View Single Post
Old 30th July 2017, 04:00 PM   #68
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,926
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
Also if you look at the forensic pathologists the only one who said that there had to be more than one assailant was the pathologist acting for the party with a financial interest in the conviction of Knox and Sollecito. Neither the defence nor the prosecution experts said that the assault could not have been the result of a single assailant. This seems to be an example of a paid shill.

ECHR case law requires that where there is doubt the court must follow an assumption of innocence. If Marasca understood the significance of ECHR case law he had no option than to state 'the physical findings from the post mortem were compatible with a single assailant (but could not exclude more than one)'. The evidence from the post mortem cannot be used to support the case against Sollecito or Knox.

So proper application of the law by Marasca would have excluded the DNA findings from the bathroom and the post mortem findings as evidence of guilt. 'All the evidence' seems to be rapidly disappearing into court rulings that are contrary to ECHR case law and thus invalid.
You make excellent points. Why is it that Vixen never considers that the prosecution experts could be paid shills? Is it only defense experts who lack the morals and ethical fortitude to withstand the temptation of money?
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top