Posted on 05/30/2005 11:26:48 AM PDT by wagglebee
Having been the foreman on two juries where it quickly became evident the the police were either lying about what they saw the defendant do, or completely incompetent, I'm afraid I would need a little additional proof.
If that's your standard -- no one would ever get convicted. Because the forensic "expert" (an employee of the police department) testifying as to if the fingerprints match or not could also be lying or completely incompetent. At some point you have to take the tin-foil hat off.
Yeah, and if I were on the jury I'd wanna know how come it took the LEOs more than an hour to arrest the bad guy. Must be because not all the CSI folks have a Hummer to drive around in.
Pretty please?
If the prospect of being tried by a jury of your peers isn't enough to keep one on the straight and narrow....
No more convicted "ham sandwiches".
Michele Nethercott, a public defender in Baltimore: "While undoubtedly there's this 'CSI' effect, there might also be more awareness because of the many recent DNA exonerations and the problems with eyewitness testimony," she said. "Back in the late 1980s and early 1990s, when DNA came on the scene, you really needed a hearty sample, like a quarter-size. Now we're talking nanograms. ... You can swab a drinking glass and get saliva cells, and so these days, it's inexcusable if those things aren't tested."
Of course she would think this way. And she would expect it even if the crime were committed on the 50 yard line at the Super Bowl in front of a million witnesses
I'm with you. I don't want perps to walk but folks, I'm from Louisiana. Our public officials including law enforcement often have earned a less than sterling reputations. Give me proof. BTW, I expect to be called for jury duty any day. I'll report back if I am selected.
You don't?
Let's see . . . 1 hour show . . . less 20 minutes for commercials . . . less 2 minutes for Opening Sequence and Credits at end . . . less 1 minute for 2-30 second PSA spots . . .
That means the Police have less than 37 minutes to process a crime scene???
but CSI watchers are apparently smart enough to know that!
WASHINGTON (AP) - Reformed after controversy in the mid-1990s, the FBI crime lab is dealing with new wrongdoing by employees that has opened the door for challenges of the lab's science in scores of cases involving DNA and bullet analysis, internal documents show.
One FBI lab scientist, who connected suspects to bullets through lead analysis, has been indicted after admitting she gave false testimony, and a technician has resigned while under investigation for alleged improper testing of more than 100 DNA samples, according to records and interviews.
http://www.truthinjustice.org/FBI-crime-lab.htm You need to be a bit more cautious about who and when to believe them yourself, IMO.
Thank you Hank. I've never seen that before. Well put!
Not at all relevant. I don't dismiss the testimony of whole categories of people based the misdeeds of a few. Go hold that up to the mirror to find your target audience. I have the intellectual rigor to distinguish betweens the actions of individuals rather than tarring all people in similar occupations with the same smears. Why would I care what one lab did unless that lab was the one who was providing evidence in a particular case? Just because some dweebs post stupid comments to Free Republic am I now supposed to think you are a dweeb too? It doesn't work that way.
Why then did you plead guilty if you weren't in fact guilty?
and dont forget if a crime tech ordered a cop around like on "CSI" he'd be laughed at.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.