Showing posts with label Giovanni Di Stefano. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Giovanni Di Stefano. Show all posts

Saturday, November 17, 2012

Update: Attorney Giovanni DiStefano and Charles Manson have severed ties. 
Their attorney/client relationship has concluded.
Giovanni with his favorite dessert! LOL

Wednesday, November 7, 2012

Whatever Happened To This Guy?
Wasn't his plan to get Manson a new trial,
because the first one wasn't fair?

Saddam Hussein's attorney represents Charles Manson in petition
By Ted Rowlands and Michael Martinez, CNN
February 8, 2011 6:06 a.m. EST
(CNN) -- Prominent attorney Giovanni Di Stefano, who has represented former Iraq dictator Saddam Hussein and his right-hand man, "Chemical Ali," or Ali Hassan al-Majid, is representing Charles Manson in his attempt for a new trial, Di Stefano told CNN on Monday. Di Stefano has filed an application with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights on behalf of Manson, he said. The petition says Manson didn't receive a fair trial when he was convicted 40 years ago because, among other things, he was not allowed to represent himself, Di Stefano said.

The prosecutor in the Manson case, however, said Di Stefano's claim has no merit.

Manson was assigned a public defender after the judge in his case became frustrated with Manson's behavior while he was acting as his own attorney.

Di Stefano said that was a violation of Manson's Sixth Amendment rights and is grounds for a new trial.

Read more here:

Monday, May 16, 2011

Not being an international lawyer myself... I'm not quite sure what the INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, actually represents, or what their powers/influence involve.  But evidently... Di Stefano contacted these folks with three communications on Jan. 28... Feb. 2 & 22, respectively... and they've accepted the Manson case, and are currently reviewing it.  This is in addition to the clemency petition Di Stefano filed with Governor Jerry Brown.



"For the first time in over 40 years an independant Court will finally review the trial and wrongful conviction of Charles Manson. The IACHR has accepted the case as filed by us making a number of complaints regarding the manner upon which Mr Manson was 'persecuted' to conviction.
Whilst not at all trying to belittle the crimes and horrendous murders that were committed those responsible for such do not include Charles Manson and as such he is entitled to a voice in a court that will truly be independant of any prejudice.

An application on a without prejudice basis has also been filed with Jerry Brown the Governor of California and I hope that finally Mr Manson will be released and seen by history not as the mass murderer but as the leader of a cult group of people who sought to live within their own beliefs. Mr Manson did not and has never believed in the act of murder and has never committed murder nor sought anyone to committ such. the conduct of the prosecution and the economic viability of the prosecutors future was founded upon a conviction.

Here are three further reasons why the whole matter should be reviewed and I am content that even after 40 years the IACHR has accepted jurisdictions:

(1) Prosecuting Attorney Aaron Stovitz violated a federal gag order on the case three months into the trial. Stovitz was then replaced by Vincent Bugliosi, who was later brought up on charges of perjury FOR VIOLATING A GAG ORDER just as Stovitz!! Years later when Stovitz was interviewed he said that he believed that Charles Manson had an unfair trial.
(2)A juror stole one of the Sharon Tate death photos and sold it to a European tabloid magazine. The juror was not excused and the trial went on. The juror should have been excused (and prosecuted) for this but never occured.
(3) Charles Manson was given a newspaper with the headlines “Nixon Declares Manson Guilty” which the jury saw. This alone should have been grounds for a mistrial, but none of the jurors were excused and the trial went on.

For all of the above reasons, and I hope it is not too late,a review is finally taking place. I will be filing further submissions in due course."

Di Stefano is now saying:
"“There is now evidence from a California Police Officer that Tex Watson may well have committed murder some nine months prior to any of the killings, which if correct, would destroy the theory of the Prosecutor that the co-defendants murdered by the mind control of the Applicant.” Allegedly, this new evidence ties Tex Watson to the murder of an elderly man Karl Stubbs in Olancha, California before Watson was involved with Manson.
This is an excerpt, from correspondence between Giovanni Di Stefano and President Barack Obama:
"Tex Watson was seen following a man named Karl Stubbs to his house and that man was later found dead on 9/15/1968 in Olancha, California."
 (According to Di Stefano) This the verbatim statement from a California Police Officer:
I have another murder that I want to tell you about. The victim is an 80 year old man named Karl Stubbs who was killed November 15, 1968 in Olancha, Ca., almost a year before Tate/LaBianca/Hinman/Shea. A witness identified Tex Watson in 1970. There were also two unknown girls there when Karl was beaten. The murder was not followed up on. Why? Because Charlie was nowhere near Olancha then and it would show that Tex is the serial killer. There is no way the Bug (Vincent Bugliosi) could have convinced the jury that he had total mind control on everyone back in 1968.
A little "character background" on Di Stefano:
London-based Giovanni Di Stefano, 55, whose clients have included Saddam Hussein, Gary Glitter, Harold Shipman and Ian Brady was arrested in Spain... february 2011. A Spanish police source said Di Stefano was wanted on 18 counts of fraud, theft and money-laundering between 2004 and 2009. Most of those charges relate to the alleged defrauding of clients.
Di Stefano was close friends with Serbian warlord Željko Ražnatović, aka Arkan, before his assassination.
Di Stefano was jailed for five years for fraud in March 1986 and was banned from being a company director after trying to steal tens of thousands of pounds through cheques drawn on imaginary banks.
His appeal was dismissed in January 1987 when Lord Justice Stephen Brown concluded his trial had 'revealed a very deep and wide measure of fraudulent behaviour.'
All this leaves me wondering... is Di Stefano a criminal himself?
Does Manson really have a shot at clemency, with this guy?
Is this "police officer testimony" regarding Stubbs, that Di Stefano cites, legitimate? 
Is this "new case"... although interesting as hell (and current), a complete waste of time? LOLOL  What do you think? 

Thanks to Katie and Kimchi for their help, in researching this thread!!