Translation? Summary in english?
- - - Updated - - -
Please
Giraudo: motivation / 1
The first part of the grounds of conviction of Antonio Giraudo is dedicated to the charge of association. Those who are exposed, to say the Court, are the elements that prove the existence of an association which put in place a "continuous unfolding of shared strategies aimed at precostiruire the fate of the championship through the appropriate designation of arbitrators complacent" (p. . 21).
So the association has altered the league through complaisant referees. The question naturally arises: what referees (there are only Bertini, De Sanctis, and Racalbuto Dattilo Dattilo ... and saw what was written by the Court of Appeal for Udinese-Brescia acquitted) in place that is almost all been fulfilled?
And the referees complacent again according to the reasoning set out in the grounds, were designated by the provision of grids prepared ad hoc.
The key moment in the consolidation of the association is found in dinners designators and leaders Juventus. Dinners that, always telling the Court of Appeal, argued grids and how to pursue the goal dell'associzione.
And proof of the fact that at dinner parties discussed about grids, according to the logic of the Court of Appeal, there are dtercettazioni to prove it. One above all: the famous interception between Moggi and Bergamo, where the two are the famous barbecue.
Reads the sentence on p. 28:
"..... The aforementioned conversation on February 9, cited above, in which virtually dictated Moggi grids in Bergamo already established proof that evening meeting held the previous day - which had participated in over Pairetto Moggi and Giraudo also. was aimed at ........... this task. "
And yet a few lines later:
"And indeed, will dictate Moggi in Bergamo grids arbitration will incorporate these passively"
Then the phone calls in which Moggi said grids and Bergamo run (we know that is not so ...) show, according to the logic used by the Court, that the dinners were designed to discuss how grids and affect the championship.
But this argument does not row for at least two reasons:
1) the interception did not suggest at all that Bergamo and Pairetto grids did the order come from Moggi. And precisely above the call and the next grid really prepared evidence to the contrary.
2) because the grids are really likely to alter the competitive sport (illuminating in this regard is what is written by the prosecutor of Turin), there must be full participation of the arbitrators entered in the grid. Such participation is denied by the Court that performs all the referees judged by the summary procedure.
And there is another factor that the Court did not address the row Lanese. Lanese participates in these dinners but is not an associate. Lanese was in fact acquitted of all charges. But if during the dinner they discussed how to alter the championship preparing ad hoc grids with referees complacent, the presence of Lanese how do you reconcile? Or maybe you Lanese autoesiliava in the bathroom not to listen to the speeches of cupolari?
It 's interesting, finally, to observe the evolution of the charge:
In the first instance we are hypothesized end consisting of the admonitions of the offenses targeted and conducting race pro-Juve many arbitrators. Missed this thesis was "demoted" to suggest the possibility of alteration of the draw. Proved a theory that is not supported by any evidence was further "demoted" to assume the alteration of the grids. Ultimately what they will say that the offense was so only because he thought Moggi?
PS actually Capuano in his submissions supported the view that the offense of danger is realized already when you put the thought in the mind of the actor of the crime ... So Juventus has been deprived of two championships and sent to B of evil thoughts? Source: JU29RO.COM
That's how google translated it for me:google:The gist is clear,although there may be a slight mistranslation of some lines