed, a calm and careful examination of the contents of the complaint-lawsuit filed at the time by Alborghetti ("Yesterday 06 c.m. ... All ore 13 about imponevo one of the twins with disabilities to obey. Following this he went on a rampage telling me not afford to touch the child ') and witness statements made by it in the course of proceedings of first instance ("On that occasion .. it seems to me that I I had taken George is one of the twins because they do not know if I would not eat '), allows you to see how, contrary to the assertion by the court a quo, there is sufficient evidence on record to suggest that, in the episodes in dispute, Bonfanti took the aggressive behavior towards his wife purely and simply because it concerned for the welfare of their children.

My client as well as Inf. Prof., is entered in civil protection, graduate and uncensored, ed in 17 years of marriage, 'm surprised that only in that limited period, there were the 2 a hypothetical reports of violence and that the Part offense among other :

1) not as plaintiff and

2) Then he wanted to portray the complaint

A demonstration of the power that precise period, Mrs. after opening a legal practice in agreement with the same husband, for Compensation for disabled children for twins from birth hypoxia , the same law firm, a few days later demanded the separation, in total disbelief of Bonfanti

There are fundamental basis to believe that everything has been assembled for precostituirsi factual. This is demonstrated by the “same lightness” with which Mrs. administered the household at the time documented and reported elsewhere .. not to harm the same, but evidence in mitigation of some disagreements that arose

Indeed, if one considers that the victim, in reporting the aforementioned events, has certainly tried to play down the greatest extent possible the scope of his conduct, becomes plausible to assume that in those situations the Alborghetti is not at all limited to "take back" the children, but has assumed attitudes towards them much more aggressive, thereby arousing the legitimate reaction of Bonfanti.

Moreover, in such a context it is equally plausible to assume that today's biased has lashed out at Alborghetti not for physically assaulting, although in order to protect their children, but to remove children from the same, feed without any intention to cause any injury to she.

Turning to the crimes of injury, the writer believes that the national defense a quo have, indeed, wrong in concluding that medical certificates to the acts constitute an adequate gauge element of correlative charged to the statement of objections Bonfanti. This applies especially for the certificate drawn up on 6 May 1999, where the doctor has simply limited to bring back painful symptoms reported the same Alborghetti ("All'E. O. pain on pressure of the saddle nose "), giving, however, act of it had found no clinical objectivity ("No other detectable signs»).

2. Failure to comply with procedural rules established under penalty of nullity

Today's biased complains of a violation of the right of defense in the proceedings at first instance, expected that he, despite having witnessed the first hearings, was not specifically informed that the process would be continued over, thus prevented from coming toward producing documentation to support their claims and to make the examination hearing.

The highlights my client, with the "gesture" of having given up on principle to prescription, rimarcarne for its failure to call and consequent impossibility of defense in the Process 1st grade . As always my client remarked how the crime is not just a building amnesty or false accounting, but a violent home ( and all that it entails) in fact it is the most serious conviction that a citizen can have

Moreover, that make the exam before the court hearing to answer to a genuine interest for the defendant, is a fact that is confirmed by the significant I note that the Bonfanti has taken part in the proceedings of appeal (unlike most of the defendants, that on that occasion remain contumacious), and there he asked to make spontaneous statements.

Do not forget that in that same period the lady was convicted of violence against the child and of Bonfanti and that the time elapsed 10 years and the same "light" sentence for a crime as serious extent = violence at home, demonstrates the lack of conviction Judges

In view of the above deduced, the undersigned defender, review the following

CONCLUSIONS

Want Hon. The Supreme Court set aside the judgment under appeal.

Bergamo – Rome, 18 December 2008

Mr.. Flaminio Maffettini