Cont: The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 27

[TruthCalls]

I have no doubt at all mistakes were made. Some police officers might well have behaved inappropriately. However, AFAIAA, the trial was fair. All witnesses were given an ample platform.

Knox' claim of torture just doesn't ring true. In Italy there were two automatic appeals and full written reasons. Under common law (UK/USA) you don't get any of that. If you are allowed an appeal, it is purely discretionary.

Several posts back you made the following claim;

"The vast majority of vacated convictions are to do with technicalities (legal loopholes, lapses in police procedure) not because there is any exonerating evidence, such as someone else's DNA."

I pointed out that there was, in fact, DNA (and prints, and hair) that came from someone other than Ferguson or Erickson. You ignored that and now state you believe the conviction was fair. So, let's review the basic facts.

o There was no physical evidence of Ferguson but there WAS evidence of someone else.
o Six police officers fabricated evidence.
o The prosecution withheld evidence.
o The lone eyewitness who clearly saw two men leaving the crime scene testified Ferguson wasn't one of them.

The janitor who testified against Ferguson, Jerry Trump, originally claimed his wife sent him a newspaper article about the crime with photos of Ferguson and Erickson and that he recognized them. But he later recanted this and claimed DA Crane pressured him. He said the first time he saw the newspaper article was at the prosecutor's office. Trump's wife also stated she did not send her husband the newspaper article.

Shawna Ornt, the janitor who saw two men fleeing the crime scene, testified Ferguson was not one of them. She claimed DA Crane repeatedly tried to get her to implicate Ferguson, even becoming threatening when she refused.

So Vixen, do you think that Zellner "persuaded" both Ornt and Trump to claim DA Crane pressured them to identify Ferguson? Do you think she also "persuaded" Trump's wife to claim she didn't send the newspaper article? What is it that led you to conclude it was Zellner that was being unethical and not DA Crane? Did Zellner also have something to do with the six police officers who were found to have fabricated evidence? Was she also behind the prosecution withholding evidence?

As I said, you don't believe anyone was ever wrongfully convicted.

--- Back to the Kercher murder ---

Yes, I agree, Knox' claim of torture doesn't ring true but only because she never claimed she was tortured. That's your word, not hers. Regardless, what does that have to do with the appeal process in Italy?

 

[Numbers]

Several posts back you made the following claim;

"The vast majority of vacated convictions are to do with technicalities (legal loopholes, lapses in police procedure) not because there is any exonerating evidence, such as someone else's DNA."

I pointed out that there was, in fact, DNA (and prints, and hair) that came from someone other than Ferguson or Erickson. You ignored that and now state you believe the conviction was fair. So, let's review the basic facts.

o There was no physical evidence of Ferguson but there WAS evidence of someone else.
o Six police officers fabricated evidence.
o The prosecution withheld evidence.
o The lone eyewitness who clearly saw two men leaving the crime scene testified Ferguson wasn't one of them.

The janitor who testified against Ferguson, Jerry Trump, originally claimed his wife sent him a newspaper article about the crime with photos of Ferguson and Erickson and that he recognized them. But he later recanted this and claimed DA Crane pressured him. He said the first time he saw the newspaper article was at the prosecutor's office. Trump's wife also stated she did not send her husband the newspaper article.

Shawna Ornt, the janitor who saw two men fleeing the crime scene, testified Ferguson was not one of them. She claimed DA Crane repeatedly tried to get her to implicate Ferguson, even becoming threatening when she refused.

So Vixen, do you think that Zellner "persuaded" both Ornt and Trump to claim DA Crane pressured them to identify Ferguson? Do you think she also "persuaded" Trump's wife to claim she didn't send the newspaper article? What is it that led you to conclude it was Zellner that was being unethical and not DA Crane? Did Zellner also have something to do with the six police officers who were found to have fabricated evidence? Was she also behind the prosecution withholding evidence?

As I said, you don't believe anyone was ever wrongfully convicted.

--- Back to the Kercher murder ---

Yes, I agree, Knox' claim of torture doesn't ring true but only because she never claimed she was tortured. That's your word, not hers. Regardless, what does that have to do with the appeal process in Italy?

Good points.

