7 ms·

So i'm in favor of police going back to the basics, good old-fashioned detective work. The forensics are not what they're cracked up to be, there's very little

So i'm in favor of police going back to the basics, good old-fashioned detective work. The forensics are not what they're cracked up to be, there's very little verifiability n verification, too easy for the forensics lab to lie through their teeth or contaminate the scene of the crime. Like when the Duke Lacross players had to hire a very expensive lawyer to do the messy work of proving evidence actually traced back to three other men that same day, that was noted as very difficult forensic work because OF COURSE the DA didn't want verification. Local DA Dan Nifong wanted to tamper w it, anything to pull off the lynching, mostly out of sadism n participating in the culture. Three equals three, easy to see it was three men's evidence left behind in Candice Mangum's evidence place, figured it would be a slam dunk requiring only a little bit of finesse. This lawyer got commended in front of all America by the legal profession, n proved Candice Mangum was pretty much correct it would be a slam dunk. It was only when these young men scraped together huge money for the hardcore IDEALISTIC civil rights lawyer (unicorn basically) to counter the momentum of the shakedown w perfect lawyering against Nifong's zero shame of screwing up on purpose w all the evidence--an uphill battle all the way...in 2006 iirc, like now in 2023 again.

Eisenstein 3y ago
You would be more persuasive if you didn't obviously have some kind of fixation with one court case.
- marak830 3y ago
  Also formatting, references and not reducing are to r. I'm sorry man, it's so difficult to parse all that you said and I really want to. Not enough to research on a Friday evening after a hell week though - and that part is on me.
NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
It's not enough for the police to discover (to their own satisfaction) who committed a crime. The point is to prosecute the offender or otherwise resolve it in a way that protects the public. "Old-fashioned detective work" doesn't help with that at all. What does it turn up? Eyewitnesses? About the worst evidence possible, on par with dreams and reading tea leaves. Sometimes it bullies someone into perjury. That's not even evidence at all. Forensics are about the only thing that counts as real evidence outside of capturing crimes on video. And if they seem to cause bad results, it's probably because we're not doing it enough. Hell, we have the technology to prove to anyone's satisfaction that chain of custody hasn't been broken... no one's bothered to build the product.
- mrguyorama 3y ago
  Absolutely, a significant portion of "old timey police work" was to blame it on the least liked guy you could find. A large percentage of people ON DEATH ROW are later proved innocent by actual evidence, including people who were convicted by those "old timey" methods. >Forensics are about the only thing that counts as real evidence outside of capturing crimes on video One huge problem is what courts accept as "forensics" is closer to CSI bullshit than actual science. Most forensic methods have no basis in science, come from a single ex cop who goes around the country speaking to other cops for a hundred grand a pop, and a network of "experts" who are willing to tell a jury that it is "scientifically sound" for a few thousand dollars. Things like handwriting analysis, micro-expressions, all the nancy drew types who pour over a ten second 911 call to overanalyze every tick and stammer in the stressed callers voice to paint them as the perp (THIS IS A REAL THING THAT HAPPENS) If it wasn't outright illegal, American police would 100% be using lie detectors as evidence
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
