Chapstick Wrapping Paper

the court speaks only with the judgments of 2

I had just condemned the interview on a judge's ruling and the ruling of Appeal Judge and I had just annotated with these words: "I suppose, of course, a good journalist has also asked the Judge any reply to his observations of the Appeal. But I want to imagine a more serene appeal court that a journalist has denied any reply: he, yes, it will just talk ... with the sentence ", which arrived on time but the denial. On the morning of today May 27, 2007 appeared in the interview (accompanied this time by vain photos) to the President the Court of Assizes of Appeal, Mr. Wolf ... again, never had seen the media and public anticipation of the reasons for the sentence: "Savior did not want to kill Anna, this is obvious, they were childhood friends . Julian was target of an ambush. It was a tragedy for him, who was then only twenty years ... "Yet we have the responsibility for Salvatore Giuliano reaffirmed and how, eighteen years are not few, not we met. Prevailed a belief, a more severe penalty, and unjust, it meant returning sooner or later attributed to the Camorra. It will also be a Julian, but the rules apply to everyone and if the sentence were to be respected in full, we would have an exemplary sentence. " And then the explicit recognition that he had fallen into the trap and the usual media critichetta the legislator, "because if you comment on the sentences, do not see why we can not raise doubts about a law: the cancellation of three years would not let Julian 'have given us the pardon is not our invention. The legislator with the pardon was wide sleeves. It was very simplistic and do-gooders of sleeves. The legislature should think and possibly exclude the most serious crimes, he did not and we can not that enforce the law. The rules apply to everyone. If we include other discounts and benefits (good conduct rules), this certainly does not depend by the court. " A
when the interview to Judge of the Supreme Court?