The ones claiming that Knox claims she was tortured are the guilters. The terminology used by Knox and the ECHR appears in the Country Profile for Italy is violation of: "Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment)".

The appeal process in Italy has no direct bearing on this allegation of a violation of Convention Article 3, although Knox used the Italian appeal process to exhaust domestic remedies regarding her claim of the violation, a method recognized as valid and sufficient by ECHR case-law.

The comparison of Italian and US/UK appeal processes is meaningless, since Knox was tried in Italy, and only the Italian process was applicable.

It is an error to claim that the Italian appeal process is "automatic". To gain an appeal trial, the accused (defendant) and/or the prosecution must file an appeal document within the legally specified time limit (45 days); if this is not done, there is no appeal and the last court's decision is final and definitively binding. (The exception being that a conviction may be subject to a revision trial, under certain legally specified circumstances, such as a final judgment of the ECHR, such as certain violations of Article 6 or of Article 3, requiring a reopening of proceedings.)

As an example of there NOT being automatic appeals in the Italian judicial system, the Boninsegna court's acquittal of Knox on the charge of continuous aggravated calunnia against the police and Mignini became final and definitive when the prosecution did not appeal within the legal time limit.

It should also be recognized that requests for appeal in Italy may be rejected by the higher court. The CSC rejects many appeal requests for failure to satisfy the requirements of Italian law for appeals to the CSC, which are listed in CPP Article 606.

 

[Bill Williams]

Yes, I agree, Knox' claim of torture doesn't ring true but only because she never claimed she was tortured. That's your word, not hers. Regardless, what does that have to do with the appeal process in Italy?

Good points.

The ones claiming that Knox claims she was tortured are the guilters. The terminology used by Knox and the ECHR appears in the Country Profile for Italy is violation of: "Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment)".

Ultimately these guilter-PR campaign embellishments are why people catch on to them. Once reading "the record" one finds that little of what the campaign pushes is factual.

 

[Stacyhs]

If Vixen thinks Ferguson received a "fair trial", I'd like to know what her idea of an "unfair trial" is.

 

[TruthCalls]

If Vixen thinks Ferguson received a "fair trial", I'd like to know what her idea of an "unfair trial" is.

Exactly.

 

[bagels]

If Vixen thinks Ferguson received a "fair trial", I'd like to know what her idea of an "unfair trial" is.

Vixen has already admitted that the defense is only there to commit "innocence fraud" and the prosecution bringing a case to trial to get rubber stamped, without any input from the defense, is sufficient for criminal justice.

 

[Stacyhs]

Vixen has already admitted that the defense is only there to commit "innocence fraud" and the prosecution bringing a case to trial to get rubber stamped, without any input from the defense, is sufficient for criminal justice.

We know that the police/prosecution would never lie, misrepresent things, or withhold evidence because they have no motive to do so. You know, like the police who interrogated Knox had no motive for denying she was smacked on the head, threatened, coerced, denied a lawyer and refused food and bathroom breaks. What motive could they possibly have for denying things that are perfectly legal? Oh, wait...

 

[Numbers]

If Vixen thinks Ferguson received a "fair trial", I'd like to know what her idea of an "unfair trial" is.

Exactly.

There's an interesting and important general question underlying the above posts:

What is the definition of an unfair trial?

This question is important in the Italian context, since nothing in the Italian Constitution itself explicitly states that an accused (defendant) must receive a fair trial, or must not receive an unfair trial. Rather, certain general rights and procedural measures are specified, and which should in principle provide for a fair trial, assuming that the authorities act in good faith - that is, with full honesty and integrity.

On the other hand, the European Convention on Human Rights, which according to Article 10 of the Italian Constitution applies to Italy, specifically states in its Article 6.1 that "In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law." Paragraph 2 of Article 6 goes on to state: "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law." Paragraph 3 of Article 6 states: "Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights", and proceeds to list five rights under that heading. These five rights include a) the right to be informed promptly and in a language the accused understands, of the detailed nature and cause of the charge against him; b) to have adequate facilities and time to prepare a defense; c) to defend himself with the assistance of a lawyer, of his own choosing, or to receive legal aid if so required in the interests of justice; d) to examine or have examined the witnesses against him, and to obtain the presence and examination of witnesses on his behalf; and e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

The ECHR, in its case-law, has extended this list to include, for example, the right of an accused to remain silent, which includes the right not to be forced or coerced into making incriminating statements, and the right not to be subjected to an arbitrary judgment of conviction or bad faith (dishonesty or deception) of the authorities leading to arrest or conviction.