    > One huge problem is what courts accept as "forensics" is closer to CSI bullshit than actual science. Most forensic methods have no basis in science, come from a single ex cop who goes around the country speaking to other cops for a hundred grand a pop, While there's some of that, let me tell you about my brush with this. I was called for grand jury duty. A day a week for a full month. Most was bullshit drug charges, child abuse/molestation, a few weird ones. Only one actual murder. Until that point, they never even bothered to have witnesses testify for any of it... it was like Junior Assistant DA show-and-tell time, but without the "show" part. That's another story though. The murder was decades past, and they'd always had a suspect. He did seem like a real piece of work. But one of the evidence exhibits was the car he drove back during the murder. At the time, they found tire tracks where the victim's body was dumped. Identified some named model of tire, Firestone I think. I asked a question, which the detective misunderstood at first... he thought I was asking "did anyone sell that tire in this city back in the late 1980s" to which he answered "it was so common, many shops would've sold it". So I had to ask again. I asked: "Was this particular tire model ever manufactured in a size where it would even have fit on that car?" He uhhed-and-ahhed for a moment, before saying "that's a really good question". Like, what the fuck am I supposed to do with that? Do I generalize, and think that if they fucked up on this one, all the rest of their evidence is complete horseshit too? If I penalize their bumbling by no-billing, am I letting a murderer go? It's not like they'll find the smoking gun next year, you know... this was like 30 years ago already. And, if I do vote to indict, the man's got no shot at a real trial. 99% of them plead down. Even for murder charges, maybe especially with those since they can dangle the death penalty as a means of compelling cooperation. That was my one brush with the competence and skills of detectives. Despite this, all I can think is that no matter how bad their forensic evidence is, anything else is just so much fucking worse. Off-topic trivia: While we were waiting on something one morning, one of the asst DAs was bragging about how in our city there are about 4000 cases each year, of which only maybe 30 would go to trial pre-covid. Assuming things have normalized so that they're giving trials to almost 1% of defendants again.
at_a_remove 3y ago
Other things that are easy to forget about Duke Lacrosse: 1) The "Gang of 88" never apologized. 2) The failure to prosecute Mangum and put her away led to a man's death; she's in jail for that now.
NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
I have come to believe that the "Sherlock Holmes" tales were a massive copaganda campaign designed to prime the general public for advanced forensic investigation techniques. I mean, Sherlock could "deduce" anything with his magnifying glass just by looking at a clump of mud on a shoe, or a thread of fabric on a lady's dress. But meanwhile, the actual police were developing actual scientifically-based theories of evidentiary examination that would revolutionize the jobs of detectives everywhere. Sherlock Holmes's powers of deduction were, of course, exaggerated and improbable. Nevertheless, the author was probably privy to scientific developments that held promise. Fingermarks, for example, were emerging in law enforcement contemporary with Conan Doyle's writings. If you want an amusing modern take on this, and you love to watch copaganda shows, I recommend the Canadian Murdoch Mysteries. They combine emerging science of the late 19th century with some really outlandish steampunk stuff ("The Tesla Effect") and it's a rollicking homage to Sherlock Holmes. Anyway, fast-forward to the present day. I feel like police are way too reliant on technology instead of doing their job. I feel like the general public watches way too much CSI and NCIS and they expect to see an Abby Sciuto in every precint. I believe that if LEOs weren't shelving all those rape kits for 20 years, and spending $millions on bogus "gunshot detection" networks, and not purchasing literal urban assault vehicles and a stockpile of ammunition to rival Ruby Ridge, I think that they might focus their efforts on something more productive. Anything more productive.
- Izkata 3y ago
  > I mean, Sherlock could "deduce" anything with his magnifying glass just by looking at a clump of mud on a shoe, or a thread of fabric on a lady's dress. But meanwhile, the actual police were developing actual scientifically-based theories of evidentiary examination that would revolutionize the jobs of detectives everywhere. This is a pop culture bastardization/modern reimagining of the original stories. Sherlock Holmes spent an absurd amount of his time memorizing things he could apply to his work, for example where certain trees grew and what their seeds look like, which he'd recognize in the clump of mud. Basic forensic techniques combined with things he memorized that the rest of us would have to look up.

