Temperature Goldfish Respiration

Dialogue with walls ... World

- "The of the Italian Senate Marcello Dell'Utri is a mafia?"

- "Yes, but only up to '92 ..."

- "Ah I see ... So it's a mafia?"

- "... No, it came out ..."

- "That has repented?"

- "No! Just said enough, I will no longer make the mafia ..."

- "Are you kidding?"

- "No no! I think the only person who has managed to escape without being killed by the Mafia and without raising his voice
..."

- "I mean, you want me to say that the mafia has worked for 20 years with Dell'Utri, has made progress in the Italian hierarchy, it helps to '92 and just when the party is preparing to build more powerful than the history of the Republic has ever had, well I want to say that when it comes to this summit, let it go ????"

- "Yes .. Why? I do not seem so absurd as what ... "

-" Okay, but now they also condemned in the second degree, you will be resigned as a senator ... "

-" No no! Indeed! The Prime Minister, the press, many politicians and TG showed the solidarity! "


- "I'm sorry but I have to throw up ..."


This surreal imagery and dialogue is what's going on in his head when he imagines Howl to speak with various government officials and journalists who have tried to minimize the sentence to seven years in prison for the PDL Senator Marcello Dell'Utri .

fact in the appeal process Dell'Utri was found guilty of collusion with the Mafia, which means that you are guilty of the offense of criminal association aimed at promoting a criminal syndicate, but did not become part of the same . The real problem is what? Because many Italian newspapers and politicians persist in saying that the judiciary has lost its battle in court? Why were used all possible phrases to avoid saying the word GUILTY? Furthermore, because no one has asked for the resignation of Senator? Howl you that the next levels of jurisdiction to which it may use the defense of Dell'Utri is the Supreme Court, which decides on the merits (guilty or innocent), but in the form (procedural errors etc...)

We try to give an answer to the many questions that should not be placed because of Falcone and Borsellino in the country should beat kicks in jail a man who was considered an auxiliary of the mafia and not raise him as a martyr of justice. Excuse if Howl does not elaborate on the speech by names, dates, and providing the documentation, but these are public domain, can be found easily on the Web Remember the motto of Howl, "the important thing is to think."

Many have cried out to the "acquittal" of Dell'Utri, given that the PM had asked for a more severe penalty as a result of its investigations, which were intended to demonstrate a "direction" mafia likely to weave Cosa Nostra deeply with the highest ranking politician of the then faltering Italian State (we are in the two-year period from 1992 to 1994). Such accusations were / are supported by the statements of at least two repentant between which Gaspare Spatuzza, which, however, (unusually) has not been heard by the courts because he was considered "unreliable", although not considered reliable for statements of someone hearing it ... The courts have rejected the hypothesis accusing convicted Dell'Utri only for events that took place until '92. But as we asked one of the two protagonists of the initial dialogue, why the mafia had given up a "winning horse" just as they crossed the finish line? In fact, if you ask the same Senator Dell'Utri, saying after the ruling by the judges:

" Judgement Pilate, inconsistent. The judges will make me go to the Mafia until '92, but fall in contradiction: if true, the mafia would not have dropped right in '92, when he could expect in the real benefits of power, politics. "

In fact, his interpretation is flawless! How does someone considered , tested, working with the Mafia until '92 to come out just when it becomes so important? It 's the question that the judges will respond with the reasons for the sentence.

However, he sentenced a man to seven years instead of 12 does not mean to perform. It 's like a defendant accused of murder were found guilty of manslaughter. The difference in punishment is the intention of the murderer could be different, but the substance does not change: the man has killed one person and the victim is dead. Senator Dell'Utri was convicted, not of all the crimes imputed to him, but it certainly was colluding with the Mafia. The substance does not change. Favors by the mafia and the mafia were made. And here comes the Italian press and television news.

Howl invites you to see the link below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufZTK0QvT_o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpmvyheRgJ0

In the service of the TG1 is even talk of acquittal. Open Studio on the video but I leave that to your comments (especially the part concerning statement that defines "crime questionable" the Mafia).

The question unfortunately does not end here. In fact, in the light of the events described above, any opposition voice in Italian politics has risen strongly to ask for the resignation of Senator Dell'Utri. No parliamentary question on the case has been requested. That can all happen in a democratic country, West Africa? Some, even in opposition, must account for these serious shortcomings.

Howl realizes that the castle does not recognize the entire accusatory presented by prosecutors could be a blow to the investigations, but is also aware of the enormous difference that exists between someone feel guilty for some of the allegations and it is innocent. Howl it fails to realize how this difference can evade the Italian media. Possible that there is so determined to attack the judiciary, which, Howl at pains to emphasize, is only doing his job? And 'in fact the same Dell'Utri to put at stake the Italian justice saying
"They had also to absolve the' first 'in 1992, but did not have to give a sop to the public prosecutor. To avoid the slap ... The problem is the prosecutor. Caselli and Ingroia are powerful, able to affect the environment. I hope not to find a judge to the Supreme Court of Palermo " .

We got to the point where if a judge considered a suspect guilty, not guilty of the accused had held a reprehensible conduct, but it is the fault of the judge observed, judged and punished?