 

[Numbers]

There's an interesting and important general question underlying the above posts:

What is the definition of an unfair trial?

This question is important in the Italian context, since nothing in the Italian Constitution itself explicitly states that an accused (defendant) must receive a fair trial, or must not receive an unfair trial. Rather, certain general rights and procedural measures are specified, and which should in principle provide for a fair trial, assuming that the authorities act in good faith - that is, with full honesty and integrity.

On the other hand, the European Convention on Human Rights, which according to Article 10 of the Italian Constitution applies to Italy, specifically states in its Article 6.1 that "In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law." Paragraph 2 of Article 6 goes on to state: "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law." Paragraph 3 of Article 6 states: "Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights", and proceeds to list five rights under that heading. These five rights include a) the right to be informed promptly and in a language the accused understands, of the detailed nature and cause of the charge against him; b) to have adequate facilities and time to prepare a defense; c) to defend himself with the assistance of a lawyer, of his own choosing, or to receive legal aid if so required in the interests of justice; d) to examine or have examined the witnesses against him, and to obtain the presence and examination of witnesses on his behalf; and e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

The ECHR, in its case-law, has extended this list to include, for example, the right of an accused to remain silent, which includes the right not to be forced or coerced into making incriminating statements, and the right not to be subjected to an arbitrary judgment of conviction or bad faith (dishonesty or deception) of the authorities leading to arrest or conviction.

Those interested in a description of the 1999 and subsequent changes in Italian Constitution and law instituted in order to implement many of the formal characteristics of fair trials (as understood in the text of the European Convention on Human Rights and ECHR case-law) may wish to read the following academic article:

Michele Panzavolta, Reforms and Counter-Reforms in the Italian Struggle for an Accusatorial Criminal Law System, 30 N.C. J. Int'l L. & Com. Reg. 577 (2004).
Available at: http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/ncilj/vol30/iss3/2

Here's an excerpt (reference numbers deleted):

"Constitutional bill n. 2 of 1999 changed Article 111 of the Constitution by adding five new sections. The reform was labeled "the fair trial reform," because the added provisions intended to state the principles of a fair trial that are seen to correspond with the adversary and accusatorial model. In particular, revised article 111 states that evidence in criminal cases should only be that which was heard in front of the parties and an impartial judge.2 16 This assures the central position of the trial in criminal proceedings by imposing the respect of the principles of orality and of immediacy in the collection of evidence.

The reformed Constitution also provides the only legitimate exceptions to the substantive use of evidence collected outside of the trial: when the parties agree, when illicit conduct of the witness is proven, and when it is unavoidable and impossible to collect the evidence at trial. In addition, the reformed Constitution introduces a confrontation clause, providing that guilt cannot be
proven based upon declarations of an accuser who has always willingly escaped examination by the accused or his lawyer."
____
Comments: The reforms of the Italian judicial system as intended by the amendments of Italian Constitution and applicable laws (Code of Criminal Procedure) were completed in 2005. Thus, it is possible that some of the judges hearing the Knox - Sollecito case, beginning in 2007, were not fully cognizant of those changes, or were in fact hostile and resistant to them. There has been a history of judicial resistance to fair-trial reforms in Italy. This may explain the arbitrary nature of the judgments before some of the courts, for example, Massei, Chieffi, and Nencini.

 

[acbytesla]

Still no news on the ECHR I see.

 

[TruthCalls]

There's an interesting and important general question underlying the above posts:

What is the definition of an unfair trial?
This question is important in the Italian context, since nothing in the Italian Constitution itself explicitly states that an accused (defendant) must receive a fair trial, or must not receive an unfair trial. Rather, certain general rights and procedural measures are specified, and which should in principle provide for a fair trial, assuming that the authorities act in good faith - that is, with full honesty and integrity.

