(Original Post in Lipstick Alley)
Judges rely on experts and give weight to their findings because they are assumed to be knowledgeable in their field and credible in their conclusions. Dishonest experts have been a significant factor in wrongful accusations/convictions for a long time. The entire burden for this sad circumstance does not fall on the expert alone – the lawyers and party who hired them are equally to blame. Especially in a case like this where the science being utilized is data gathering/analysis and common sense.
Grant linked all the social media accounts to Parker by utilizing a company called Screen International Security Services (SISS) and having the VP of Investigations submit a sworn Declaration as an expert.
SISS declared that through their investigation they were able to determine that the 11 named social media accounts were all Parker’s.
Grant used SISS so she could say that Parker, who is described in the filing as delusional and obsessed with Reeves, is a threat to her that she fears will escalate because of the volume of posts directed at her from this one person.
This was a major contributing factor for why the judge issued the TRO without notifying Parker in advance to allow her an opportunity to defend herself against the accusations.
This is unfair and unjust for a few reasons.
(1) Subjectively, SISS’s findings are false based on a cursory glance at the named accounts.
Grant stated in her sworn Declaration that Parker spoke to her and also that she received a few emails from Parker – so Grant knows that Parker is American and speaks and writes English as her native language. Grant sent these emails to SISS.
SISS should have seen that all the accounts, with the exception of uiamalgamated, have common grammatical errors found with people who speak English as a second language– such as issues with pronouns and plurals. Notably, some of the accounts post or comment in their native language at times – not English.
SISS uses an intentional deceptive tactic to feed into their conclusion that Parker is pretending to be all 11 accounts. When citing emails Parker sent to Grant, SISS says that the names and email addresses match social media accounts – plural, as in more than 1 account -- but there is only 1 match, uiamalgamated.
(2) Objectively, SISS’s findings are suspicious because the VP who submitted the expert declaration perjured herself when she stated that the name Gonsalves, one of 74 aliases used by Parker, appears on posts at issue.
There are no posts with the name Gonsalves and none of the named accounts use Gonsalves.
This false statement was made to deliberately mislead the court into believing Parker was tied to the other social media accounts.
To further confuse the court by including a visual to back up their false statement, SISS included an exhibit of the 2015 LA Times article with the photo that has the caption, “Cathryn Parker, a.k.a. Katherine Gonsalves, is accused of stealing multiple identities.”
(Note: typical behavior in the face of being openly criticized for lying to the court would be to start scouring accounts looking for the name Gonsalves to be able to link it so you could maintain your lie was true– but if the evidence legitimately existed, you would have included it in your original filing Exhibits with your Gonsalves material. Your believability is gone when you do this after the fact to fill a criticism hole – it would most likely be concocted evidence.)
(3) The last example to objectively illustrate that SISS’s believability is non-existent and their conclusion that Parker is all 11 social media accounts is false:
SISS stated in their expert Declaration that they conducted a “comprehensive investigation that included detailed analysis of… the social media accounts at issue… and criminal records.”
However, SISS’s expert findings contained discrepancies so obvious that any rational person would conclude that these social media accounts could not possibly be Parker’s.
Discrepancies included posts being made on dates when Parker was incarcerated.
Also, in looking at the two accounts with similar nomenclature – Catharine1967 Youtube and Catharina Monica Facebook – note that both use the same photo avatar so there is a strong probability they are run by the same person, who is not Parker.
This leads to one of two interpretations involving the expert that Grant hired to prove the 11 social media accounts all belonged to Parker:
(1) SISS did NOT conduct a “comprehensive investigation that included a detailed analysis” of the social media accounts and Parker’s criminal history – so their expert opinion that all 11 accounts belong to Parker is not supported by any evidence, hence their findings are bogus.
OR
(2) SISS did conduct a “comprehensive investigation that included a detailed analysis” of the social media accounts and Parker’s criminal history -- and they LIED about their findings – so their expert opinion that all 11 accounts belong to Parker is not supported by any evidence, hence their findings are bogus.
It also clearly shows that SISS is either grossly negligent in that they describe a thorough investigation as the work conducted to bolster their expert findings but fail to actually conduct said work or they are wantonly dishonest as the expert – to the degree that they are comfortable lying and intentionally misleading the court. There is no other explanation for this disgusting incompetence and fraud.
No comments:
Post a Comment