It is truly something to watch the smear campaign being launched against Conti and Vecchiotti by the "idiots" (LJ's nickname for them is sticking in my mind!).
Where were these people
before the results came out? Maybe I just didn't pay enough attention, but I don't seem to recall any wild protestations about the inadequacy of Conti and Vecchiotti's credentials back when Hellmann appointed them in December/January (formally in January, but IIRC it was known who they were going to be in December).
That would have been the time to complain about the experts' "lack of experience", "library card" methods (since when did libraries become an instrument of derision?), "unworldly academic" nature, and so forth; as opposed to waiting until after you get a result you don't like, and thereby exposing the thoroughly disingenuous nature of your pretensions.
And observe the curious paradox the guilters have boxed themselves into: they claim that Conti and Vecchiotti are advocating standards of forensic work that are
excessively high -- and to support this contention they argue that Conti and Vecchiotti's citations are somehow
not rigorous enough. This sort of contradiction is such a transparent demonstration of
motivated skepticism that it's almost pitiful.
Here, by the way, is The Machine on Carlo Torre:
I'll let pass that The Machine means "i.e." instead of "e.g." and "Knox" instead of "Sollecito" to concentrate on the more salient aspect of this comment, which is that, according to the psychology underlying it, anything and everything about people who disagree is bad. Carlo Torre can't just be an internationally respected scientist who, for some subtle reason that The Machine in Its wisdom could coherently explain, is mistaken in his opinion about how many people killed Meredith; no, he must be an intellectual prostitute so cynical in his avarice that he has no compunction about helping evil people to get away with horrendous crimes.
We see another example of the same mentality from Ganong, who wants to make sure we know that
Le Journal du Dimanche is "fairly close to tabloid journalism" after it published an
innocent little article about the negative effect of the Knox affair on Perugia tourism. An article that, mind you, took no position on the merits of the case, or even whether the dropoff was due more to fear of the "evil" students or of the overzealous authorities. So what was so objectionable about it? It was recommended by Candace Dempsey, a known innocence supporter.
So, just for fun, would anyone care to predict what these people will say in the event that the Hellmann court decides to acquit Knox and Sollecito? They've already been laying the groundwork: it was a Mafia conspiracy involving bribes by rich Seattlites of incompetent scientists and judges, and aided by amoral profiteers masquerading as prestigious pathologists, that just proved too much for even the most valiant efforts of the true heroes in this story, Patrizia Stefanoni, Edgardo Giobbi, and Giuliano Mignini.