On the other hand, the European Convention on Human Rights, which according to Article 10 of the Italian Constitution applies to Italy, specifically states in its Article 6.1 that "In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law." Paragraph 2 of Article 6 goes on to state: "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law." Paragraph 3 of Article 6 states: "Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights", and proceeds to list five rights under that heading. These five rights include a) the right to be informed promptly and in a language the accused understands, of the detailed nature and cause of the charge against him; b) to have adequate facilities and time to prepare a defense; c) to defend himself with the assistance of a lawyer, of his own choosing, or to receive legal aid if so required in the interests of justice; d) to examine or have examined the witnesses against him, and to obtain the presence and examination of witnesses on his behalf; and e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

The ECHR, in its case-law, has extended this list to include, for example, the right of an accused to remain silent, which includes the right not to be forced or coerced into making incriminating statements, and the right not to be subjected to an arbitrary judgment of conviction or bad faith (dishonesty or deception) of the authorities leading to arrest or conviction.

How about a trial where the prosecution doesn't get to present an animation of what it think happened?

How about a trial where expert witnesses provide accurate, impartial testimony. (i.e., Stefanoni should have disclosed the TMB tests on the Luminol prints. She should advise the court that TMB negative, DNA negative traces are not made from the victim's blood. She should have disclosed the extra alleles found on the bra clasp and advised the court this was suggestive of contamination. etc., etc., etc.)

How about a trial where the judges implement common sense. (i.e., NOT concluding a trace that is TMB negative, DNA negative is nonetheless made from the victim's blood because, after all, what else could it be, or NOT modify a witnesses testimony to suit his/her needs when the testimony of the witness is contradictory. etc., etc., etc.)

How about a trial that doesn't hear evidence that was ruled inadmissible by the country's Supreme Court (i.e., running a civil trial concurrent to the criminal trial, in the same court, with the same judges, and allowing that evidence to be presented in the civil trial as if that won't influence the criminal trial)

 

[Stacyhs]

How about a trial where the prosecution doesn't get to present an animation of what it think happened?

How about a trial where expert witnesses provide accurate, impartial testimony. (i.e., Stefanoni should have disclosed the TMB tests on the Luminol prints. She should advise the court that TMB negative, DNA negative traces are not made from the victim's blood. She should have disclosed the extra alleles found on the bra clasp and advised the court this was suggestive of contamination. etc., etc., etc.)

How about a trial where the judges implement common sense. (i.e., NOT concluding a trace that is TMB negative, DNA negative is nonetheless made from the victim's blood because, after all, what else could it be, or NOT modify a witnesses testimony to suit his/her needs when the testimony of the witness is contradictory. etc., etc., etc.)

How about a trial that doesn't hear evidence that was ruled inadmissible by the country's Supreme Court (i.e., running a civil trial concurrent to the criminal trial, in the same court, with the same judges, and allowing that evidence to be presented in the civil trial as if that won't influence the criminal trial)[/QUOTE]

That a civil trial should run concurrently with a criminal trial and heard by the same court has always seemed highly illogical and intrinsically unfair to me.

 

[Vixen]

Several posts back you made the following claim;

"The vast majority of vacated convictions are to do with technicalities (legal loopholes, lapses in police procedure) not because there is any exonerating evidence, such as someone else's DNA."

I pointed out that there was, in fact, DNA (and prints, and hair) that came from someone other than Ferguson or Erickson. You ignored that and now state you believe the conviction was fair. So, let's review the basic facts.

o There was no physical evidence of Ferguson but there WAS evidence of someone else.
o Six police officers fabricated evidence.
o The prosecution withheld evidence.
o The lone eyewitness who clearly saw two men leaving the crime scene testified Ferguson wasn't one of them.

The janitor who testified against Ferguson, Jerry Trump, originally claimed his wife sent him a newspaper article about the crime with photos of Ferguson and Erickson and that he recognized them. But he later recanted this and claimed DA Crane pressured him. He said the first time he saw the newspaper article was at the prosecutor's office. Trump's wife also stated she did not send her husband the newspaper article.

Shawna Ornt, the janitor who saw two men fleeing the crime scene, testified Ferguson was not one of them. She claimed DA Crane repeatedly tried to get her to implicate Ferguson, even becoming threatening when she refused.

