Sunday, July 20, 2008

Exonerating evidence from Laci's autopsy

We have finished the page entitled "Exonerating evidence from Laci's autopsy."

You can access this page right from the home page http://www.pwc-sii.com/ (scroll down to The Evidence Proves Factual Innocence - it's the 5th item listed) or from the Research & Analysis page (click Part One, click The bodies are found, click Laci).

Or, use our quick link.

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

Wearing A Halo said.....

Who is the "we"? Who is/are the author(s) of this article? I know that in some of the editorials, proper credit was given to the authors and in many others, there is no name to said editorial/article. On those with no name, are they written by you Marlene? IOW, if no name is given then it is written by Marlene Newell? It would be beneficial to give proper credit to the author(s) to know their background(s), experience(s) and knowledge of what they write and opinion(s) they come up with. It would also be nice to know who(m) to address any replies to. TIA

Marlene Newell said...

Wearing a Halo,

This blog is owned by PWC Consulting. Most of its articles are the product of joint research and analysis. Hence, no specific author is named. You can simply credit and address "PWC Consulting" as the author.

Anonymous said...

Why would someone that strongly believe in their "opinions" not publish their name when posting what they believe to be scientific fact and not simply opinion? J4TV

Marlene Newell said...

I haven't the foggiest notion what your complaint is, therefore I can't reply.

Anonymous said...

Not a complaint......just agreeing with "wearing a halo's" post above.......

I am curious to know your opinion on the also circumstantial case of Neil Entwistle? Do you agree with his conviction for also murdering his wife and child? J4TV

Marlene Newell said...

I have not followed the Entwistle case. Therefore, I have no opinion on whether the conviction was correct or not.

Anonymous said...

Fair enough J4TV

mikemathew said...

It may be argued that the conditions are different in each case. True; however this example shows that both the relationship in time and the relationship in space are significant and must be considered as part of the analysis. This was not done - only an unproven and unprovable theory was offered without facts to back it up. The jury was invited to assume an unproven connection between Scott and the bodies. That they did this brings shame on all involved.
------------------
mikemathew
white hat