Contradictions and Inconsistencies in Other Cases

In the case of Elvira 27 judges returned their verdicts. The judges were more or less selected at random. There can thus be no question of "generalisation from the one single instance".

It could, however, be instructive to juxtapose and compare evidence collected in other cases in which the judges have also overlooked inconsistencies. And it is no bold hypothesis that they did so because they were not capable of disclosing which facts were relevant, and which had great evidential power, sometimes in themselves and sometimes when juxtaposed and compared.

How could any judge be blind to the incompetence and megalomania of Betsy's psychiatrist How could five judges out of nine believe in Malvina's account, when it was a notorious fortune-teller who "unearthed" the kind of abuse she had experienced How could very single judge overlook the glaring discrepancy between what Vessela's psychologist wrote on p. 1 and p. 2 of her affidavit And if the father had threatened to rape 4-6-month-old Vessela in her mother's presence, why could the mother in February 1989 give no reason for her "feeling" that the father was abusing her when she was living with him at the age of 5 Why were they unable to perceive the contradictory testimony of the pseudo-witness-psychologist who, on the one hand, claimed that Graziella's abuse version in contrast to her retraction version was free from contradictions, while she, on the other hand, used the major part of her testimony to explain away the many and large contradiction of the abuse version

Erna asserted that she had been abused when she was 14, that is, after the period when day care was provided by Dag's wife. It was a brutal police officer who suggested that she had in addition been abused at an earlier time.

In the case of the lost spermatozoa WW gave 10 mm and KK gave 4 mm as the largest possible measure of the vaginal orifice in non-abused children. Moreover, KK testified that the father had made a complete intromission. But when WW testified that the father had masturbated outside the vagina, KK immediately retracted her own version.

At first WW denied that Vanessa's anal symptoms could have been caused by constipation. A short while later she suggested that anal sex practiced by the father could have caused constipation, and that constipation had in turn caused the anal symptoms.

Note however that the only evidence of anal sex was the anal symptoms. Hence all evidence of anal sex will vanish under WW's new construction.

Can any person of a sound mind imagine that Violet had incessantly turned round because of fear that her father might be right behind her, when she was walking between her home and the police station, and then delivered to the police the information (or rather lack of information) described in chapter 40

Many judges would say that it is of no importance which of the three explanations for why the American laboratory had not made a DNA analysis, is true. Neither the verdict nor the sentence would depend on this issue. But this is an inappropriate attitude to take. If the prosecutor cannot provide the truth in such a matter, there is strong reason to suspect that this is not the only flaw of the police investigation.




Next chapter

Uppdaterad: 2009-11-19

Yakida