So Vixen, do you think that Zellner "persuaded" both Ornt and Trump to claim DA Crane pressured them to identify Ferguson? Do you think she also "persuaded" Trump's wife to claim she didn't send the newspaper article? What is it that led you to conclude it was Zellner that was being unethical and not DA Crane? Did Zellner also have something to do with the six police officers who were found to have fabricated evidence? Was she also behind the prosecution withholding evidence?

As I said, you don't believe anyone was ever wrongfully convicted.

--- Back to the Kercher murder ---

Yes, I agree, Knox' claim of torture doesn't ring true but only because she never claimed she was tortured. That's your word, not hers. Regardless, what does that have to do with the appeal process in Italy?

Don't put words in my mouth. I don't know enough about the Ferguson /Eriksson case to know whether the trial was fair. However, the facts of the crime scene are uncannily as described by the caretaker Orr. so I am sceptical that years later she has retracted her eyewitness account of seeing the body lying on the ground between cars thanks to Kathlee Zellner's intervention.

It strikes me as a patent scam to get eyewitnesses to a crime to recant their testimony by defence lawyers many years after the trial determined to get their client 'exonerated' and hopefully get $m in compensation.

 

[Vixen]

Good points.

The ones claiming that Knox claims she was tortured are the guilters. The terminology used by Knox and the ECHR appears in the Country Profile for Italy is violation of: "Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment)".

The appeal process in Italy has no direct bearing on this allegation of a violation of Convention Article 3, although Knox used the Italian appeal process to exhaust domestic remedies regarding her claim of the violation, a method recognized as valid and sufficient by ECHR case-law.

The comparison of Italian and US/UK appeal processes is meaningless, since Knox was tried in Italy, and only the Italian process was applicable.

It is an error to claim that the Italian appeal process is "automatic". To gain an appeal trial, the accused (defendant) and/or the prosecution must file an appeal document within the legally specified time limit (45 days); if this is not done, there is no appeal and the last court's decision is final and definitively binding. (The exception being that a conviction may be subject to a revision trial, under certain legally specified circumstances, such as a final judgment of the ECHR, such as certain violations of Article 6 or of Article 3, requiring a reopening of proceedings.)

As an example of there NOT being automatic appeals in the Italian judicial system, the Boninsegna court's acquittal of Knox on the charge of continuous aggravated calunnia against the police and Mignini became final and definitive when the prosecution did not appeal within the legal time limit.

It should also be recognized that requests for appeal in Italy may be rejected by the higher court. The CSC rejects many appeal requests for failure to satisfy the requirements of Italian law for appeals to the CSC, which are listed in CPP Article 606.

Obviously, it is given that there is a time limit to appeal and in addition, the appeal has to be on one or more points of law. The vast majority of persons convicted of a serious crime in Italy will get their lawyers to put in an appeal. 'Internal contradictions' will cover most cases in one way or another, the most popular heading in Italy.

In the UK you can ask for an appeal but very few are accepted. In Italy, all appeals are accepted. (Ceteris paribus).

 

[Bill Williams]

Don't put words in my mouth.

What on earth are you talking about.

You, in fact, said that Knox claimed to be tortured. She has never claimed that. TruthCalls provided an exact quote of what you'd said about fair-trials and technicalities.

Now you're claiming that others are putting words in your mouth. Sheesh!!

 

[Vixen]

What on earth are you talking about.

You, in fact, said that Knox claimed to be tortured. She has never claimed that. TruthCalls provides an exact quot of what you'd said about fair-trials and technicalities.

Now you're claiming that others are putting words in your mouth. Sheesh!!

Article 3 is the Torture article. You can dress it up in fancy words such as 'degrading and inhumane treatment'. However, it needs to be a lot more than police being a bit rude to you.

 

[Bill Williams]

The commonalities of women who've been victimized as clickbait in the media.

https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/paxn8z/amanda-knox-scarlet-letter-trailer

Amanda Knox's series on Vice.

 

[Bill Williams]

Article 3 is the Torture article. You can dress it up in fancy words such as 'degrading and inhumane treatment'. However, it needs to be a lot more than police being a bit rude to you.

Why do you insist on making strawmen statements. You simply do not understand this case, and are completely unaware of its particulars.

No one said they'd been tortured. No one said that police had been "a bit rude".

Why is this so difficult?

