Re: [biblical-studies] Expert witness doc/translated
- On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 8:25 PM, Joe Zias wrote:
> I also hope that Y. Sapir would later post this translation on the lists as well.I thought my translation might better be suited on the blog, where the original
> We are indebted to both of them and the anon. individual who immedately
> saw through this 'expert witness' testimony.
testimony is published. However, here goes:
"To summarize, and with all due respect, I cannot but agree with the criticism
that was raised by the defendant's attorney as regards Yitzhak Roman's
expert opinions: 'Prof. Roman did not go out to the field at all, did
not see the
relevant projects, did not check anything beyond the three or four pipe sections
that were brought before him and does not know the source of the pipes' (sec.
70a of the defendant's summary).
"Under these circumstances, since the necessary examinations were not
performed, and the factual data was not brought, likewise the weight of the
expert opinions of Prof. Yitzhak Roman would be diminished to naught. With
all due respect, the weight of the expert opinions (all of them) of Yitzhak
Roman is lower than the accepted standard."
My own personal feelings:
1) This has somewhat little to do directly with the case, as here there is no
place for Prof. Roman to go to. He received the pomegranate, which is the
object in its entirety.
2) Prof. Roman does not describe himself as a noted Hebrew University
lecturer. The cv stresses that he was rather a consultant for attorneys since
1972, and during the 1990s served as academic head of the Hebrew Univ.
electron microscope department. His website is a local company where he
serves as quality manager. He does mention that he is also consulted on
antiquities from the City of David and other places. He does not elaborate.
3) One thing that does seem to match between the two is the "factual data
was not brought" issue. Prof. Roman describes how a tiny bit of information
was described to him by the attorney. He might have received the entire
indictment, but this is not clear from what he wrote. The attorney might have
just given him select sentences from the indictment. He apparently got the
Yuval Goren committee's report on the pomegranate which concluded it is
a forgery, in its entirety.
4) We got to read this opinion two days after Prof. Roman completed it on
the basis of a two hour long examination.
5) As I understood the case, in our last episode, we left with the IAA having
to make a hard choice whether to continue the prosecution since the case
was so weak. That was Oct 29. The examination took place Oct 2, but
apparently was not analyzed in full until recently (Dec 10). I am not sure
why the analysis was not completed sooner if the hearing was set for Oct
29, and whether now, with the IAA having to make this hard choice, if there
is any point at this stage in the trial to introduce it as evidence at
all, if it is introduced as evidence, this means that there can be more cross-
examination -- the trial goes on. Maybe this is not meant to be introduced
in court, but is meant as a counter-weight to the IAA, as if to say, if you
don't choose to drop the case, this will be introduced as evidence in court.
Personally, I hope it will be introduced as evidence in court.