Text 6944, 162 rader
Skriven 2008-07-04 14:37:53 av Richard Webb (1:116/901.0)
Kommentar till text 6943 av Bob Klahn (1:124/311)
Ärende: The Black Experience
============================
Hi Bob,
Bob Klahn wrote in a message to Richard Webb:
BK>> Yep. However, I feel the DNA was beyond a reasonable doubt. Esp
BK>> since all Fong did was raise doubts about the collection, not about
BK>> the accuracy of the tests. IOW, he said it was not lab standard
BK>> collection, but never said the tests were wrong, or even seriously
BK>> might be wrong.
Iirc and again this is a decade ago, fOng raised questions about the collection
of the evidence, and chain of custody. TO be unimpeachable evidence the chain
of custody of such evidence must be provable.
BK> I know all that. Again, we are not just talking DNA randomly
BK> spread, we are talking blood at the scene of the crime. How much
BK> blood did you leave on your driveway? How much would be likely to
BK> be fresh on the day of a murder, and how likely would it be to be
BK> close to the scene of the murder?
Depends on the day. Depends on what I might have been doing in the garage over
there, i.e. sharepning lawnmower blades, knuckle busting on grandma's car, etc.
Had, let us say, grandma turned up dead of violent means it might have been
easy on any given day to say "the grandson did it."
BK>>> Remember, you are not supposed to pre-judge the case, and you are
BK>>> supposed to judge based on the facts presented. You are not
BK>>> required to forget everything you know when you walk into the jury
BK>>> room.
RW>> This is true, and I still would have had doubts.
Partly because there was doubt cast on the evidence because the chain of
custody was possibly broken. Easy to plant or rig evidence when thechain of
custody cannot be proved. THaT if anything waas fOng's major contribution to
the case.
BK>> If the data are correct, how they got there becomes irrelevant.
MOst times one would like to assume so. Another example. Beat cop walking his
beat, late at night in the big city. Cop accosts subject who is known criminal,
cops has reason to pop off one. <Ooops> subject is unarmed. HEy that's why I
carry this extra pawnshop special firearm. Handle it with my gloves, drop it
by the body.
IN some large city police departments back in the day the practice of carrying
a throw away" was common. GOtta blow the bad guy away? Just use your throw
away gun. You're home free. "Yes your honor and ladies and gentlemen of the
jury, the subject was armed and brandishing the weapon."
RW> I'm heavily involved in emergency communications work. I
RW> have preparations for emergency power, plenty of
RW> ready-to-eat food on-hand in case of need. I own at least
RW> one firearm. I'm a libertarian. My house is guarded when
RW> I"m not home by 100 lb plus of Rottweiler that would appear
RW> to want to rip your throat out if you knocked on the door.
RW> Add to this fact that I"m rather vocal about if you're from
RW> the government and you want to come inside you better have
RW> that piece of paper signed by a judge. IF I'm alone I'm
RW> going to ask for your badge number and other data, and I"m
RW> gonna phone the authorities to check and see if you truly
RW> have such a warrant and if you're the real deal. That's
RW> because I can't actually see to read your badge through the
RW> door.
BK> Yep, and the only real problem is, the dog and if you show the
BK> gun.
DOg will be well behaved, gun stays in the closet. Even if I don't ask for the
warant if I"M home alone I"m going to request your badge number and phone your
agency to make sure you're who you say you are. OF course a lot depends on the
situation. THen when I find out mr. officer is legit I might step out on the
porch and talk to him/her.
RW> Ipso facto, I'm a member of a right-wing militia because I
RW> fit the pattern. Anyone making that judgment and coming to
RW> that conclusion would be dead wrong.
BK> You would not have to be a member of a militia. Just personally
BK> whacko.
NOT hardly, just a man who will protect myself when the stuff comes down. I"ll
be more than glad to assist my neighbors but I'm not going to have the looting
and other weirdness that might come to pass after the earthquake or big storm
coming to me. tHe homeland security tell me to be afriad of the terrorists
wearing funny clothes that might gas bomb me. I"m more worried about the guy
up the road that might decide my stash of food and other valuables are fair
game.
BK> However, this raises the question, why would you require a
BK> warrant? Think about it.
Alright, to be honest, once in awhile on a rare occasion I've been known to put
something else in my pipe. IF you were to enter my dining room at this moment
you would find on the dining room trable a tray containing a package of rolling
papers. I roll my own cigarettes. IF the activity in the neighborhood's been
rather weird and frenetic recently I figure cops are going to be knocking on
doors asking neighbors for info. FIne, give me your badge number officer, I"ll
phone the station. IF your badge number and name check out, come on in, I"ll
even offer you a cold soda or a cup of coffee. IF your attitude is arrogant or
somewhat hostile toward me however I might step out on the porch and answer
your questions to the best of my knowledge.
IT's my home, and I have a right to that. YOu want inside MR. officer, even to
just ask if we witnessed the activities earlier that day, you'll treat me with
courtesy and respect, and allow me to verify your information via the
telephone, or you *won't* come in. THe fourth amendment says I have the right
to security in my person domicile and effects as it were. IF your job is that
of a sworn officer to uphold the law you will honor and respect those rights.
BK>>> I don't recall it ever being shown that the facts Furhman
BK>>> testfied to were not legit. I do believe the prosecution should
BK>>> have won dispite Furhman.
I've also wondered what we *weren't* seeing of that trial. AS I've said, I had
some doubts, but wouldn't have been surprised had the jury come down either
way. sO much of what was presented had to be interpreted, and the small screen
was not a suitable surrogate for being present, seeing the evidence firsthand,
observing the witnesses as they testified.
RW> GOes back again in my mind to assumptions you make when
RW> investigating somebody. see my example above about my
RW> activities and political attitudes. An investigator could
RW> easily glean certain facts about my lifestyle and
RW> affiliations and massage a few facts to fit his
RW> conclusions. IT's happened before in our justice system.
BK> Yeah, and that still doesn't change the fact that Furhman was one
BK> witness. There is no reason to believe he lied, and the blood
BK> evidence alone was pretty damn convincing.
And that's where chain of custody comes in. IN such cases, provenance of that
chain of custody is everything. IF the chain of custody is properly maintained
there i no opportunity to tamper with it. IF the chain cannot be proven intact,
there is reason for doubt. I would say this was the reason the criminal trial
jurors had to cast votes for not guilty. YEs, sometimes the rules end up
letting the guilty off, but more often they protect the innocent. In the
sImpson case, the innocent walked away, but the civil trial which did not have
the "reasonable doubt" standard, but only "preponderance of the evidence" did
find him guilty, and rightly so.
BK> Even the glove had OJ's blood on it, kinda hard for Furhman to
BK> fake. As well Nicole's on OJ's socks, and his Bronco, and all over
BK> the place. No, it was not faked.
Probabloy not but you have to admit Mr. COchrane and crew did a good job with
the chain of custody issue. THey planted those seeds of doubt rather firmly in
the minds of those twelve jurrors, and many of those listening and watching
along thanks to cnn.
BK>> OH, yeah, vexing is not at all hard to justify in this case.
YEs, MR. COchrane used the constitutional tools at his disposal to get the man
off. Any constitutional scholar will tell you, these provisions can be
subverted for just such purposes, but most times they protect the innocent from
unjust prosecution and conviction.
Regards,
Richard
--- timEd 1.10.y2k+
* Origin: Radio REscue net operations BBS (1:116/901)
|