 

[bagels]

It strikes me as a patent scam to get eyewitnesses to a crime to recant their testimony by defence lawyers many years after the trial determined to get their client 'exonerated' and hopefully get $m in compensation.

Yeah when someone intervenes with an eyewitness months to years later and starts pressuring them and that witness suddenly does a 180 on their statements it can raise suspicions. Reminds me of when it happened in the Knox case with Curatolo and Quintavalle lol

 

[Stacyhs]

AFAICS he had a fair trial. I still believe a proper trial in a court of law is the best way to decide guilt or lack thereof.

So Zellner persuaded an eyewitness to retract her statement, some many years after the trial. I can't help but be sceptical about Zellner's methods. We saw the case of Ciolino who did same thing, dug out witnesses years after the crime and persuaded this 'alternative' guy to confess. The alternative guy was promised a short sentence and multimillion dollar book and movie deals. He played along with it, which cancelled out his application for a certificate of innocence as he showed bad faith in having been jailed in the first place. Ciolino posing as an Innocence Project lawyer got an actor to fake being an eyewitness to the crime and naming the 'alternative' guy. It was all a con and a sham to get Ciolino's other 'client' via the Innocence Project 'exonerated' so that the IP could have another 'wrongful conviction' to promote.

Trial by mass media and PR campaigns is loaded with potential corruption and hidden agendas (cf the Russian twitter and FB campaign to swing the US elections).

Can't beat twelve just men and a proper hearing before highly trained judges, almost all of whom will be barristers with at least seven years experience at the bar.

Don't put words in my mouth. I don't know enough about the Ferguson /Eriksson case to know whether the trial was fair. However, the facts of the crime scene are uncannily as described by the caretaker Orr Ornt. so I am sceptical that years later she has retracted her eyewitness account of seeing the body lying on the ground between cars thanks to Kathlee Zellner's intervention.

It strikes me as a patent scam to get eyewitnesses to a crime to recant their testimony by defence lawyers many years after the trial determined to get their client 'exonerated' and hopefully get $m in compensation.

Sheesh.You keep forgetting we can read previous posts.

I fixed Ornt's name for you.
I suggest you read this article on the case and get more informed. It was not Ornt who retracted her statement, but Jerry Trump.

Erickson claimed he vomited at the crime scene (no vomit was found) and that Ferguson strangled the victim with his bare hands (in fact, he was strangled with his own belt).

Throughout the course of this interrogation with Det. Short, Erickson was confused and could not provide any accurate information relating to the murder. Short repeatedly asked questions specifically relating to the murder, and Erickson simply could not answer accurately.

Short realized this, and proceeded to spoon-feed specific details to Erickson. Whenever Erickson could not answer his questions accurately or in detail, Short provided the answers, and a confused, scared and easily manipulated Erickson simply went along with whatever the detective was saying.

One key element of Erickson's "confession" was the number of times he said he hit the victim. Short asked Erickson, "How many times did you think you hit him all together?" Erickson replied, "Just the once." Short, knowing the victim was hit 11 times, and knowing Erickson was wrong, asked, "Just the once? Well, the only problem I have with that is I know he was hit more than once," to which Erickson simply replied, "Yeah", and that, "I'm saying I just hit him once." Short continued, "You just hit him once? You didn't hit him more?" to which Erickson replied, "No", and again stated, "I didn't hit him more than once." Erickson never claimed Ferguson hit the victim.

http://www.crimemagazine.com/one-murder-two-victims-wrongful-conviction-ryan-ferguson

It strikes me as a patent scam to get eyewitnesses to a crime to recant their testimony by defence lawyers many years after the trial determined to get their client 'exonerated' and hopefully get $m in compensation

Yes, that would be a scam. But, of course, you haven't a scrap of evidence to support that this is what Zellner did, do you? Nope.
What I find interesting is that you accuse Zellner of this "scam", but you find it perfectly logical that a journalist could get two witnesses to claim they had seen a defendant a year later when they had originally told the police they had not seen that defendant. Nor do you find it odd that this same journalist "found" a witness who claimed to hear a horrific scream the night of the murder. A witness who had been in a mental hospital previously, who had failed to mention this scream to anyone, and claimed to know about the crime before its discovery. Nope...that's all not suspect at all, is it?