Eisenstein 3y ago

You would be more persuasive if you didn't obviously have some kind of fixation with one court case.

marak830 3y ago
Also formatting, references and not reducing are to r. I'm sorry man, it's so difficult to parse all that you said and I really want to. Not enough to research on a Friday evening after a hell week though - and that part is on me.

NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago

It's not enough for the police to discover (to their own satisfaction) who committed a crime. The point is to prosecute the offender or otherwise resolve it in a way that protects the public. "Old-fashioned detective work" doesn't help with that at all. What does it turn up? Eyewitnesses? About the worst evidence possible, on par with dreams and reading tea leaves. Sometimes it bullies someone into perjury. That's not even evidence at all. Forensics are about the only thing that counts as real evidence outside of capturing crimes on video. And if they seem to cause bad results, it's probably because we're not doing it enough. Hell, we have the technology to prove to anyone's satisfaction that chain of custody hasn't been broken... no one's bothered to build the product.

mrguyorama 3y ago
Absolutely, a significant portion of "old timey police work" was to blame it on the least liked guy you could find. A large percentage of people ON DEATH ROW are later proved innocent by actual evidence, including people who were convicted by those "old timey" methods. >Forensics are about the only thing that counts as real evidence outside of capturing crimes on video One huge problem is what courts accept as "forensics" is closer to CSI bullshit than actual science. Most forensic methods have no basis in science, come from a single ex cop who goes around the country speaking to other cops for a hundred grand a pop, and a network of "experts" who are willing to tell a jury that it is "scientifically sound" for a few thousand dollars. Things like handwriting analysis, micro-expressions, all the nancy drew types who pour over a ten second 911 call to overanalyze every tick and stammer in the stressed callers voice to paint them as the perp (THIS IS A REAL THING THAT HAPPENS) If it wasn't outright illegal, American police would 100% be using lie detectors as evidence
- NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
  > One huge problem is what courts accept as "forensics" is closer to CSI bullshit than actual science. Most forensic methods have no basis in science, come from a single ex cop who goes around the country speaking to other cops for a hundred grand a pop, While there's some of that, let me tell you about my brush with this. I was called for grand jury duty. A day a week for a full month. Most was bullshit drug charges, child abuse/molestation, a few weird ones. Only one actual murder. Until that point, they never even bothered to have witnesses testify for any of it... it was like Junior Assistant DA show-and-tell time, but without the "show" part. That's another story though. The murder was decades past, and they'd always had a suspect. He did seem like a real piece of work. But one of the evidence exhibits was the car he drove back during the murder. At the time, they found tire tracks where the victim's body was dumped. Identified some named model of tire, Firestone I think. I asked a question, which the detective misunderstood at first... he thought I was asking "did anyone sell that tire in this city back in the late 1980s" to which he answered "it was so common, many shops would've sold it". So I had to ask again. I asked: "Was this particular tire model ever manufactured in a size where it would even have fit on that car?" He uhhed-and-ahhed for a moment, before saying "that's a really good question". Like, what the fuck am I supposed to do with that? Do I generalize, and think that if they fucked up on this one, all the rest of their evidence is complete horseshit too? If I penalize their bumbling by no-billing, am I letting a murderer go? It's not like they'll find the smoking gun next year, you know... this was like 30 years ago already. And, if I do vote to indict, the man's got no shot at a real trial. 99% of them plead down. Even for murder charges, maybe especially with those since they can dangle the death penalty as a means of compelling cooperation. That was my one brush with the competence and skills of detectives. Despite this, all I can think is that no matter how bad their forensic evidence is, anything else is just so much fucking worse. Off-topic trivia: While we were waiting on something one morning, one of the asst DAs was bragging about how in our city there are about 4000 cases each year, of which only maybe 30 would go to trial pre-covid. Assuming things have normalized so that they're giving trials to almost 1% of defendants again.

at_a_remove 3y ago

Other things that are easy to forget about Duke Lacrosse: 1) The "Gang of 88" never apologized. 2) The failure to prosecute Mangum and put her away led to a man's death; she's in jail for that now.

NoZebra120vClip 3y ago

I have come to believe that the "Sherlock Holmes" tales were a massive copaganda campaign designed to prime the general public for advanced forensic investigation techniques. I mean, Sherlock could "deduce" anything with his magnifying glass just by looking at a clump of mud on a shoe, or a thread of fabric on a lady's dress. But meanwhile, the actual police were developing actual scientifically-based theories of evidentiary examination that would revolutionize the jobs of detectives everywhere. Sherlock Holmes's powers of deduction were, of course, exaggerated and improbable. Nevertheless, the author was probably privy to scientific developments that held promise. Fingermarks, for example, were emerging in law enforcement contemporary with Conan Doyle's writings. If you want an amusing modern take on this, and you love to watch copaganda shows, I recommend the Canadian Murdoch Mysteries. They combine emerging science of the late 19th century with some really outlandish steampunk stuff ("The Tesla Effect") and it's a rollicking homage to Sherlock Holmes. Anyway, fast-forward to the present day. I feel like police are way too reliant on technology instead of doing their job. I feel like the general public watches way too much CSI and NCIS and they expect to see an Abby Sciuto in every precint. I believe that if LEOs weren't shelving all those rape kits for 20 years, and spending $millions on bogus "gunshot detection" networks, and not purchasing literal urban assault vehicles and a stockpile of ammunition to rival Ruby Ridge, I think that they might focus their efforts on something more productive. Anything more productive.

Izkata 3y ago
> I mean, Sherlock could "deduce" anything with his magnifying glass just by looking at a clump of mud on a shoe, or a thread of fabric on a lady's dress. But meanwhile, the actual police were developing actual scientifically-based theories of evidentiary examination that would revolutionize the jobs of detectives everywhere. This is a pop culture bastardization/modern reimagining of the original stories. Sherlock Holmes spent an absurd amount of his time memorizing things he could apply to his work, for example where certain trees grew and what their seeds look like, which he'd recognize in the clump of mud. Basic forensic techniques combined with things he memorized that the rest of us would have to look up.